Modeling Organizational Positions Chapter 2
|
|
- Dale Stanley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Modeling Organizational Positions Chapter 2
2 2.1 Social Structure as a Theoretical and Methodological Problem Chapter 1 outlines how organizational theorists have engaged a set of issues entailed in the problem of assessing the social structure of economic exchange. These theorists identify two critical components of positional accounts of social structure the boundaries of the positional contexts in which organizations act, and a way of assessing the similarity of organizations assigned to a given positional context. In the previous chapter I argue that the blockmodeling approach proposed by White, Boorman, and Breiger (1976) is a methodology that can be applied to the analysis of organizational relations in a way that begins to incorporate both of these ideas. While this blockmodeling approach addresses the issue of how contexts shape the behavior of actors within their boundaries, it does not assess the relationship between an actor and its context in a way that is meaningfully interpretable. Consider as an example the analysis by White, Boorman, and Breiger (1976) of the pattern of relations of positive affect in a monastery. White and his coauthors suggest that the monks in this study might be meaningfully divided into a number of groups, based on their expression of positive affect toward one another. To the extent that a group is a social context that is important in determining emotional orientations, group memberships should be able to provide some information about whether or not a monk might like another monk, based on their respective group memberships. Following Sampson s (1969) original analysis, White and his coauthors identify a three-group model, and labeled these groups as the Loyal Opposition, the Young Turks, and the Outcasts. The results of their blockmodel analysis suggest, for example, that the Outcasts p. 23
3 express positive affect towards the Young Turks, but that the Young Turks do not reciprocate this affection. One objective of this analysis would be to use a set of social contexts and their associated boundaries to identify the ideal typical behavior of the actors embedded in a given context. This objective can complicate the interpretation of the results of a structural analysis. The three-group model proposed by White and his co-authors essentially claims that there are three social contexts that actors can belong to, and it makes specific claims about interaction within these contexts. For example, one claim of this model is that monks acting in the context of the Outcast group will express positive affect towards monks acting in the context of the Young Turks group. While this claim is true in very broad terms, it is certainly not descriptive of the relationship between every monk in the two groups. Models generated by these analyses are rarely perfect in this sense, and as a result, empirical social scientists are left with the task of choosing between alternative models. In assessing the appropriateness of blockmodels of the social network of these monks, this choice is based on two questions. One question concerns whether the three contexts identified are the three contexts that best describe the social structure of these monks. Alternatively, a structural sociologist particularly interested in defining the boundaries of the contexts of interaction might ask as White, Boorman, and Breiger did (1976: 751-2) whether or not the three-group model proposed by Sampson might be usefully decomposed into a more fine-grained partition. A somewhat different objective of this analysis would be to develop a model intended to predict individual behavior within the particular contexts identified as a part of a given social structure. Such a model might be used to characterize the ways in which p. 24
4 the behavior of actors in a particular social context is similar to the ideal-typical behavior expected of actors within that context. One advantage of this approach is that it allows a claim about social structure to be qualified in such a way that it might be empirically assessed. Rather than simply claiming that the Outcasts express positive affect toward the Young Turks, a model derived using this approach might express the claim that monks from the Outcast group have a certain probability of expressing positive affect toward the members of the Young Turks group. These two objectives represent qualitatively different approaches to modeling social structure. The first represents what might be labeled as a descriptive modeling approach, in that its objective is to describe the structural regularities in individual behavior. Descriptive models, in turn, can be evaluated with respect to their ability to effectively describe the behavior they are based on. The second objective is consistent with what might be termed a predictive modeling approach. Predictive models describe structural regularities in individual behavior as well, but they also make explicit predictions about the behavior of the actors that they model. While the notion of assessing how well a model describes a given set of behavior is relatively flexible, the assessment of how well a model predicts behavior is a somewhat more narrowly defined metric. As I will argue, this allows predictive models to be assessed in a manner that is less arbitrary and more powerful than methods that are frequently used to assess descriptive models. While these two modeling approaches differ in significant ways, they both address two fundamental measures of the quality of the relationship between a structural model and an observed set of behavior. The first of these is the accuracy of the claims p. 25
5 made by a given model. A descriptive model is accurate to the extent that it provides a good description of the behavior it is based on. In common sense terms, a descriptive model that claimed that the Young Turks expressed positive affect toward the Outcasts would be less accurate than one that claimed no such expression had been observed. Similarly, a predictive model that estimated the probability of observing a bond of positive affect from an Outcast directed at a Young Turk as 0.14 would be more accurate than a model that estimated this probability as In addition to being evaluated in terms of their accuracy, structural models can be evaluated in terms of their complexity. An in-depth discussion of assessing the complexity of a model in the general case will be addressed in the following chapter, but in the case of Sampson s monks, most measures would assess a model with more groups as more complex than a model with fewer groups. In this chapter, I review the descriptive and predictive modeling approaches used by organizational researchers interested in assessing social structure, and how each of these approaches engages (or fails to engage) the ideas of accuracy and complexity in their determination of the most appropriate structural model. In particular, I show how the meaning of closeness in a predictive model is tied to a specific claim grounded in probability theory, while the assessment of closeness in a descriptive model is based on less powerful and essentially arbitrary measures. 2.2 Descriptive Modeling Approaches One of the objectives of any structural analysis is to narrow the field of possible structural models down to the smallest number of models ideally just one. This process p. 26
6 inevitably involves some explicit or implicit measure of goodness-of-fit that can be used to determine which model or models should be selected. Goodness-of-fit measures for structural models typically take the accuracy of a model with respect to the data into account, and are sometimes affected by the complexity of a model. The choice of accuracy and complexity measures, therefore, can fundamentally affect the way variations in the data affect the way models are chosen. A review of empirical research done using the descriptive modeling approach will demonstrate that the goodness-of-fit measures used are generally not explicit with respect to this issue. As a result, it is difficult to establish whether the model selection rationales implied by these studies are consistent with the theoretical frameworks they are intended to empirically support. A significant amount of methodological work has been done in the area of blockmodel analyses of social networks. The distinction between descriptive and predictive modeling approaches is made particularly clear in this body of work, because of the relative clarity with which goodness-of-fit measures are made explicit. Wasserman and Faust (1992) provide a comprehensive review of these goodness-of-fit measures, some of which are considered here. In order to discuss these measures in detail, it is necessary to briefly review some of the mechanics of blockmodel analysis, and to introduce some terminology. Social networks are frequently characterized by a matrix X, where the elements of the matrix x ij correspond to social ties. The assignment x ij = 1 corresponds to a case in which an actor i sends a tie to an actor j. A descriptive blockmodel θ is composed of a mapping of actors to positions and an image matrix. The mapping φ( ) maps every actor i to a position B r, typically on the basis of some measure of structural equivalence, such p. 27
