Learning Context Effects in Triadic Closure Kiran Tomlinson SINM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

bit.ly/lcl-slides Slides: bit.ly/lcl-paper Preprint: bit.ly/lcl-code Code: bit.ly/lcl-data Data: Learning Context Effects in Triadic Closure Kiran Tomlinson SINM 2020 research with Austin R. Benson

? What factors drive edge formation? ? ?

? What factors drive edge formation? ? ? Preferential attachment 
 (Barabási & Albert, Science 1999)

? What factors drive edge formation? ? ? Homophily 
 Preferential attachment 
 (McPherson et al., Annual Review of Sociology 2001) 
 (Barabási & Albert, Science 1999) (Papadopoulos et al., Nature 2012)

? What factors drive edge formation? ? ? Homophily 
 Preferential attachment 
 (McPherson et al., Annual Review of Sociology 2001) 
 (Barabási & Albert, Science 1999) (Papadopoulos et al., Nature 2012) Fitness 
 (Bianconi & Barabási, Europhysics Letters 2001) 
 (Caldarelli et al., Physical Review Letters 2002)

? What factors drive edge formation? ? ? Homophily 
 Preferential attachment 
 (McPherson et al., Annual Review of Sociology 2001) 
 (Barabási & Albert, Science 1999) (Papadopoulos et al., Nature 2012) Triadic closure 
 Fitness 
 (Rapoport, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 1953) 
 (Bianconi & Barabási, Europhysics Letters 2001) 
 (Jin et al., Physical Review E 2001) (Caldarelli et al., Physical Review Letters 2002)

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020)

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser choice set

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017)

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017)

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 → meaningful choice sets

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 → meaningful choice sets Infer relative importance of edge formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge node 
 formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge choice set node 
 formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) preferences Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge choice set node 
 formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) preferences node features 
 Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge choice set node 
 formation mechanisms from data

“Choosing to grow a graph” (Overgoor et al., SINM ’19 & WWW ’19) (Gupta & Porter, arXiv 2020) Traditional discrete choice: chooser in network growth chooser choice set choice set (under-explored in sociology) (Bruch & Feinberg, Annual Review of Sociology 2017) preferences node features 
 (similarity, in-degree, fitness…) Key usage Timestamped edges 
 Multinomial logit 
 → meaningful choice sets (MNL) (McFadden, 1973) Infer relative importance of edge choice set node 
 formation mechanisms from data

The choice set affects preferences

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) e.g., compromise e ff ect : (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989)

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989) In networks 
 e.g., how do preferences change 
 when choosing from a popular group? vs.

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989) Our model: In networks 
 e.g., how do preferences change 
 Linear context logit (LCL) when choosing from a popular group? T x i ) vs. exp( [ θ + Ax C ] Pr( i , C ) = T x j ) ∑ j ∈ C exp( [ θ + Ax C ]

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989) Our model: In networks 
 e.g., how do preferences change 
 Linear context logit (LCL) when choosing from a popular group? base preferences T x i ) vs. exp( [ θ + Ax C ] Pr( i , C ) = T x j ) ∑ j ∈ C exp( [ θ + Ax C ]

The choice set affects preferences Context e ff ects $15 $10 (Huber et al., Journal of Consumer Research 1982) 
 (Simonson & Tversky, Journal of Marketing Research 1992) $20 $15 e.g., compromise e ff ect : $20 $25 (Simonson, Journal of Consumer Research 1989) Our model: In networks 
 e.g., how do preferences change 
 Linear context logit (LCL) when choosing from a popular group? context e ff ect 
 base preferences matrix T x i ) vs. exp( [ θ + Ax C ] Pr( i , C ) = T x j ) ∑ j ∈ C exp( [ θ + Ax C ]