Upload
hoangdung
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Hierarchical Models for Social Networks
Tracy M. Sweet University of Maryland
Innovative Assessment Collaboration November 4, 2014
Acknowledgements � Program for Interdisciplinary Education Research (PIER) supported by IES Predoctoral
Interdisciplinary Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences Grant R305B040063
� Hierarchical Network Models for Education Research supported by IES Statistical and Research Methodology in Education Grant R305D12004
1
Outline
1
2
3
Motivation
Estimation of Node/Dyad Attributes Effect of Teaching the Same Grade with HLSM
Estimation of Network Attributes Effect of Network Covariate with HMMSBM
2
Motivation Social Networks in Education Independent network replications
�I
�I
Teacher networks within schools (Frank et al., 2004; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2012; Weinbaum et al., 2008)
Student networks within classes/schools (Gest and Rodkin, 2011; Harris et al., 2008)
3
�
�
�
�
Motivation
Social Networks in Education Independent network replications
Teacher networks within schools (Frank et al., 2004; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2012; Weinbaum et al., 2008)
Student networks within classes/schools (Gest and Rodkin, 2011; Harris et al., 2008)
How can we accommodate multiple networks using social network models?
Modeling multiple networks simultaneously
Estimating treatment effects
3
I
I
I
I
�
�
�
Hierarchical Network Models
KK P(Y|X,Θ) = P(Yk |Xk = (X1k , . . . , XPk ), Θk = (θ1k , . . . , θQk ))
k=1
(Θ1, . . . , ΘK ) ∼ F (Θ1, . . . , ΘK |W1, . . . , WK , ψ) ,
P(Yk |Xk , Θk ) is a model for a single network Yk with covariates Xk and parameters Θk
Wk can model a variety of dependence assumptions across networks
ψ may specify additional hierarchical structure on Θ
5
I
I
I
�
�
Hierarchical Latent Space Model (HLSM)
1 2 3 4 5
12
34
5
Latent Social Space
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5 Z6
Network1
2
3
4
5
6
Level 1 logit P[Yijk = 1] = β0k + β1k Xijk − |Zik − Zjk |
Level 2 β0k ∼ N(µ0, σ0
2)
β1k ∼ N(µ1, σ12)
Xijk is a node-, tie-, or network- level covariate
Zik is the latent space position for actor i in network k
6
I
I
�
�
�
�
�
An Example Teacher Advice Network Data (Pitts and Spillane, 2009)
15 Elementary/K-8 schools
2D latent space positions
Network size of 14 - 76 teachers
Coded model fitting algorithm (MCMC) in R
Fitting the Model Level 1
logit P[Yijk = 1] = β0k + β1k Xijk − |Zik − Zjk |
Yijk = 1 if teacher i asked j for advice
Xijk = 1 if teachers i and j teach the same grade
� β1k is the effect of teaching the same grade for school k
7
I
I
I
�I
I
I
Level 1 Parameters β1: Effect of Teaching the Same Grade Separate Network Models
-10
-50
510
15
β 1
-10
-50
510
15 * * *
**2 4 6 8 10 12 14
HLSM
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-10
-50
510
15
School
β 1
8
Figure : Effect of Teaching the Same Grade
Level 2 (µ1, σ12) Effect of Teaching the Same Grade
Fitting the Model Level 1
logit P[Yijk = 1] = β0k + β1k Xijk − |Zik − Zjk |
Level 2 β0k ∼ N(µ0, σ
2 0)
β1k ∼ N(µ1, σ2 1)
µ1 is the mean effect of teaching the same grade
σ2 1 is the variance for the effect of teaching the same grade
-1 0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.3
0.6
µ1
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.15
0.30
σ12
9
I�
I�
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels
1
2
3
Models are for networks with subgroup structure
Each individual belongs to one of n groups with some probability
Probability of a tie within subgroups is much higher than between subgroups
Typical blockmodels assume each individual belongs to one subgroup
Mixed membership allows individuals to belong to multiple subgroups
10
�
�
�
�
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodel (Airoldi et al., 2008)
Yij Ber (Sij T BRji ) ∼
Sij ∼ Multi (θi )
Rji ∼ Multi (θj )
θi ∼ Dir (ξγ)
Bem ∼ Beta (aem, bem)
Bsr is the probability of a tie from group s to group r
Sij is the group membership of node i when sending a tie to person j
Rji is the group membership of node j when receiving a tie from person i
θi is the membership probability vector for person i
Small values of γ generate extreme the membership probabilities
12
I
I
I
I
111 ξ = { }, γ = 0.09 , , 3 3 3111ξ = { }, γ = 0.60, , 333
γ: the Amount of Mixed Membership
Figure : Figure :
13
Is the Amount of Mixing Related to Network Attributes?
8/15
Model Multiple Networks SimultaneouslyI Higher e�ciency in educational researchI Make multiple networks comparable
Figure: Selected 5th Grade Cognitive Friendship Networks
1 2 3
4 5 6
14
Is the Amount of Mixing Related to Network Attributes?
�
The Hierarchical Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodel with Network-level Covariates
Yijk ∼ Ber (Sijk T Bk Rjik )
Sijk ∼ Multi (θik )
Rjik ∼ Multi (θjk )
θik ∼ Dir (ξk γk )
γk = exp (β'Xk )
Bemk ∼ Beta (aemk , bemk )
ξk ∼ Dir (1)
β ∼ MVN(µ, σ2)
X = (X1, . . . , XK ) is a set of network-level covariates
15
I
�
�
�
�
�
�
Real Data Analysis with 5th Grade Friendship Networks (Gest and Rodkin, 2011)
Data:
Cognitive friendship adjacency matrices in 5th grade, 17 classrooms Average classroom size (network nodes): 20 Teacher Management
Hypothesis: Teachers with higher social management have friendship networks with less isolated subgroups
Model: 4-group HMMSBM with Network-level Covariates
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
Posterior Density: β Effect of Cognitive Facilitation
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
β
β = 0.74
Observed Cognitive Facilitation
Significantly positive β: Teachers with higher Cognitive Facilitation have friendship networks with higher probability of mixing
17
Positive Relationship between Teacher Management and Mixed Membership
CF = −0.56 CF = 0.03
CF = 0.75
18
Airoldi, E., Blei, D., Fienberg, S., and Xing, E. (2008), “Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 1981–2014.
Bradley, R. and Gart, J. (1962), “The asymptotic properties of ML estimators when sampling from associated populations,” Biometrika, 49, 205–214.
Cramer, H. (1946), Mathematical methods of statistics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Daly, A., Moolenaar, N., Bolivar, J., and Burke, P. (2010), “Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks,” Journal of educational administration, 48, 359–391.
Ennett, S. and Bauman, K. (1993), “Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: a social network analysis,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 226–236.
Espelage, D. and Low, S. (2009), “Multi-site Evaluation of Second Step: Student Success Through Prevention (Second Step SSTP) in Preventing Bullying and Sexual Violence,” CDC Grant.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., and Borman, K. (2004), “Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations Within Organizations: The Case of Computer Technology in Schools,” Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171.
Gest, S. D. and Rodkin, P. C. (2011), “Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecologies,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 288–296.
Harris, K. M., Florey, F., Tabor, J., Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., Udry, J. R., of Adolescent Health, N. L. S., et al. (2008), “Research design,” Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hoff, P. D., Raftery, A. E., and Handcock, M. S. (2002), “Latent Space Approaches to Social Network Analysis,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 1090–1098.
Krackhardt, D. and Porter, L. (1986), “The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks.” Journal of Applied Psychology; Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 50.
Lawrence, J., Sweet, T., and Junker, B. (2014), “Professional learning communities and the adoption of novel instructional practices: An evaluation of the School Reform Initiative,” IES Grant Proposal.
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., and Christakis, N. (2008), “Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook. com,” Social Networks, 30, 330–342.
Moolenaar, N., Daly, A., and Sleegers, P. (2010), “Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 623.
19
Pitts, V. and Spillane, J. (2009), “Using social network methods to study school leadership,” International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32, 185–207.
Smith, D. and White, D. (1992), “Structure and dynamics of the global economy: Network analysis of international trade 1965–1980,” Social Forces, 70, 857–893.
Snijders, T. and Nowicki, K. (1997), “Estimation and prediction for stochastic blockmodels for graphs with latent block structure,” Journal of Classification, 14, 75–100.
Spillane, J., Kim, C., and Frank, K. (2011), “Instructional Advice and Information Providing and Receiving Behavior in Elementary Schools: Exploring Tie Formation as a Building Block in Social Capital Development,” Institute for Policy Research Northwester University Working Paper Series.
Spillane, J. P. and Hopkins, M. (2013), “Organizing for instruction in education systems and school organizations: how the subject matters,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 721–747.
Spillane, J. P., Kim, C. M., and Frank, K. A. (2012), “Instructional Advice and Information Providing and Receiving Behavior in Elementary Schools Exploring Tie Formation as a Building Block in Social Capital Development,” American Educational Research Journal.
Sweet, T. M., Thomas, A. C., and Junker, B. W. (2013), “Hierarchical Network Models for Education Research: Hierarchical Latent Space Models,” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 295–318.
Wasserman, S. and Pattison, P. (1996), “Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs and p*,” Psychometrika, 61, 401–425, 10.1007/BF02294547.
Weinbaum, E., Cole, R., Weiss, M., and Supovitz, J. (2008), “Going with the flow: Communication and reform in high schools,” in The implementation gap: understanding reform in high schools, eds. Supovitz, J. and Weinbaum, E., Teachers College Press, pp. 68–102.
20
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
For More Information:
http://hnm.stat.cmu.edu or [email protected]
Current Work HLSMs for covariate effects and interventions
Power Analysis for HLSMs
Blockmodels and Mixed Membership
Other ways to incorporate covariates into blockmodels
HNMs for Mediation and Influence
Future Work Develop new models and extensions (longitudinal models)
Operating characteristics
Identifiability and estimation issues
Applications with educational data
Valued ties 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
�
�
�
HLSM for Influence 1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
logit P[Yij = 1] = βt Xij − d(Zi , Zj )
Wi = φ0Wit + φN(Z )i Wi
t + ν + Ei
Wi is the covariate for node i at time 2
φ denotes the effect of the network
Wi; is the covariate for node i at time 1
N(Z )i is the weight of the network distances
1
I
I
I
I
�
�
�
Fix Group Number in the Model across Networks
24 nodes in each network.
True γ values are the same for all networks
Fit all networks with 4-group MMSBM.
γ = 0.07 γ = 0.09 γ = 0.13
Figure : 1 Figure : 2 Figure : 3
increased by 29% increased by 44%γ = 0.07 −−−−−−−−−−→ γ = 0.09 −−−−−−−−−−→ γ = 0.13
3
I
I
I
�
Fitting the HLSM for Interventions
Fitted Model
logit P[Yijk = 1] = β0 + β1k Xijk − |Zik − Zjk | + αTk
Zik ∼ MVN
0 0
,
10 0 0 10
β0 ∼ N(0, 100)
β1k ∼ N(0, 100)
α ∼ N(0, 100)
Xijk is the indicator that teacher i and j in network k teach the same grade
Coded model fitting algorithm (MCMC) in R
4
Fitting a HLSM
logit P[Yijk = 1] =β0k + β1k X1ijk − |Zik − Zjk |, 0 a 0
Zik ∼ MVN , , i = 1, . . . , nk ,0 0 a
β0k ∼ N(µ0, σ02), k = 1, . . . , K ,
β1k ∼ N(µ1, σ12), k = 1, . . . , K ,
µ0 ∼ N(b1, b2),
µ1 ∼ N(c1, c2),
σ02 ∼ Inv − Gamma(d1, d2),
σ12 ∼ Inv − Gamma(e1, e2),
Xijk is the indicator that teacher i and j in network k teach the same grade
5
Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodels
1
2
3
Models are for networks with subgroup structure
Each individual belongs to one of n groups with some probability
Probability of a tie within subgroups is much higher than between subgroups
Typical blockmodels assume each individual belongs to one subgroup
Mixed membership allows individuals to belong to multiple subgroups
6
�
�
�
�
The Hierarchical Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodel (HMMSBM)
Yijk ∼ Bernoulli(Sijk T Bk Rjik )
Sijk ∼ Multinomial(θik , 1)
Rjik ∼ Multinomial(θjk , 1)
θik ∼ Dirichlet(λk )
Bemk ∼ Beta(aemk , bemk )
Bk [S , R] is the probability of a tie from group S to group R in network k
Sijk is the group membership of person i when sending a tie to person j
Rjik is the group membership of person j when receiving a tie from person i
θisk is the probability that person i in network k belongs to group s
Small values of λk generate extreme the membership probabilities
7
I
I
I
I
�
�
�
�
A HMMSBM for an Intervention Suppose an intervention is hypothesized to change isolated
subgroups...
P(Yijk = 1) = Bk [Sijk , Rjik ]
P(Sijk = s) = θisk
P(Rjik = r) = θjrk
θik ∼ Dirichlet(λk )
λk = λ0 + Tk (l1 − λ0)(1 − α)
Tk is treatment indicator
l1 is (1, ...1) with length equal to number of groups
α is the treatment effect
λ0 generates the control group’s membership probabilities
8
I
I
I
I
θik ∼ Dirichlet(λk )
λk = λ0 + Tk (l1 − λ0)(1 − α) −−→ −−→
λk = 0.05 + 0.45Tk
Simulated Data from 20 Networks of Size 20; α = 0.53
Control
Treatment
9
�
�
�
A HMMSBM for an Intervention
Fitted Model
Yijk ∼ Bernoulli(Bk [Sijk , Rjik ])
Sijk ∼ Multinomial(θik , 1)
Rjik ∼ Multinomial(θjk , 1)
θik ∼ Dirichlet(λk )
Beek ∼ Beta(3, 1)
Bemk ∼ Beta(1, 10) , £ = m −→
λk = λ0 + Tk ( 1 − λ0)(1 − α)
α ∼ Uniform(0, 1)
Model fit using MCMC algorithm coded in R
λ0 = 0.05
4 subgroups assumed a priori
10
I
I
I