7 that if φ (i) = φ (j), then actors i and j are structurally equivalent. The image matrix B is comprised of elements b rs that represent hypotheses about the proposed social structure of the network. In the strictest terms, the assignment b rs = 0 represents the hypothesis that there are no ties from actors in position B r to actors in position B s. A descriptive blockmodel is completely characterized by the mapping φ( ) and the image matrix B. Measures that characterize a position or the relation between two positions figure centrally into goodness-of-fit measures for blockmodels of social networks. Wasserman and Faust (1992) denote the number of actors in a position B r as g r, and define g rs as the number of possible ties from actors in position B r to actors in position B s as g rs = g g r s if g r g s g r (g r 1) if g r = g s, (2.1) corresponding to the assumption that there are no ties between actors and themselves. They go on to define the density of ties from a position B r to a position B s as Δ rs = x i Br, j B ij s g rs. (2.2) Assessing the goodness-of-fit of a blockmodel also requires some notion of the pattern of ties predicted by the model. Wasserman and Faust (1994) refer to this as a target blockmodel denoted X (t). In general, the network of ties predicted by a blockmodel p. 28
8 can be referred to as the estimated network ˆ X. The entries ˆ x ij of this model can be computed as ˆ x ij = b φ(i)φ( j ). (2.3) where ˆ x ij = 1 means that the blockmodel θ = (B, φ) predicts that there should be a tie between actor i and actor j. Wasserman and Faust use these definitions to outline several different goodnessof-fit measures for descriptive blockmodels. Each of these measures has slightly different implications for the way in which the accuracy of a model and the complexity of a model contribute to determining which models are selected. Two of these measures are relatively straightforward, effectively taking the form of a city-block distance measure. The measure δ x1 measures the distance between the observed tie densities and the predicted tie densities, while δ b1 measures the distance between the observed block densities and the predicted block densities. δ x1 = x ˆ ij x ij (2.4) i j δ b1 = b ˆ rs b rs. (2.5) r s While these two expressions are very similar, the measures reflect a subtly different balance of accuracy and complexity. The actor-level measure δ x1 is effectively a direct measure of model accuracy every deviation of the predicted set of tie values is treated p. 29
9 with the same weight. The complexity of the model, as a function of the number of blocks, does not influence this measure either directly or indirectly, net of the ability of a more complicated model to predict tie values with greater accuracy. The block-level measure δ b1 differs from the actor-level measure in that it weights deviations from predicted ties by the size of the block. While this is a subtle distinction, it indirectly causes the measure to factor in complexity effects, albeit in a less than straightforward way. With a bit of algebraic manipulation, Equation 2.5 can be rewritten as i Br, j B s r,s g rs x ˆ ij x ij δ b1 =. (2.6) In a given block, the value ˆ x ij x ij will never change sign. In a block where b rs = 0, this value will either be 0 or 1, and in a block where b rs = 1, this value will either be 0 or 1. Either way, taking the absolute value of this expression inside the interior summation is equivalent to taking it outside of the summation, as this interior sum is simply a measure of the absolute value of the difference between the predicted and actual density in a block. As a result, Equation 2.6 can be rewritten as i Br, j B s r,s g rs x ˆ ij x ij δ b1 = = x ˆ ij x ij. (2.7) i j g φ(i)φ( j ) p. 30
10 This formulation of the block density measure makes the weighting of tie-level deviations by the size of the block explicit. Moreover, it begins to show how the complexity of the model can affect this measure of goodness-of-fit. If we assume that actors are evenly distributed into positions, and denote the number of positions in a blockmodel as B, then the average position B r has g/ B actors in it, and the value g φ(i)φ(j) can be estimated as g 2 / B 2. This means that Equation 2.7 can be estimated as δ b1 ˆ δ b1 = B 2 g 2 x ˆ ij x ij = B 2 g δ. (2.8) 2 x1 i j A descriptive blockmodel with B positions is parameterized by B 2 b rs values. Accordingly, this measure assesses the complexity of a model as a function of the number of parameters B 2, and as a function of the total number of possible ties g 2. Blockmodels of higher complexity in this sense are penalized in the complexity term, balancing out the extent to which they are positively evaluated for being accurate. If measure δ x1 is taken to be a measure of model accuracy, then the measure δ b1 does, in some sense, incorporate both accuracy and complexity. In addition to these two relatively straightforward measures, Wasserman and Faust review other measures of descriptive blockmodel goodness-of-fit. The Carrington- Heil-Berkowitz measure (Carrington, Heil and Berkowitz 1979; Carrington and Heil 1981), denoted here as δ b2, is conceptually similar to a χ 2 measure. It assesses the fit of a blockmodel based on an α-fit criterion, such that a block is assigned to be a zero-block p. 31
11 only if the density in that block is less than α. Carrington, Heil and Berkowitz define a quantity t rs as t rs = 1 if Δ < α rs 1 α otherwise. α (2.9) This quantity, in turn, can be used to define the goodness-of-fit measure δ b2 as δ b 2 = r,s 2 g rs Δ rs α. (2.10) g(g 1) αt rs The second term in the summand in Equation 2.10 is, like the measure δ x1, a measure of the accuracy of a model. If the actual set of ties in a social network matches the predictions of the blockmodel exactly, this term is equal to 1, and it is minimized to the extent that the ties do not match the hypothesized pattern. Given the assumption that the average position B r has g/ B actors in it proposed above, the first term in the summand effectively becomes B 2, a count of the number of parameters in the model. However, rather than balancing accuracy and complexity, increased complexity and increased accuracy both raise the value of this measure. As such, it cannot be used to choose a model that balances accuracy and complexity. A final measure Wasserman and Faust review is an actor-level matrix correlation measure δ x3 (Panning 1982). If we define x ij as the mean of all ties x ij, and ˆ x ij as the mean of all predicted ties ˆ x ij, then the matrix correlation measure is defined as p. 32
12 δ x 3 = (x ij x ij )( ˆ x ij ˆ x ij ) i j ( (x ij x ij ) 2 i j ) 1/ 2 ( ( x ˆ x ˆ ) 2 i j ). (2.11) 1/ 2 ij ij The matrix correlation δ x3 effectively measures the pair-wise correlation between the actual tie values in a network and the ties values predicted by a blockmodel. As such, this measure is, like the measure δ x3, basically a measure of the accuracy of a blockmodel. Net of the ability of a more complex blockmodel to more accurately predict ties, this measure does not incorporate the complexity of a blockmodel. The performance of these four measures can be demonstrated by considering the network of expressed affect between the monks studied by Sampson (1969). Table 2.1 shows how each of these measures assesses the fit of four candidate blockmodels. The subscript of each model corresponds to the number of blocks in the model. The models θ 3 and θ 5 correspond to the three and five-position models proposed by White, Boorman, and Breiger (1976), respectively. The model θ 1 is a blockmodel with a single position, and the model θ 18 is a blockmodel with each actor assigned to his own position. Model δ x1 δ x3 δ b1 δ b2 θ n/a θ θ θ Table 2.1: Descriptive Blockmodel Goodness of Fit Measures p. 33
