Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:11:44.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling Dyadic Interaction with Hawkes Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Peter F. Halpin  and
Paul De Boeck
Peter F. Halpin*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Paul De Boeck
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Peter F. Halpin, Department of Humanities and Social Science in the Professions, New York University, 246 Greene St, Office 316E, 10013-6677, New York, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We apply the Hawkes process to the analysis of dyadic interaction. The Hawkes process is applicable to excitatory interactions, wherein the actions of each individual increase the probability of further actions in the near future. We consider the representation of the Hawkes process both as a conditional intensity function and as a cluster Poisson process. The former treats the probability of an action in continuous time via non-stationary distributions with arbitrarily long historical dependency, while the latter is conducive to maximum likelihood estimation using the EM algorithm. We first outline the interpretation of the Hawkes process in the dyadic context, and then illustrate its application with an example concerning email transactions in the work place.

Keywords

dyadic interactionevent samplingHawkes processesEM algorithmmaximum likelihood
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 793 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Peter F. Halpin is now at New York University; Paul De Boeck is now at Ohio State University.

References

Anderson, P.A. (2008) Positions of power: status and dominance in organizational communication. In Guerrero, L., & Hecht, M.L. (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: classical and contemporary perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 450–468). Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observations methods of the behavioural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.L. (2005). The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, 435, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brillinger, D.R. (1975). The identification of point process systems. Annals of Probability, 3, 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brillinger, D.R. (2004). Some data analyses using mutual information. Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 18, 163–182.Google Scholar
Card, N., Selig, J., & Little, T. (2008). Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Chow, S.M., Ferrer, E., & Hsieh, F. (2010). Statistical methods for modeling human dynamics: an interdisciplinary dialogue. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Cox, D.R., & Isham, V. (1980). Point processes. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Crane, R., & Sornette, D. (2008). Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 15649–15653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daley, D.J., & Vere-Jones, D. (2003). An introduction to the theory of point processes: elementary theory and methods (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Dayan, P., & Abbott, L.F. (2005). Theoretical neuroscience: computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ebel, H., Mielsch, L.-I., & Bornholdt, S. (2002). Scale-free topology of e-mail networks. Physical Review E, 66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckmann, J.P., Moses, E., & Sergi, D. (2004). Entropy of dialogues creates coherent structures in e-mail traffic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 14333–14337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrer, E., Steele, J.S., & Hsieh, F. (2012). Analyzing the dynamics of affective dyadic interactions using patterns of intra- and inter-individual variability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 136–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, R. (1976). Deceit, desire, and the novel: self and other in literary structure. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J.M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gottman, J.M., Murray, J.D., Swanson, C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K.R. (2003). The mathematics of marriage. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamaker, E.L., Zhang, Z., & van der Maas, H.L.J. (2009). Using threshold autoregressive models to study dyadic interactions. Psychometrika, 74, 727–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, A.G. (1971). Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, 58, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, A.G., & Oakes, D. (1974). A cluster representation of a self-exciting process. Journal of Applied Probability, 11, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isham, V., & Westcott, M. (1979). A self-correcting point process. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, 8, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamshidian, M., & Jennrich, R.I. (2000). Standard errors for EM estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 62, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalman, Y.M., David, G., & Rafaeli, D.R.R.S. (2006). Pauses and response latencies: a chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D.A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence mode. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, R., Illian, J., Burslem, D.F.R.P., Gratzer, G., Gunatilleke, C.V.S., & Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (2009). Ecological information from spatial patterns of plants: insights from point process theory. Journal of Ecology, 97, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madhyastha, T.M., Hamaker, E.L., & Gottman, J.M. (2011). Investigating spousal influence using moment-to-moment affect data from marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 292–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnusson, M.S. (2005). Discovering hidden structure with model and algorithms. In Anolli, L., Duncan, S. Jr., Magnusson, M.S., & Riva, G. (Eds.), The hidden structure of interaction: from neurons to culture patterns (pp. 4–22). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
McLachlan, G.J., & Krishnan, T. (2008). The EM algorithm and extensions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, G.J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C., & Dunham, P. (1995). Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newman, M.E.J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogata, Y. (1978). The asymptotic behaviour of maximum likelihood estimates for stationary point processes. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 30, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogata, Y. (1988). Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-project.org/ (ISBN 3-900051-07-0).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J.G. (2011). Bayesian inference for Hawkes’ processes. Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability. .Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenberg, F., & Bolt, B. (2000). Short-term exciting, long-term correcting models for earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90, 849–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2011). Affinity models for career sequences. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, 60, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seber, G.A.F., & Wild, C.J. (2003). Non-linear regression. (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truccolo, W., Eden, U.T., Fellows, M.R., Donoghue, J.P., & Brown, E.N. (2005). A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 1074–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veen, A., & Schoenberg, F.P. (2008). Estimation of space-time branching process models in seismology using an EM-type algorithm. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 614–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar