Skip to main content
Log in

Test for triadic closure and triadic protection in temporal relational event data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Temporal relational events are evidence of dynamically evolving social networks. The timing of the creation and dissolving of enduring ties, such as friendships or alliances, often depend on a large variety of factors. Particularly, the presence of the so-called triadic or transitive effects suggests a certain maturity of the underlying social process and is an important feature of various social relationships. Various models have been proposed to capture various determinants of such temporal relational events. The main obstacle for widely using these models in practice is their computational complexity, especially for modern, online recorded data. The aim of this paper is to propose a simple test for the presence of triadic effects in relational event data. We propose a joint test for triadic closure and triadic protection of ties, based on a combination of a method-of-moments estimator and a Hotelling’s T2 test. Such test is computationally fast and statistically near-efficient, and we show how the test is particularly insightful for the analysis of two studies involving relational event data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We used the data set “alliances” from the xergm.common package in R.

  2. Data set is freely available at http://www.sociopatterns.org/datasets/sfhh-conference-data-set/

References

  • Ang CS (2011) Interaction networks and patterns of guild community in massively multiplayer online games. Soc Netw Anal Min 1:341–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barabsi AL, Ravasz E, Oltvai Z (2003) Hierarchical organization of modularity in complex networks. Stat Mech Complex Netw 625:46–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson A, Gleich DF, Leskovec J (2016) Higher-order organization of complex networks. Science 353(6295):163–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson AR, Abebe R, Schaub MT, Jadbabaie A, Kleinberg J (2018) Simplicial closure and higher-order link prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(48):E11221–E11230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge C (1989) Hypergraphs—combinatorics of finite sets. North-Holland mathematical library, vol 45. North-Holland

  • Bianconi G, Barabási AL (2001) Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhys Lett (EPL) 54(4):436–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianconi G, Darst RK, Iacovacci J, Fortunato S (2014) Triadic closure as a basic generating mechanism of communities in complex networks. Phys Rev E 90:042806. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell C, Heller K, Beck J (2012) Modelling reciprocating relationships with hawkes processes. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 25(15):5249–5262

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1982) Toward a structural theory of action. Academic Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts CT (2008) A relational event framework for social action. Sociol Methodol 38(1):155–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway DS, Hopcroft JE, Kleinberg J, Newman MEJ, Strogatz SH (2001) Are randomly grown graphs really random? Physical Review E 64:041902. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.041902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset A, Moore C, Newman MEJ (2008) Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453:98–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA, Kirkland JH (2012a) Toward a network theory of alliance formation. Int Interact 38(3):295–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA, Kirkland JH, Menninga EJ (2012b) Complex dependencies in the alliance network. Int Interact 29(3):279–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsen J, Ebel H, Bornholdt S (2002) Emergence of a small world from local interactions: modeling acquaintance networks. Phys. Rev. Lett 88(12):128701. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.128701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JA (1970) Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: testing two graph theoretical models on 742 sociomatrices. Am Sociol Rev 35:843–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JA, Leinhardt S (1967) The Structure of Positive Interpersonal Relations in Small Groups. Houghton Mifflin

  • Dubois C, Butts C, Smyth P (2013) Stochastic blockmodeling of relational event dynamics. In: Artificial intelligence and statistics, pp 238–246

  • Eder D, Hallinan MT (1978) Sex differences in children’s friendships. Am Sociol Rev 43:237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhardt G, Marsili M, V.R F (2006) Phenomenological models of socioeconomic network dynamics. Phys Rev E 74:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld SL (1981) The focused organization of social ties. Am J Sociol 86:1015–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster DV, Foster JG, Grassberger P, Paczuski M (2011) Clustering drives assortativity and community structure in ensembles of networks. Phys Rev E 84:066117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.066117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankl P (1995) Extremal set systems. Handb Comb 2:1293–1330

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Génois M, Barrat A (2018) Can co-location be used as a proxy for face-to-face contacts? EPJ Data Sci 7(1):2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould RV, Fernandez RM (1989) Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol Methodol 19:89–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grindrod P, Higham DJ, Parsons MC (2012) Bistability through triadic closure. Internet Math 8(4):402–423

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher A (2002) Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Holland PW, Leinhardt S (1978) An omnibus test for social structure using triads. Sociol Methods Res 7:227–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holme P (2015) Modern temporal network theory: a colloquium. Eur Phys J B Condens Matter Complex Syst 88(9):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holme P, Saramäki J (2012) Temporal networks. Phys Rep 519(3):97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacopini I, Petri G, Barrat A, Latora V (2019) Simplicial models of social contagion. Nat Commun 10:2485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kas M, Carley K, Carley R (2012) Trends in science networks: understanding structures and statistics of scientific networks. Soc Netw Anal Min 2:169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovanen L, Karsai M, Kaski K, Kertész J, Saramki J (2011) Temporal motifs in time-dependent networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 2011(11):2–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D (1994) Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p 89112

  • Krivitsky PN, Handcock MS (2014) A separable model for dynamic networks. J R Stat Soc Ser B 76(1):29–46

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kumpula JM, Onnela JP, Saramäki J, Kaski K, Kertész J (2007) Emergence of communities in weighted networks. Phys Rev Lett 99:228701. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.228701

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kunegis J, Blattner M, Moser C (2013) Preferential attachment in online networks: Measurement and explanations. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference (WebSci ’13), pp 205–214

  • Leskovec J, Backstrom L, Kumar R, Tomkins A (2008) Microscopic evolution of social networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 462–470

  • Mantzaris AV, Higham DJ (2013) Infering and calibrating triadic closure in a dynamic network. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsili M, Vega-Redondo F, Slanina F (2004) The rise and fall of a networked society: a formal model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(6):1439–1442

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislove A, Koppula HS, Gummadi KP, Druschel P, Bhattacharjee B (2008) Growth of the flickr social network. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on online social networks (WOSN ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 25–30

  • Newman MEJ (2001) Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys Rev E 64:025102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M, Watts D, Strogatz S (2002) Random graph models of social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:2566–2572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ, Park J (2003) Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys Rev E 68:036122. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.68.036122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overgoor J, Benson AR, Ugander J (2018) Choosing to grow a graph: modeling network formation as discrete choice. CoRR arXiv:abs/1811.05008

  • Paranjape A, Benson AR, Leskovec J (2017) Motifs in temporal networks. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pp 601–610

  • Ross SM (2006) Introduction to probability models, 9th edn. Academic Press Inc, Orlando, FL, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz C, Atzmueller M, Stumme G (2014) Predictability of evolving contacts and triadic closure in human face-to-face proximity networks. Soc Netw Anal Min. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014-0217-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel G, Wolff KH (1950) The sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders TAB (1996) Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. J Math Sociol 21(12):149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol Methodol 31:361–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuma NB, Hallinan MT (1979) The effects of sex, race and achievement on schoolchildrens friendships. Soc Forces 57:1265–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Wickramarathne T, Chawla N (2016) Representing higher order dependencies in networks. Comput Res Repos 2(5):e1600028. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600028

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a STSM Grant from COST Action COSTNET CA15109.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rūta Užupytė.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Starting values for Newton–Raphson

Suppose that \(\varDelta t\) is the time interval between two observations. Then, the probability that links disappear during time \(\varDelta t\) is given by

$$\begin{aligned} P(T\le \varDelta t) = 1 - \mathrm {e}^{\mu _0 \varDelta t}. \end{aligned}$$

The empirical probability can be expressed as the ratio between the number of extinguished links (\(s_{10}\)) and the total number of links (\(s_1\)):

$$\begin{aligned} {\hat{P}}(T\le \varDelta t) = \frac{s_{10}}{s_1}. \end{aligned}$$

By equating the empirical and theoretical probability, we obtain a rough estimate for parameter \(\mu\)

$$\begin{aligned} \mu _0^{(0)} = - \frac{\ln \left( 1-\frac{s_{10}}{s_1}\right) }{\varDelta t}. \end{aligned}$$

Respectively, we can show that

$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _0^{(0)} = - \frac{\ln \left( 1-\frac{s_{01}}{s_0}\right) }{\varDelta t}, \end{aligned}$$

where \(s_{01}\) denotes the number of appeared links and \(s_0\) the total number of non-links.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Užupytė, R., Wit, E.C. Test for triadic closure and triadic protection in temporal relational event data. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 10, 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-020-0632-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-020-0632-4

Keywords

Navigation