13 The results in the first two columns of Table 2.1 demonstrate how the two actorlevel goodness-of-fit measures δ x1 and δ x3 both behave as measures of model accuracy. As the models become successively more fine-grained, they become more accurate, as these measures indicate. As the effects of complexity and accuracy work in the same direction as incorporated in the Carrington-Heil-Berkowitz measure δ b2, it is impossible to determine from these data the extent to which complexity and accuracy independently affect the measure. It is clear, however, that the measure rewards models that are complex and accurate relative to models that are simple but inaccurate. Of these four measures, only the block-density measure δ b1 balances complexity and accuracy. For instance, it evaluates the three-position model θ 5 more favorably than it does the fiveposition model θ 3, even though the five-position model is more accurate. Still, all four measures evaluate the fully saturated eighteen-position model θ 18 as the one that fits the data best. That the results of these analyses do not reflect Sampson s intuitive insights about the structure of this group does not alone imply that these measures should be dismissed as inadequate. A measure that cannot produce a result that suggests there is no structure in a social system would clearly be problematic. Rather, all four of these measures are inappropriate for determining structure in this way because they will never evaluate a fully saturated model less favorably than a model of lesser complexity. The examples of descriptive modeling approaches presented here all relate to modeling group structure using social networks. While the critique presented here is directed at descriptive blockmodeling approaches, it can be directed at any descriptive modeling analysis in which the way that the accuracy and complexity implications of the model selection criterion are not made explicit. For example, in their analysis of career p. 34
14 systems, Stovel, Savage, and Bearman (1996) use a blockmodeling approach to cluster career paths, and argue that a career structure based on five groups is appropriate given their data. Their empirical support for this choice (1996: fn. 18) is based on the fact that the mean within-block distances at this level of analysis are smaller than the mean between-block distances, at a statistically significant level. This metric essentially assesses the accuracy of the model of career systems without considering their complexity. If the set of careers was partitioned into a successively larger number of subgroups, the statistical significance of the difference between within-block and between-block distances would grow monotonically until each career path were partitioned into its own group. The fact that Stovel, Savage, and Bearman choose a fiveblock model rather than a fully-saturated 80-block model is at least consistent with the possibility that they sought to balance the complexity of their model against the accuracy of their measure. 2.3 Predictive Modeling Approaches Predictive modeling approaches are distinguished from descriptive modeling approaches in that they provide explicit accounts for the mechanisms by which actors diverge from these structural regularities. Many descriptive models of social structure can be straightforwardly transformed into predictive models by making the assumptions embodied in a descriptive model explicit. Predictive models of exchange in a social network are generally referred to as stochastic network models, and predictive models that take into account the assignment of actors to categories are termed stochastic blockmodels. In this section I discuss these stochastic blockmodels and compare them to p. 35
15 descriptive blockmodels with respect to their ability to assess the structure of exchange in a network Stochastic Blockmodeling The term stochastic blockmodeling can be used to refer to an entire class of models that assign a probability p(x θ) to the observation of a particular pattern of network ties x given a set of model parameters θ. While there are a number of researchers who have presented stochastic blockmodeling approaches (Wasserman and Pattison 1996; van Duijn, Snijders, and Zijlstra 2004), I focus here on two models that are particularly germane to the kinds of exchange in the networks that will be empirically investigated in this dissertation. Both of these models are based on a set of ideas drawn out of the basic p 1 stochastic graph model (Feinberg and Wasserman 1981; Holland and Leinhardt 1981), the details of which I present below. The p 1 stochastic graph model is an extension of a basic Bernoulli graph that attempts to take into account the fact that some actors are relatively more likely to engage in exchange than others, and that in some cases, actors may be likely to reciprocate the exchange behavior that is directed at them from other actors. Holland and Leinhardt base their model on the assumption that, net of a set of structural parameters, the exchange behavior in a dyad D ij = (x ij, x ji ) is independent of the behavior in all other dyads in a network. They derive an expression for the probability of the observation of a given pattern of dyadic exchange based on the likelihood that the dyad reflects a mutual, asymmetric, or null pattern of exchange. This distribution is termed the MAN distribution, such that for a given dyad D ij : p. 36
16 m ij = P(D ij = (1,1)) i < j, (2.12) a ij = P(D ij = (1,0)) i < j, (2.13) a ji = P(D ij = (0,1)) i < j, (2.14) n ij = P(D ij = (0,0)) i < j, (2.15) and m ij + a ij + a ji + n ij = 1, for all i < j. (2.16) The authors use this formulation to show that the probability of the observation of a given network of ties can be expressed as: x P(X = x) = m ij x ji x ij a ij (1 x ji ) ij n (1 x )(1 x ) ij ji ij, (2.17) i< j i j i< j which can be expressed in an exponential form as: P(X = x) = exp{ ρ ij x ij x ji + θ ij x ij } n ij, (2.18) i< j i j i< j where ρ ij = log((m ij n ij )/(a ij a ji )) i < j (2.19) and θ ij = log(a ij /n ij ) i j. (2.20) Holland and Leinhardt explain that the parameter ρ ij governs what they term the force of reciprocation, that is, the increase in the log-odds of the likelihood that a tie will be sent from an actor i to an actor j (x ij = 1) if there is a tie sent from the actor j to the p. 37
17 actor i (x ji = 1). Similarly, they explain that the parameter θ ij measures the increase in the log-odds of the likelihood that a tie will be sent from an actor i to an actor j (x ij = 1) in the absence of a tie from the actor j to the actor i (x ji = 0). The family of networks described by a full set of these parameters is not estimable, so Holland and Leinhardt propose a model based on a restricted set of parameters such that and ρ ij = ρ (2.21) θ ij = θ + α i + β j. (2.22) In other words, they restrict reciprocity to act in a constant way across all dyads, and force the asymmetric choice parameter θ ij to be a function of the productivity of the sending actor α i, the attractiveness of the receiving actor β j, and the mean choice tendency θ. It is also worth noting that the expected value of the logit is determined by this function as well, such that where E(log(p ij /(1-p ij )) = θ + α i + β j, (2.23) p ij = P(x ij = 1). (2.24) Collectively, these formulations can be summarized by noting that, for a binaryvalued network with no reciprocity, the p 1 model predicts that the expected value of the logit of tie values is an additive function of the overall tendency of ties to exist in the p. 38
18 network θ, the productivity of the sender of the tie α i, and the attractiveness of the tie recipient β j. In networks where the reciprocity ρ diverges from zero, the likelihood of a tie to be sent from an actor i to and actor j will be increasingly determined by whether or a not a tie is sent in the opposite direction, to the extreme case where ρ = ±, and a network becomes completely symmetric (or asymmetric), wherein the tendency of a tie is completely determined by this reciprocal behavior The p 1 Stochastic Blockmodel The p 1 distribution is useful for characterizing the probabilistic structure of graphs and network in a general sense, but it does not provide a mechanism for explicitly modeling the influence of the group structure of actors on the likelihood of exchange behavior. While a variety of stochastic blockmodeling approaches have been proposed to achieve this aim (Holland, Laskey, and Leinhardt 1983, Anderson, Wasserman, and Faust 1992) the p 1 stochastic blockmodel proposed by Wang and Wong (1987) most fully achieves this objective in the context of the p 1 random network distribution. The principal contribution of the p 1 stochastic blockmodel to the basic p 1 distribution is that it allows the asymmetric choice parameter to be determined in part by the group memberships of the sending and receiving actors involved in a dyadic exchange. If the sending actor i is a member of a block labeled r, and the receiving actor j is a member of the block labeled s, then Equation 2.22 above can be expanded as θ ij = θ + θ rs + α i + β j, (2.25) p. 39
19 where θ rs corresponds to the relative excess tendency for actors in block r to direct choices toward actors in block s. This simple extension allows a p 1 stochastic blockmodel to capture the effect of different assignments of actors to groups on the likelihood of observing a particular pattern of network exchange The p 1R Stochastic Blockmodel The exchange behavior that many stochastic network analytic approaches attempt to model is essentially dichotomous the outcome of interest is simply whether a focal actor chooses a particular actor or not. While many kinds of social exchange behavior can be reasonably modeled as dichotomous outcomes, there are clearly some kinds of behavior for which reduction to a dichotomy would represent a fairly severe limiting of the expressive range of the phenomena. There are surprisingly few stochastic network models that can be used to measure non-dichotomous exchange behavior. The principal analytic strategy taken by these models has been to move from only considering the likelihood of an exchange taking on a single (dichotomous) response level to considering the likelihood of an exchange taking on one of a number of response levels. Wasserman and Iacobucci (1986) introduce an early model along these lines that expands the p 1 model to the analysis of networks where relations take on one of C discrete values. Anderson and Wasserman (1995) generalize this model by considering the interactions between response levels in addition to their first-order effects. There are a number of empirical phenomena that might effectively be analyzed using a model based on ordinal or categorical relations. As an example, Wasserman and p. 40
20 Iacobucci (1986) analyze networks of behavior expression in which the frequency between two actors is characterized as rarely, sometimes or frequently. While the models proposed by Wasserman and co-authors can straightforwardly be applied to these phenomena, there are other relational behaviors that are not so easily reduced to ordinal or categorical responses. In particular, these categorical models do not correspond well to networks that represent resource flows. Networks that represent the flow of individual migrants between cities or nations, investments between firms or nations, or goods and money between industries (Burt 1983) exemplify these resource exchange networks. In many of these cases it would be difficult to generate the theoretical logic that would support modeling a level of exchange that is fundamentally continuous as a categorical variable. The p 1R stochastic network model presented here departs from these categorical models in that it explicitly models network exchange as a continuous variable. One of the most significant differences between binary and real-valued networks, of course, is that ties in binary networks can only take on two values, while exchange levels in real-valued networks can take on any of a continuous range of values. As a result, the distribution of tie values in a random real-valued graph that underlies such a network is a bit more complex than the relatively simple one-parameter Bernoulli graph that underlies a binary network. For positive real-valued exchange networks 1, a relatively simple approach would be to assume that the tie values are log-normally distributed with mean θ ij and 1 This approach can also be used for non-negative real-valued exchange networks if all zero-valued exchanges are assigned some value smaller than the lowest observed nonzero tie value. This approach may be particularly valid in those cases where zeroes in the data represent exchange levels that were too low to report, rather than exchanges that were actually zero. p. 41
21 variance σ 2 ij. The model can be further simplified by assuming that the variance of this distribution is constant across the network, such that σ 2 ij = σ 2. Given these assumptions, it is possible to expand the governing equations of the p 1 model to a model for real-valued exchange networks. Equation 2.23 above represents the expected value of exchange between two actors in a dichotomous network. This equation can be expanded to model real-valued exchange as follows: E(log(x ij )) = θ + (α i + β j ) + ρ(α j + β i ), (2.26) 1+ ρ where the reciprocity parameter ρ ranges from 0 to 1. This formulation allows Equation 2.26 to reduce to Equation 2.23 when there is no reciprocity in an exchange network, and it forces the expected value of an exchange E(x ij ) to be equal to the expected value of exchange E(x ji ) when reciprocity is at its maximum of 1. Equation 2.26 can be expanded to a governing equation for a p 1R stochastic blockmodel by introducing a block parameter θ rs as follows: E(log(x ij )) = θ + θ rs + (α i + β j ) + ρ(α j + β i ) 1+ ρ. (2.27) This formulation allows the p 1R stochastic blockmodel to capture the expressive range of models that the basic p 1 stochastic blockmodel does in the context of real-valued network exchange. To the extent that p 1 stochastic blockmodels are appropriate for empirical investigations of the organizational position metaphor in the context of p. 42
22 dichotomous exchange, p 1R stochastic blockmodels should therefore be appropriate for studying organizational positions as defined by real-valued exchange Stochastic Blockmodel Goodness of Fit Measures Comparatively speaking, there are many fewer goodness-of-fit measures for stochastic blockmodels than there are for descriptive blockmodels. The p 1 and p 1R stochastic blockmodels presented here are like many stochastic blockmodels in that they can be used to produce a set of predicted tie values ˆ x ij in addition to assigning a probability p(x θ) to any observed pattern of ties. Wasserman and Faust (1992) argue that the likelihood-ratio statistic G 2 is an appropriate goodness-of-fit measure for stochastic blockmodels that can be characterized in this way. They determine the value of this statistic in the context of a stochastic blockmodel θ as G 2 θ = 2 x ij log(x ij / x ˆ ij ). (2.28) i, j Wasserman and Faust argue that this is a reasonable goodness-of-fit metric for the assessment of stochastic blockmodels that assume the dyadic independence of tie values net of the structural parameters of the model. Under this assumption, they argue that this G 2 θ metric is distributed as χ 2, and as such can be used to compare the goodness of fit of models of different complexity, as long as these models are nested by evaluating the p- value of the G 2 θ measure given the degrees of freedom in each model. The implication of this approach is that the model that should be chosen for a given network is the most complex one for which the p-value is still insignificant. Wasserman and Faust argue that p. 43
23 an alternative to this approach is to use a normalized G 2 θ metric, where the measure is simply divided by the degrees of freedom. Following this logic, the model that should be selected is the one with the lowest normalized G 2 θ. Both of these proscriptions position the G 2 θ metric as a goodness-of-fit measure that balances the accuracy of the data with respect to a model against the complexity of the evaluated model. The statistical rationale supporting the use of this measure for the purpose of model selection highlights the distinction between descriptive and predictive modeling approaches. While the predictive modeling approach can bring the power of statistical analysis to bear upon the problem of model selection, statistical measures such as the G 2 θ metric cannot comprehensively address all of the issues this problem presents. One inherent problem with this approach is that the probability theory underlying these measures is based on the assumption that only one model is being evaluated. As Wasserman and Faust (1992: 703) note, This theory should be applied only to a priori stochastic blockmodels, because the data mucking that must be done to fit their a posteriori counterparts invalidates the use of a statistical theory. If the objective of the model selection task is to compare a wide range of models to determine the one that is the best representation of the data, then these approaches cannot be used. 2.4 Conclusions The blockmodeling approaches outlined in this chapter provide formal methods for addressing some of the issues raised by the organizational position metaphor. Descriptive models and their associated goodness-of-fit measures are useful for beginning to think about how to assign actors to organizational positions on the basis of p. 44
