Empirical articles vary considerably in how they measure child and adolescent friendship networks. This meta-analysis examines four methodological moderators of children’s and adolescents’ average outdegree centrality in friendship networks: boundary specification, operational definition of friendship, unlimited vs. fixed choice design, and roster vs. free recall design. Specifically, multi-level random effects models were conducted using 261 average outdegree centrality estimates from 71 English-language peer-reviewed articles and 55 unique datasets. There were no significant differences in average outdegree centrality for child and adolescent friendship networks bounded at the classroom, grade, and school-levels. Using a name generator focused on best/close friends yielded significantly lower average outdegree centrality estimates than using a name generator focused on friends. Fixed choice designs with under 10 nominations were associated with significantly lower estimates of average outdegree centrality while fixed choice designs with 10 or more nominations were associated with significantly higher estimates of average outdegree centrality than unlimited choice designs. Free recall designs were associated with significantly lower estimates of average outdegree centrality than roster designs. Results are discussed within the context of their implications for the future measurement of child and adolescent friendship networks.

Researchers theorize that many real-world networks exhibit community structure where within-community edges are more likely than between-community edges. While numerous methods exist to cluster nodes into different communities, less work has addressed this question: given some network, does it exhibit statistically meaningful community structure? We answer this question in a principled manner by framing it as a statistical hypothesis test in terms of a general and model-agnostic community structure parameter. Leveraging this parameter, we propose a simple and interpretable test statistic used to formulate two separate hypothesis testing frameworks. The first is an asymptotic test against a baseline value of the parameter while the second tests against a baseline model using bootstrap-based thresholds. We prove theoretical properties of these tests and demonstrate how the proposed method yields rich insights into real-world datasets.

We introduce a novel preferential attachment model using the draw variables of a modified Pólya urn with an expanding number of colors, notably capable of modeling influential opinions (in terms of vertices of high degree) as the graph evolves. Similar to the Barabási-Albert model, the generated graph grows in size by one vertex at each time instance; in contrast however, each vertex of the graph is uniquely characterized by a color, which is represented by a ball color in the Pólya urn. More specifically at each time step, we draw a ball from the urn and return it to the urn along with a number of reinforcing balls of the same color; we also add another ball of a new color to the urn. We then construct an edge between the new vertex (corresponding to the new color) and the existing vertex whose color ball is drawn. Using color-coded vertices in conjunction with the time-varying reinforcing parameter allows for vertices added (born) later in the process to potentially attain a high degree in a way that is not captured in the Barabási-Albert model. We study the degree count of the vertices by analyzing the draw vectors of the underlying stochastic process. In particular, we establish the probability distribution of the random variable counting the number of draws of a given color which determines the degree of the vertex corresponding to that color in the graph. We further provide simulation results presenting a comparison between our model and the Barabási-Albert network.

The betweenness centrality of a graph vertex measures how often this vertex is visited on shortest paths between other vertices of the graph. In the analysis of many real-world graphs or networks, the betweenness centrality of a vertex is used as an indicator for its relative importance in the network. In particular, it is among the most popular tools in social network analysis. In recent years, a growing number of real-world networks have been modeled as temporal graphs instead of conventional (static) graphs. In a temporal graph, we have a fixed set of vertices and there is a finite discrete set of time steps, and every edge might be present only at some time steps. While shortest paths are straightforward to define in static graphs, temporal paths can be considered “optimal” with respect to many different criteria, including length, arrival time, and overall travel time (shortest, foremost, and fastest paths). This leads to different concepts of temporal betweenness centrality, posing new challenges on the algorithmic side. We provide a systematic study of temporal betweenness variants based on various concepts of optimal temporal paths.

Computing the betweenness centrality for vertices in a graph is closely related to counting the number of optimal paths between vertex pairs. While in static graphs computing the number of shortest paths is easily doable in polynomial time, we show that counting foremost and fastest paths is computationally intractable (#P-hard), and hence, the computation of the corresponding temporal betweenness values is intractable as well. For shortest paths and two selected special cases of foremost paths, we devise polynomial-time algorithms for temporal betweenness computation. Moreover, we also explore the distinction between strict (ascending time labels) and non-strict (non-descending time labels) time labels in temporal paths. In our experiments with established real-world temporal networks, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of our algorithms, compare the various betweenness concepts, and derive recommendations on their practical use.

Collecting network data directly from network members can be challenging. One alternative involves inferring a network from observed groups, for example, inferring a network of scientific collaboration from researchers’ observed paper authorships. In this paper, I explore when an unobserved undirected network of interest can accurately be inferred from observed groups. The analysis uses simulations to experimentally manipulate the structure of the unobserved network to be inferred, the number of groups observed, the extent to which the observed groups correspond to cliques in the unobserved network, and the method used to draw inferences. I find that when a small number of groups are observed, an unobserved network can be accurately inferred using a simple unweighted two-mode projection, provided that each group’s membership closely corresponds to a clique in the unobserved network. In contrast, when a large number of groups are observed, an unobserved network can be accurately inferred using a statistical backbone extraction model, even if the groups’ memberships are mostly random. These findings offer guidance for researchers seeking to indirectly measure a network of interest using observations of groups.