A Mechanistic Model of Human Network Recall

Recently, Omodei, Brashears, and Arenas published a paper about describing a mechanistic model of human network recall and demonstrate its sufficiency for capturing human recall behavior based on experimental data. They found that human recall is based on accurate recall of a hub of high degree actors and also uses compression heuristics (i.e., schemata simplifying the encoding and recall of social information) for both structural and affective information.

The original paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17385-z

Continue Reading

The Social Bow Tie

A recent study investigated a new way to identify the strength of ties. Using two different large datasets, the researchers found that for each pair of individuals, a bow tie structure of the network itself is strongly associated with the strength of ties between them that the researchers measure in other ways.

The abstract of the paper is as follows: Understanding tie strength in social networks, and the factors that influence it, have received much attention in a myriad of disciplines for decades. Several models incorporating indicators of tie strength have been proposed and used to quantify relationships in social networks, and a standard set of structural network metrics have been applied to predominantly online social media sites to predict tie strength. Here, we introduce the concept of the “social bow tie” framework, a small subgraph of the network that consists of a collection of nodes and ties that surround a tie of interest, forming a topological structure that resembles a bow tie. We also define several intuitive and interpretable metrics that quantify properties of the bow tie. We use random forests and regression models to predict categorical and continuous measures of tie strength from different properties of the bow tie, including nodal attributes. We also investigate what aspects of the bow tie are most predictive of tie strength in two distinct social networks: a collection of 75 rural villages in India and a nationwide call network of European mobile phone users. Our results indicate several of the bow tie metrics are highly predictive of tie strength, and we find the more the social circles of two individuals overlap, the stronger their tie, consistent with previous findings. However, we also find that the more tightly-knit their non-overlapping social circles, the weaker the tie. This new finding complements our current understanding of what drives the strength of ties in social networks.

A link to the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.04177

A link to a news article for the paper: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609146/how-close-are-you-really/

Continue Reading

How does network structure influence the wisdom of crowds?

Researchers at Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania recently published a paper about “Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds” in PNAS. They conducted an online network experiment where participants were asked to estimate numeric quantity (e.g., the caloric content) and tested how the accuracy of group estimates changes in different communication networks. They found that in decentralized networks, the group estimates were improved and in centralized networks, the accuracy of group estimates was undermined.

Read the full article here.

Continue Reading

Bad bots do good: Random artificial intelligence helps people coordinate

“To figure out whether random AI can help people coordinate, Hirokazu Shirado, a sociologist and systems engineer, and Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician, both at Yale University, asked volunteers to play a simple online game. Each person controlled one node among 20 in a network. The nodes were colored green, orange, or purple, and people could change their node color at any time. The goal was for no two adjacent nodes to share the same color, but players could see only their color and the colors of the nodes to which they were connected, so sometimes settling conflicts with neighbors raised unseen conflicts between those neighbors and their neighbors. If the network achieved the goal before the 5-minute time limit was up, all players in the network received extra payment. The researchers recruited 4000 players and placed them in 230 randomly generated networks.
Some of the networks had 20 people controlling the nodes, but others had three of the most central or well-connected nodes already colored in such a way that they fit one of the solutions. (Each network had multiple solutions.) And some of the networks had 17 people and three bots, or simple AI programs, in charge of the nodes. In some networks, the bot-controlled nodes were placed centrally, in some they were placed peripherally, and in some they were placed randomly. The bots also varied in how much noise, or randomness, influenced their choice of node color. In some networks, every 1.5 seconds the bots picked whatever color differed from the greatest number of neighbors—generally a good strategy among people playing the game. In some networks, they followed this strategy, but 10% of the time they would pick randomly. And in some networks, they would pick randomly 30% of the time.
All of the networks with bots performed the same as the networks with 20 people, except for one type. The networks in which the bots were placed centrally and randomized their decisions 10% of the time outperformed the all-human networks. They solved the coordination game within the time limit more frequently (85% versus 67% of the time). And the median time spent on the task was 103 seconds versus 232 seconds, a significant difference, the researchers report today in Nature. The fact that bots with 0% noise or 30% noise did not outperform humans means that there’s a Goldilocks zone of randomness.
What’s more, the bot-aided networks performed just as well as the networks that already had a head start—those with three nodes preset to fit a solution. But whereas the set-color networks required top-down control, the noisy bots achieved equal results with just a bit of local randomness. “We get the same bang,” Christakis says. “To me that was a beautiful result.””
Continue Reading