24 their degree of structural equivalence. Given a particular level of aggregation, these methods can be useful in identifying good ways to partition actors into their respective contexts, and as such identify the boundaries of these positions. Descriptive blockmodel goodness-of-fit measures can be helpful in evaluating the relative fit of one partitioning relative to another, but the theoretical meaning of these measures is not precisely clear. While descriptive blockmodeling approaches provide some purchase on the problem of identifying the boundaries of organizational positions, predictive approaches provide a way of thinking about the idea of closeness as implicated by the organizational position metaphor. Specifically, in assessing the likelihood of observing a particular exchange between organizations, a predictive model allows a researcher to directly assess the extent to which the behavior of a given organization is close to the aggregate behavior of other organizations located in the same position. Under this modeling approach, organizations embody the positional idea of closeness explicitly to the extent that they are likely to engage in a particular pattern of exchange behavior. The conclusions that can be drawn from a predictive blockmodel may, in fact, be richer and more informative about structural processes than those reached through a descriptive modeling approach. The logic that Wang and Wong (1987) apply to analyzing the impact of gender on the production of friendship relationships could straightforwardly be extended to the analysis of the impact of industry structure on the exchange of goods and resources between firms. The p 1R stochastic blockmodel introduced in this chapter aims to extend the analysis in exactly this way. A descriptive blockmodel analysis of this exchange network might produce a set of ways to partition organizations into industrial positions based on the similarity of their patterns of p. 45
25 exchange behavior. A stochastic blockmodel analysis, on the other hand, would use one of these industrial classification schemes to indicate the extent to which the economic exchange behavior of individual firms is related to the aggregate exchange behavior of other firms within their respective industry position. While a predictive blockmodel analysis might be useful in assessing how well a given set of exchanges between organizations corresponds to a particular industry structure, it would not by itself be able to unequivocally identify the boundaries of a set of organizational positions. The fundamental problem with both the descriptive and the predictive modeling approaches is that neither provides a transparent facility for directly assessing the complexity of a model of social structure. Predictive models of social structure like the p 1R stochastic blockmodel are more useful than descriptive models because they define the accuracy of a model in terms of the probability that it will predict the observed pattern of behavior, rather than in terms of an arbitrary metric. While predictive models provide this statistically grounded rationale for evaluating the accuracy of models, they do not provide such a rationale for the direct assessment of model complexity. In the following chapter, I introduce a method drawn from the field of information science that specifically can be used to answer this question. This method allows the problem of assessing model complexity to be laid out in terms of a formal and transparent probabilistic theory. When taken in combination with the predictive models of social structure outlined in this chapter, this method can be used to empirically identify organizational positions, and move the organizational position metaphor in the direction of an organizational position construct. p. 46
Specification and estimation of exponential random graph models for social (and other) networks
Specification and estimation of exponential random graph models for social (and other) networks Tom A.B. Snijders University of Oxford March 23, 2009 c Tom A.B. Snijders (University of Oxford) Models for
More informationDepartment of Statistics. Bayesian Modeling for a Generalized Social Relations Model. Tyler McCormick. Introduction.
A University of Connecticut and Columbia University A models for dyadic data are extensions of the (). y i,j = a i + b j + γ i,j (1) Here, y i,j is a measure of the tie from actor i to actor j. The random
More informationConditional Marginalization for Exponential Random Graph Models
Conditional Marginalization for Exponential Random Graph Models Tom A.B. Snijders January 21, 2010 To be published, Journal of Mathematical Sociology University of Oxford and University of Groningen; this
More informationAgent-Based Methods for Dynamic Social Networks. Duke University
Agent-Based Methods for Dynamic Social Networks Eric Vance Institute of Statistics & Decision Sciences Duke University STA 395 Talk October 24, 2005 Outline Introduction Social Network Models Agent-based
More informationOverview of Stochastic Approaches to Social Network Analysis
Overview of Stochastic Approaches to Social Network Analysis Wasserman and Faust, Chapter 13-16. Anderson, Carolyn J., Stanley Wasserman, and Bradley Crouch. 1999. A p* primer: Logit models for social
More informationStatistical Model for Soical Network
Statistical Model for Soical Network Tom A.B. Snijders University of Washington May 29, 2014 Outline 1 Cross-sectional network 2 Dynamic s Outline Cross-sectional network 1 Cross-sectional network 2 Dynamic
More informationLogistic Regression: Regression with a Binary Dependent Variable
Logistic Regression: Regression with a Binary Dependent Variable LEARNING OBJECTIVES Upon completing this chapter, you should be able to do the following: State the circumstances under which logistic regression
More informationActor-Based Models for Longitudinal Networks
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269691376 Actor-Based Models for Longitudinal Networks CHAPTER JANUARY 2014 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_166
More informationAssessing Goodness of Fit of Exponential Random Graph Models
International Journal of Statistics and Probability; Vol. 2, No. 4; 2013 ISSN 1927-7032 E-ISSN 1927-7040 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Assessing Goodness of Fit of Exponential Random
More informationBECOMING FAMILIAR WITH SOCIAL NETWORKS
1 BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH SOCIAL NETWORKS Each one of us has our own social networks, and it is easiest to start understanding social networks through thinking about our own. So what social networks do
More informationIntroduction to statistical analysis of Social Networks
The Social Statistics Discipline Area, School of Social Sciences Introduction to statistical analysis of Social Networks Mitchell Centre for Network Analysis Johan Koskinen http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/jk.htm!
More informationRandom Effects Models for Network Data
Random Effects Models for Network Data Peter D. Hoff 1 Working Paper no. 28 Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-4320 January 14, 2003 1 Department of
More informationKhinchin s approach to statistical mechanics
Chapter 7 Khinchin s approach to statistical mechanics 7.1 Introduction In his Mathematical Foundations of Statistical Mechanics Khinchin presents an ergodic theorem which is valid also for systems that
More informationAn Introduction to Exponential-Family Random Graph Models
An Introduction to Exponential-Family Random Graph Models Luo Lu Feb.8, 2011 1 / 11 Types of complications in social network Single relationship data A single relationship observed on a set of nodes at
More informationLOGIT MODELS FOR AFFILIATION NETWORKS
8 LOGIT MODELS FOR AFFILIATION NETWORKS John Skvoretz* Katherine Faust* Once confined to networks in which dyads could be reasonably assumed to be independent, the statistical analysis of network data
More information4.1 Real-valued functions of a real variable
Chapter 4 Functions When introducing relations from a set A to a set B we drew an analogy with co-ordinates in the x-y plane. Instead of coming from R, the first component of an ordered pair comes from
More informationModel Estimation Example
Ronald H. Heck 1 EDEP 606: Multivariate Methods (S2013) April 7, 2013 Model Estimation Example As we have moved through the course this semester, we have encountered the concept of model estimation. Discussions
More informationMixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2008 by E.M. Airoldi, D.M. Blei, S.E. Fienberg, E.P. Xing as interpreted by Ted Westling STAT 572 Final Talk May 8, 2014 Ted
More informationCS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lectures #11 and #12: Spectral Graph Theory
CS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lectures #11 and #12: Spectral Graph Theory Tim Roughgarden & Gregory Valiant May 2, 2016 Spectral graph theory is the powerful and beautiful theory that arises from
More informationModel-Based Clustering for Social Networks
Model-Based Clustering for Social Networks Mark S. Handcock, Adrian E. Raftery and Jeremy M. Tantrum University of Washington Technical Report no. 42 Department of Statistics University of Washington April
More information6 Evolution of Networks
last revised: March 2008 WARNING for Soc 376 students: This draft adopts the demography convention for transition matrices (i.e., transitions from column to row). 6 Evolution of Networks 6. Strategic network
More informationOverview course module Stochastic Modelling. I. Introduction II. Actor-based models for network evolution
Overview course module Stochastic Modelling I. Introduction II. Actor-based models for network evolution A. Data requirements B. Modelling principles & assumptions C. The network evolution algorithm D.
