LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  June 2020

SOCNET June 2020

Subject:

Re: Help with EGRM non-convergence when using GWESP

From:

Michał Bojanowski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michał Bojanowski <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:56:12 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (144 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Tom, Zak,

I missed Zaks reply that it is a projection of a two-mode network.
Then indeed ERGMs (even valued ones) may be problematic for the
reasons Tom already mentioned.

A strategy that I once tried (not published) with co-authorship data,
but applies probably to a range of other co-something networks, is to,
as a first step, run some kind of a community detection algorithm or a
stochastic block model to find the cliques or clusters and in the
second step use the membership-in-clusters as variable for a nodematch
term for an ERGM. As result I was able to get models that converged
and had a pretty good GOF. What becomes problematic is the
interpretation of parameters. So I guess it is primarily useful if
your goal is not so much parameter interpretation but network
generation/sampling.

Best, Michal

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:39 PM Snijders, T.A.B. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> ***** To join INSNA, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e=  *****
> Dear Zak,
>
> I think it will be very difficult indeed to model such a network by an ERGM. Related to this, I think it would be much better to analyze the original two-mode by year network, rather than some one-mode projection.
> Furthermore, I do not think that changes (from year to year) in estimated ERGM parameters for such a one-mode or two-mode network are an adequate reflection or operationalisation of "changes in homophily". I do not yet have a clear answer to the question "then what else would be an adequate reflection?".
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> =========================================
> Tom A.B. Snijders
> Professor of Statistics and Methodology, Dept of Sociology, University of Groningen
> Emeritus Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stats.ox.ac.uk_-7Esnijders&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=oLomqAWqU7e5HMTyaEC9xcDmK5Ve6mHUSVed0ajhVQc&e= 
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:37 PM Neal, Zachary <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> The data are constructed via projection of two-mode data (in this case, bill co-sponsorship). But, we've used a null model to identify and retain only significant edges in the projection, so the one-mode network does not contain the kinds of artifacts normally generated by projection.
>>
>> That said, the network does still contain numerous large cliques, which isn't surprising given the high transitivity. In this case, because the network represents ties between US legislators, its structure is primarily driven by clusters of republicans and democrats. The goal is to estimate both party and gender homophily, examining changes in both over time.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions on how to estimate an ERGM on such a network, or is it likely not possible?
>>
>> Best,
>> Zak
>>
>> –––
>> Zachary Neal, PhD
>> Associate Professor, Michigan State University
>> Web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zacharyneal.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=XNc-q6uZIkyVsbr_IokhOd3bnTuRV_xdbIIBP8f8M5E&e= 
>> Twitter: @zpneal
>> Zoom: Click here
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Snijders, T.A.B. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> ***** To join INSNA, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e=  *****
>> Dear Zachary,
>>
>> It is hard to say something meaningful without further information.
>> But a network with 450 nodes and density about 0.1 has average degree 45. That is extremely large and dense for an ERGM to fit well.
>> If you say transitivity is in the order of 0.6 then a model without gwesp (or similar) terms is sure to have a poor fit.
>> Just as a note, if the network was constructed as a one-mode projection of a two-mode network, then it probably will contain many cliques of order higher than 4, which is not in line with the idea of an ERGM, and is bound to lead to problems in estimation. (I bring this up just because I saw this issue earlier today.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> =========================================
>> Tom A.B. Snijders
>> Professor of Statistics and Methodology, Dept of Sociology, University of Groningen
>> Emeritus Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stats.ox.ac.uk_-7Esnijders&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=oLomqAWqU7e5HMTyaEC9xcDmK5Ve6mHUSVed0ajhVQc&e= 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:06 PM Michał Bojanowski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>> Sender:       Social Networks Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Poster:       =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Bojanowski?= <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject:      Re: Help with EGRM non-convergence when using GWESP
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *****  To join INSNA, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e=   *****
>>>
>>> I should add that what I wrote before should not explain
>>> non-convergence per se but rather guide you towards identifying the
>>> problem of the model specification vs data. Looking at GOF plots for
>>> the most complex model that you fit which converged should help you
>>> understand why it stops converging when you add GWESP.
>>>
>>> ~Michal
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:54 PM Michał Bojanowski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Zachary,
>>> >
>>> > > I haven't spent much time looking at model GOF since I don't have a good comparison. The models that include nodematch terms obviously fit better than a null model that only contains the edges term, but that didn't seem particularly informative. If a model without GWESP appears to fit well, would it be acceptable to simply use it and ignore any structural effects.
>>> >
>>> > I guess the most important question is whether the model without GWESP
>>> > accounts well for the ESP distribution. If it does, then you do not
>>> > need GWESP term in the model. Folding this onto Goodreau et al
>>> > exposition it would mean that the differential homophily you have in
>>> > your model accounts for higher density within groups, and that already
>>> > also accounts for the amount of transitivity in the network as whole
>>> > (with higher density some transitivity will happen within groups "by
>>> > accident"). Consequently, there would be not much transitivity left to
>>> > "explain" by GWESP on top of the terms you already have in the model.
>>> >
>>> > Ad whether it is acceptable to go with a model without any structural
>>> > (i.e. network endogeneous effects):
>>> >
>>> > This is of course a matter if it makes sense substantively. From a
>>> > purely data-driven standpoint if a model with "demographic" effects
>>> > only (attribute-related terms such as dyadcov, nodecov, nodefactor,
>>> > nodematch, nodemix etc.) accounts for the network structure well in
>>> > the sense of reproducing the important features in the data (degree
>>> > distribution, ESP distribution and so on), then I would say yes.
>>> >
>>> > hth,
>>> > Michal
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
>>> network researchers (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e= ). To unsubscribe, send
>>> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e= ). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>>
>>
> _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.insna.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=yQQsvTNAnbvDXGM4nDrXAje4pr0qHX2qIOcCQtJ5k3w&m=WUgsy-_Qd1IxZBvtEoIPP-kbjpSBryezOIfpe_ndi4s&s=Ia2ziBLGQMy-7Kti1QlGZMhGnNKKKE_8kBwtGtAvp7s&e= ). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager