IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v420y2015icp148-163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Homophyly/kinship hypothesis: Natural communities, and predicting in networks

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Angsheng
  • Li, Jiankou
  • Pan, Yicheng

Abstract

It has been a longstanding challenge to understand natural communities in real world networks. We proposed a community finding algorithm based on fitness of networks, two algorithms for prediction, accurate prediction and confirmation of keywords for papers in the citation network Arxiv HEP-TH (high energy physics theory), and the measures of internal centrality, external de-centrality, internal and external slopes to characterize the structures of communities. We implemented our algorithms on 2 citation and 5 cooperation graphs. Our experiments explored and validated a homophyly/kinship principle of real world networks. The homophyly/kinship principle includes: (1) homophyly is the natural selection in real world networks, similar to Darwin’s kinship selection in nature, (2) real world networks consist of natural communities generated by the natural selection of homophyly, (3) most individuals in a natural community share a short list of common attributes, (4) natural communities have an internal centrality (or internal heterogeneity) that a natural community has a few nodes dominating most of the individuals in the community, (5) natural communities have an external de-centrality (or external homogeneity) that external links of a natural community homogeneously distributed in different communities, and (6) natural communities of a given network have typical structures determined by the internal slopes, and have typical patterns of outgoing links determined by external slopes, etc. Our homophyly/kinship principle perfectly matches Darwin’s observation that animals from ants to people form social groups in which most individuals work for the common good, and that kinship could encourage altruistic behavior. Our homophyly/kinship principle is the network version of Darwinian theory, and builds a bridge between Darwinian evolution and network science.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Angsheng & Li, Jiankou & Pan, Yicheng, 2015. "Homophyly/kinship hypothesis: Natural communities, and predicting in networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 420(C), pages 148-163.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:420:y:2015:i:c:p:148-163
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2014.10.082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114009376
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2014.10.082?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanjeev Goyal & Marco J. van der Leij & José Luis Moraga-Gonzalez, 2006. "Economics: An Emerging Small World," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 403-432, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Angsheng & Li, Jiankou & Pan, Yicheng, 2015. "Discovering natural communities in networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 878-896.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    2. Michael E. Rose, 2022. "Small world: Narrow, wide, and long replication of Goyal, van der Leij and Moraga‐Gonzélez (JPE 2006) and a comparison of EconLit and Scopus," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 820-828, June.
    3. Tao, Qizhi & Li, Haoyu & Wu, Qun & Zhang, Ting & Zhu, Yingjun, 2019. "The dark side of board network centrality: Evidence from merger performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 215-232.
    4. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    5. De Silva, Dakshina G. & Gertsberg, Marina & Kosmopoulou, Georgia & Pownall, Rachel A.J., 2022. "Evolution of a dealer trading network and its effects on art auction prices," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. Martin Steininger & Bernd Süssmuth, 2005. "Elfenbeinligen und ihre Erfassung: Ein Kommentar und eine neuerliche Messung der Publikationstätigkeit der Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitute im deutschsprachigen Raum: 1989–2003," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(3), pages 409-420, August.
    7. Carayol, Nicolas & Roux, Pascale, 2009. "Knowledge flows and the geography of networks: A strategic model of small world formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 414-427, August.
    8. Hendrik P. Van Dalen & Arjo Klamer, 2005. "Is Science A Case of Wasteful Competition?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 395-414, July.
    9. Kostaris, Konstantinos & Andrikopoulos, Andreas, 2023. "Brokers in beneficial ownership: A network approach," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Etienne Farvaque & Frédéric Gannon, 2018. "Profiling giants: the networks and influence of Buchanan and Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 277-302, June.
    11. Goeree, Jacob K. & Riedl, Arno & Ule, Aljaz, 2009. "In search of stars: Network formation among heterogeneous agents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 445-466, November.
    12. Anderson, Katharine A., 2012. "Specialists and generalists: Equilibrium skill acquisition decisions in problem-solving populations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 463-473.
    13. Umed Temurshoev, 2008. "Who's Who in Networks. Wanted: the Key Group," Working Papers 08-08, NET Institute, revised Sep 2008.
    14. Matthias Aistleitner & Stephan Puehringer, 2023. "Biased Trade Narratives and Its Influence on Development Studies: A Multi-level Mixed-Method Approach," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(6), pages 1322-1346, December.
    15. repec:bla:germec:v:9:y:2008:i::p:431-456 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lorenzo Ductor & Bauke Visser, 2023. "Concentration of power at the editorial boards of economics journals," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 189-238, April.
    17. Simon Ek & Magnus Henrekson, 2019. "The Geography and Concentration of Authorship in the Top Five: Implications For European Economics," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 66(2), pages 215-245, May.
    18. Mohsen Javdani & Ha-Joon Chang, 2023. "Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 47(2), pages 309-339.
    19. Walter Novaes, 2007. "A Pesquisa em Economia no Brasil: Uma avaliação empírica dos conflitos entre quantidade e qualidade," Textos para discussão 553, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
    20. Nicolas Jonard & R. Cowan & B. Sanditov, 2009. "Fits and Misfits : Technological Matching and R & D Networks," DEM Discussion Paper Series 09-12, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    21. Rosamaria d’Amore & Roberto Iorio & Agnieszka Stawinoga, 2011. "Who and where are the co-authors? The relationship between institutional and geographical distance in scientific publications," Working Papers 2011.4, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:420:y:2015:i:c:p:148-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.