More informationOverview course module Stochastic Modelling
Overview course module Stochastic Modelling I. Introduction II. Actor-based models for network evolution III. Co-evolution models for networks and behaviour IV. Exponential Random Graph Models A. Definition
More informationLing 289 Contingency Table Statistics
Ling 289 Contingency Table Statistics Roger Levy and Christopher Manning This is a summary of the material that we ve covered on contingency tables. Contingency tables: introduction Odds ratios Counting,
More informationPolarization and Bipolar Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks
Polarization and Bipolar Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks Carlo Proietti Lund University Abstract. Discussion among individuals about a given issue often induces polarization and bipolarization effects,
More informationLatent Stochastic Actor Oriented Models for Relational Event Data
Latent Stochastic Actor Oriented Models for Relational Event Data J.A. Lospinoso 12 J.H. Koskinen 2 T.A.B. Snijders 2 1 Network Science Center United States Military Academy 2 Department of Statistics
More informationStatistical models for dynamics of social networks: inference and applications
Int. Statistical Inst.: Proc. 58th World Statistical Congress, 2011, Dublin Session IPS068) p.1231 Statistical models for dynamics of social networks: inference and applications Snijders, Tom A.B. 1 University
More informationGlossary. The ISI glossary of statistical terms provides definitions in a number of different languages:
Glossary The ISI glossary of statistical terms provides definitions in a number of different languages: http://isi.cbs.nl/glossary/index.htm Adjusted r 2 Adjusted R squared measures the proportion of the
More informationPartners in power: Job mobility and dynamic deal-making
Partners in power: Job mobility and dynamic deal-making Matthew Checkley Warwick Business School Christian Steglich ICS / University of Groningen Presentation at the Fifth Workshop on Networks in Economics
More information6.867 Machine Learning
6.867 Machine Learning Problem set 1 Solutions Thursday, September 19 What and how to turn in? Turn in short written answers to the questions explicitly stated, and when requested to explain or prove.
More informationAlgorithm-Independent Learning Issues
Algorithm-Independent Learning Issues Selim Aksoy Department of Computer Engineering Bilkent University saksoy@cs.bilkent.edu.tr CS 551, Spring 2007 c 2007, Selim Aksoy Introduction We have seen many learning
More informationBrief Glimpse of Agent-Based Modeling
Brief Glimpse of Agent-Based Modeling Nathaniel Osgood Using Modeling to Prepare for Changing Healthcare Need January 9, 2014 Agent-Based Models Agent-based model characteristics One or more populations
More informationBackground on Coherent Systems
2 Background on Coherent Systems 2.1 Basic Ideas We will use the term system quite freely and regularly, even though it will remain an undefined term throughout this monograph. As we all have some experience
More informationGraph Detection and Estimation Theory
Introduction Detection Estimation Graph Detection and Estimation Theory (and algorithms, and applications) Patrick J. Wolfe Statistics and Information Sciences Laboratory (SISL) School of Engineering and
More informationMixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels (2008) Edoardo M. Airoldi, David M. Blei, Stephen E. Fienberg and Eric P. Xing Herrissa Lamothe Princeton University Herrissa Lamothe (Princeton University) Mixed
More informationStructure learning in human causal induction
Structure learning in human causal induction Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Thomas L. Griffiths Department of Psychology Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 jbt,gruffydd @psych.stanford.edu Abstract We use
More informationChapter 1 Statistical Inference
Chapter 1 Statistical Inference causal inference To infer causality, you need a randomized experiment (or a huge observational study and lots of outside information). inference to populations Generalizations
More informationConsistency Under Sampling of Exponential Random Graph Models
Consistency Under Sampling of Exponential Random Graph Models Cosma Shalizi and Alessandro Rinaldo Summary by: Elly Kaizar Remember ERGMs (Exponential Random Graph Models) Exponential family models Sufficient
More informationPerformance Comparison of K-Means and Expectation Maximization with Gaussian Mixture Models for Clustering EE6540 Final Project
Performance Comparison of K-Means and Expectation Maximization with Gaussian Mixture Models for Clustering EE6540 Final Project Devin Cornell & Sushruth Sastry May 2015 1 Abstract In this article, we explore
More informationDiscrete Multivariate Statistics
Discrete Multivariate Statistics Univariate Discrete Random variables Let X be a discrete random variable which, in this module, will be assumed to take a finite number of t different values which are
More informationOn the errors introduced by the naive Bayes independence assumption
On the errors introduced by the naive Bayes independence assumption Author Matthijs de Wachter 3671100 Utrecht University Master Thesis Artificial Intelligence Supervisor Dr. Silja Renooij Department of
More informationAbbott, A Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology 21:
Bibliography Abbott, A. 1995. Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 93-113. Abbott, A. and J. Forrest. 1986. Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal
More informationFreeman (2005) - Graphic Techniques for Exploring Social Network Data
Freeman (2005) - Graphic Techniques for Exploring Social Network Data The analysis of social network data has two main goals: 1. Identify cohesive groups 2. Identify social positions Moreno (1932) was
More informationWooldridge, Introductory Econometrics, 4th ed. Chapter 2: The simple regression model
Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics, 4th ed. Chapter 2: The simple regression model Most of this course will be concerned with use of a regression model: a structure in which one or more explanatory
More informationGeneralized Linear Models (GLZ)
Generalized Linear Models (GLZ) Generalized Linear Models (GLZ) are an extension of the linear modeling process that allows models to be fit to data that follow probability distributions other than the
More informationMODULE -4 BAYEIAN LEARNING
MODULE -4 BAYEIAN LEARNING CONTENT Introduction Bayes theorem Bayes theorem and concept learning Maximum likelihood and Least Squared Error Hypothesis Maximum likelihood Hypotheses for predicting probabilities
More informationIntroducing Generalized Linear Models: Logistic Regression
Ron Heck, Summer 2012 Seminars 1 Multilevel Regression Models and Their Applications Seminar Introducing Generalized Linear Models: Logistic Regression The generalized linear model (GLM) represents and
More informationOutline. Limits of Bayesian classification Bayesian concept learning Probabilistic models for unsupervised and semi-supervised category learning
Outline Limits of Bayesian classification Bayesian concept learning Probabilistic models for unsupervised and semi-supervised category learning Limitations Is categorization just discrimination among mutually
More informationIntroduction to Machine Learning. Lecture 2
Introduction to Machine Learning Lecturer: Eran Halperin Lecture 2 Fall Semester Scribe: Yishay Mansour Some of the material was not presented in class (and is marked with a side line) and is given for
More informationSocial Network Notation
Social Network Notation Wasserman & Faust (1994) Chapters 3 & 4 [pp. 67 166] Marsden (1987) Core Discussion Networks of Americans Junesoo, Xiaohui & Stephen Monday, February 8th, 2010 Wasserman & Faust
More informationLecture Slides. Elementary Statistics. by Mario F. Triola. and the Triola Statistics Series
Lecture Slides Elementary Statistics Tenth Edition and the Triola Statistics Series by Mario F. Triola Slide 1 Chapter 13 Nonparametric Statistics 13-1 Overview 13-2 Sign Test 13-3 Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks
More informationLecture Slides. Section 13-1 Overview. Elementary Statistics Tenth Edition. Chapter 13 Nonparametric Statistics. by Mario F.
Lecture Slides Elementary Statistics Tenth Edition and the Triola Statistics Series by Mario F. Triola Slide 1 Chapter 13 Nonparametric Statistics 13-1 Overview 13-2 Sign Test 13-3 Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks
More informationRon Heck, Fall Week 8: Introducing Generalized Linear Models: Logistic Regression 1 (Replaces prior revision dated October 20, 2011)
Ron Heck, Fall 2011 1 EDEP 768E: Seminar in Multilevel Modeling rev. January 3, 2012 (see footnote) Week 8: Introducing Generalized Linear Models: Logistic Regression 1 (Replaces prior revision dated October
More informationSocial Dichotomy Functions (extended abstract)
Social Dichotomy Functions (extended abstract) Conal Duddy, Nicolas Houy, Jérôme Lang, Ashley Piggins, and William S. Zwicker February 22, 2014 1 What is a Social Dichotomy Function? A dichotomy A = (A
More informationGeometric Issue and Sector Selection for Performance Attribution
Geometric Issue Sector Selection for Performance Attribution Eric A. Forgy May 7, 2002 Abstract This paper represents an overview of the fully geometric approach to performance attribution developed by
More informationA graph contains a set of nodes (vertices) connected by links (edges or arcs)
BOLTZMANN MACHINES Generative Models Graphical Models A graph contains a set of nodes (vertices) connected by links (edges or arcs) In a probabilistic graphical model, each node represents a random variable,
More informationA Summary of Economic Methodology
A Summary of Economic Methodology I. The Methodology of Theoretical Economics All economic analysis begins with theory, based in part on intuitive insights that naturally spring from certain stylized facts,
More informationStatistical Analysis of Longitudinal Network Data With Changing Composition
Statistical Analysis of Longitudinal Network Data With Changing Composition MARK HUISMAN TOM A. B. SNIJDERS University of Groningen Markov chains can be used for the modeling of complex longitudinal network
More informationEXAMINATIONS OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY
EXAMINATIONS OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY GRADUATE DIPLOMA, 00 MODULE : Statistical Inference Time Allowed: Three Hours Candidates should answer FIVE questions. All questions carry equal marks. The
More informationChapter 3. Cartesian Products and Relations. 3.1 Cartesian Products
Chapter 3 Cartesian Products and Relations The material in this chapter is the first real encounter with abstraction. Relations are very general thing they are a special type of subset. After introducing
More informationCSE525: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis April 2, Lecture 1
CSE525: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis April 2, 2013 Lecture 1 Lecturer: Anna Karlin Scribe: Sonya Alexandrova and Eric Lei 1 Introduction The main theme of this class is randomized algorithms.
More informationCHAPTER 2 Estimating Probabilities
CHAPTER 2 Estimating Probabilities Machine Learning Copyright c 2017. Tom M. Mitchell. All rights reserved. *DRAFT OF September 16, 2017* *PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT AUTHOR S PERMISSION* This is
More informationLecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression
Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression Ani Manichaikul amanicha@jhsph.edu 8 May 2007 1 / 52 Overview Modelling counts Contingency tables Poisson regression models 2 / 52 Modelling counts I Why
More informationModelling counts. Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression. Overview
Modelling counts I Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression Ani Manichaikul amanicha@jhsph.edu Why count data? Number of traffic accidents per day Mortality counts in a given neighborhood, per week
More information401 Review. 6. Power analysis for one/two-sample hypothesis tests and for correlation analysis.
401 Review Major topics of the course 1. Univariate analysis 2. Bivariate analysis 3. Simple linear regression 4. Linear algebra 5. Multiple regression analysis Major analysis methods 1. Graphical analysis
More informationStochastic OT as a model of constraint interaction
Stochastic OT as a model of constraint interaction ELENA MASLOVA 1 Introduction 1 Stochastic OT is a set of specific assumptions about the mechanism of interaction between universal linguistic constraints:
More informationMixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2008 by E.M. Airoldi, D.M. Blei, S.E. Fienberg, E.P. Xing as interpreted by Ted Westling STAT 572 Intro Talk April 22, 2014
More informationDynamical Embodiments of Computation in Cognitive Processes James P. Crutcheld Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA a
Dynamical Embodiments of Computation in Cognitive Processes James P. Crutcheld Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7300 and Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe,
More informationAn introduction to biostatistics: part 1
An introduction to biostatistics: part 1 Cavan Reilly September 6, 2017 Table of contents Introduction to data analysis Uncertainty Probability Conditional probability Random variables Discrete random
More informationSYDE 372 Introduction to Pattern Recognition. Probability Measures for Classification: Part I
SYDE 372 Introduction to Pattern Recognition Probability Measures for Classification: Part I Alexander Wong Department of Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo Outline 1 2 3 4 Why use probability
More information13 : Variational Inference: Loopy Belief Propagation and Mean Field
10-708: Probabilistic Graphical Models 10-708, Spring 2012 13 : Variational Inference: Loopy Belief Propagation and Mean Field Lecturer: Eric P. Xing Scribes: Peter Schulam and William Wang 1 Introduction
More informationTEMPORAL EXPONENTIAL- FAMILY RANDOM GRAPH MODELING (TERGMS) WITH STATNET
1 TEMPORAL EXPONENTIAL- FAMILY RANDOM GRAPH MODELING (TERGMS) WITH STATNET Prof. Steven Goodreau Prof. Martina Morris Prof. Michal Bojanowski Prof. Mark S. Handcock Source for all things STERGM Pavel N.
More informationCS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lecture #6: Regularization
CS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lecture #6: Regularization Tim Roughgarden & Gregory Valiant April 18, 2018 1 The Context and Intuition behind Regularization Given a dataset, and some class of models
More informationLecture 11: Extrema. Nathan Pflueger. 2 October 2013
Lecture 11: Extrema Nathan Pflueger 2 October 201 1 Introduction In this lecture we begin to consider the notion of extrema of functions on chosen intervals. This discussion will continue in the lectures
More information22 : Hilbert Space Embeddings of Distributions
10-708: Probabilistic Graphical Models 10-708, Spring 2014 22 : Hilbert Space Embeddings of Distributions Lecturer: Eric P. Xing Scribes: Sujay Kumar Jauhar and Zhiguang Huo 1 Introduction and Motivation
More informationwhere Female = 0 for males, = 1 for females Age is measured in years (22, 23, ) GPA is measured in units on a four-point scale (0, 1.22, 3.45, etc.
Notes on regression analysis 1. Basics in regression analysis key concepts (actual implementation is more complicated) A. Collect data B. Plot data on graph, draw a line through the middle of the scatter
More informationFEEG6017 lecture: Akaike's information criterion; model reduction. Brendan Neville
FEEG6017 lecture: Akaike's information criterion; model reduction Brendan Neville bjn1c13@ecs.soton.ac.uk Occam's razor William of Occam, 1288-1348. All else being equal, the simplest explanation is the
More informationMissing data in networks: exponential random graph (p ) models for networks with non-respondents
Social Networks 26 (2004) 257 283 Missing data in networks: exponential random graph (p ) models for networks with non-respondents Garry Robins, Philippa Pattison, Jodie Woolcock Department of Psychology,
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 12: Generalized Random Graphs
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 12: Generalized Random Graphs 1 Outline Small-world model Growing random networks Power-law degree distributions: Rich-Get-Richer effects Models: Uniform attachment model
More informationTowards a General Theory of Non-Cooperative Computation
Towards a General Theory of Non-Cooperative Computation (Extended Abstract) Robert McGrew, Ryan Porter, and Yoav Shoham Stanford University {bmcgrew,rwporter,shoham}@cs.stanford.edu Abstract We generalize
More informationDR.RUPNATHJI( DR.RUPAK NATH )
Contents 1 Sets 1 2 The Real Numbers 9 3 Sequences 29 4 Series 59 5 Functions 81 6 Power Series 105 7 The elementary functions 111 Chapter 1 Sets It is very convenient to introduce some notation and terminology
More informationParametric Techniques
Parametric Techniques Jason J. Corso SUNY at Buffalo J. Corso (SUNY at Buffalo) Parametric Techniques 1 / 39 Introduction When covering Bayesian Decision Theory, we assumed the full probabilistic structure
More informationSUPERVISED LEARNING: INTRODUCTION TO CLASSIFICATION
SUPERVISED LEARNING: INTRODUCTION TO CLASSIFICATION 1 Outline Basic terminology Features Training and validation Model selection Error and loss measures Statistical comparison Evaluation measures 2 Terminology
More informationThe New Palgrave: Separability
The New Palgrave: Separability Charles Blackorby Daniel Primont R. Robert Russell 1. Introduction July 29, 2006 Separability, as discussed here, refers to certain restrictions on functional representations
More informationGaussian processes. Chuong B. Do (updated by Honglak Lee) November 22, 2008
Gaussian processes Chuong B Do (updated by Honglak Lee) November 22, 2008 Many of the classical machine learning algorithms that we talked about during the first half of this course fit the following pattern:
More informationChi-square goodness-of-fit test for vague data
Chi-square goodness-of-fit test for vague data Przemys law Grzegorzewski Systems Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland and Faculty of Math. and Inform. Sci., Warsaw
More informationSupporting Statistical Hypothesis Testing Over Graphs
Supporting Statistical Hypothesis Testing Over Graphs Jennifer Neville Departments of Computer Science and Statistics Purdue University (joint work with Tina Eliassi-Rad, Brian Gallagher, Sergey Kirshner,
More informationChapter 1 The Real Numbers
Chapter 1 The Real Numbers In a beginning course in calculus, the emphasis is on introducing the techniques of the subject;i.e., differentiation and integration and their applications. An advanced calculus
More informationBLAST: Target frequencies and information content Dannie Durand
Computational Genomics and Molecular Biology, Fall 2016 1 BLAST: Target frequencies and information content Dannie Durand BLAST has two components: a fast heuristic for searching for similar sequences
More informationLecture 7: Hypothesis Testing and ANOVA
Lecture 7: Hypothesis Testing and ANOVA Goals Overview of key elements of hypothesis testing Review of common one and two sample tests Introduction to ANOVA Hypothesis Testing The intent of hypothesis
More informationUniversity of Groningen. The multilevel p2 model Zijlstra, B.J.H.; van Duijn, Maria; Snijders, Thomas. Published in: Methodology
University of Groningen The multilevel p2 model Zijlstra, B.J.H.; van Duijn, Maria; Snijders, Thomas Published in: Methodology IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's
More informationIncompatibility Paradoxes
Chapter 22 Incompatibility Paradoxes 22.1 Simultaneous Values There is never any difficulty in supposing that a classical mechanical system possesses, at a particular instant of time, precise values of
More informationBargaining, Information Networks and Interstate
Bargaining, Information Networks and Interstate Conflict Erik Gartzke Oliver Westerwinter UC, San Diego Department of Political Sciene egartzke@ucsd.edu European University Institute Department of Political
More informationA General Overview of Parametric Estimation and Inference Techniques.
A General Overview of Parametric Estimation and Inference Techniques. Moulinath Banerjee University of Michigan September 11, 2012 The object of statistical inference is to glean information about an underlying
More informationEach copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
Canonical Analysis of the Composition and Structure of Social Networks Author(s): Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust Source: Sociological Methodology, Vol. 19, (1989), pp. 1-42 Published by: American
More informationProbabilistic Graphical Models Homework 2: Due February 24, 2014 at 4 pm
Probabilistic Graphical Models 10-708 Homework 2: Due February 24, 2014 at 4 pm Directions. This homework assignment covers the material presented in Lectures 4-8. You must complete all four problems to
More informationIllustrating the Implicit BIC Prior. Richard Startz * revised June Abstract
Illustrating the Implicit BIC Prior Richard Startz * revised June 2013 Abstract I show how to find the uniform prior implicit in using the Bayesian Information Criterion to consider a hypothesis about
More informationA Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion
A Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica Stanford University and University of Chicago December 2015 Abstract Rothschild and Stiglitz (1970) represent random
More informationMA103 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Second part, Analysis and Algebra
206/7 MA03 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Second part, Analysis and Algebra Amol Sasane Revised by Jozef Skokan, Konrad Swanepoel, and Graham Brightwell Copyright c London School of Economics 206
More informationLinear Algebra. The analysis of many models in the social sciences reduces to the study of systems of equations.
POLI 7 - Mathematical and Statistical Foundations Prof S Saiegh Fall Lecture Notes - Class 4 October 4, Linear Algebra The analysis of many models in the social sciences reduces to the study of systems
More information