Search results

The supplemental online material accompanying this article was not the final version. The final version is now published online. The publisher regrets the error.

To find out, we measure co-voting similarity networks in the US Senate and trace individual careers over time. Standard network visualization tools fail on dense highly clustered networks, so we used two aggregation strategies to clarify positional mobility over time. First, clusters of Senators who often vote the same way capture coalitions, and allow us to measure polarization quantitatively through modularity (Newman, 2006; Waugh et al., 2009; Poole, 2012). Second, we use role-based blockmodels (White et al., 1976) to identify role positions, identifying sets of Senators with highly similar tie patterns. Our partitioning threshold for roles is stringent, generating many roles occupied by single Senators. This combination allows us to identify movement between positions over time (specifically, we used the Kernighan–Lin improvement of a Louvain method greedy partitioning algorithm for modularity [Blondel et al., 2008], and CONCOR with an internal similarity threshold for roles; see Supplementary materials for details).

Many studies in international relations have investigated relationships between pairs of countries and the likelihood of conflict, yet none have connected the overall structure of the network of relationships between countries with the total level of international conflict. Here, we blaze a new path in the study of international conflict by introducing a measure of the overall fractionalization in the network of international relationships which we call Kantian fractionalization and demonstrating that this measure has been closely correlated with the number of new international conflicts in the following year. Moreover, we show that jointly democratic pairs of countries contribute negligibly to Kantian fractionalization, casting doubt on one of the most prominent concepts in international relations and policy prescriptions in Washington.

AbstractThe analysis of multilayer networks is among the most active areas of network science, and there are several methods to detect dense "communities" of nodes in multilayer networks. One way to define a community is as a set of nodes that trap a diffusion-like dynamical process (usually a random walk) for a long time. In this view, communities are sets of nodes that create bottlenecks to the spreading of a dynamical process on a network. We analyze the local behavior of different random walks on multiplex networks (which are multilayer networks in which different layers correspond to different types of edges) and show that they have very different bottlenecks, which correspond to rather different notions of what it means for a set of nodes to be a good community. This has direct implications for the behavior of community-detection methods that are based on these random walks.

Network theory provides a powerful tool for the representation and analysis of complex systems of interacting agents. Here, we investigate the U.S. House of Representatives network of committees and subcommittees, with committees connected according to "interlocks," or common membership. Analysis of this network reveals clearly the strong links between different committees, as well as the intrinsic hierarchical structure within the House as a whole. We show that network theory, combined with the analysis of roll-call votes using singular value decomposition, successfully uncovers political and organizational correlations between committees in the House without the need to incorporate other political information.

AbstractNetwork representations of systems from various scientific and societal domains are neither completely random nor fully regular, but instead appear to contain recurring structural features. These features tend to be shared by networks belonging to the same broad class, such as the class of social networks or the class of biological networks. Within each such class, networks describing similar systems tend to have similar features. This occurs presumably because networks representing similar systems would be expected to be generated by a shared set of domain-specific mechanisms, and it should therefore be possible to classify networks based on their features at various structural levels. Here we describe and demonstrate a new hybrid approach that combines manual selection of network features of potential interest with existing automated classification methods. In particular, selecting well-known network features that have been studied extensively in social network analysis and network science literature, and then classifying networks on the basis of these features using methods such as random forest, which is known to handle the type of feature collinearity that arises in this setting, we find that our approach is able to achieve both higher accuracy and greater interpretability in shorter computation time than other methods.

The study of networks has become a substantial interdisciplinary endeavor that encompasses myriad disciplines in the natural, social, and information sciences. Here we introduce a framework for constructing taxonomies of networks based on their structural similarities. These networks can arise from any of numerous sources: they can be empirical or synthetic, they can arise from multiple realizations of a single process (either empirical or synthetic), they can represent entirely different systems in different disciplines, etc. Because mesoscopic properties of networks are hypothesized to be important for network function, we base our comparisons on summaries of network community structures. Although we use a specific method for uncovering network communities, much of the introduced framework is independent of that choice. After introducing the framework, we apply it to construct a taxonomy for 746 networks and demonstrate that our approach usefully identifies similar networks. We also construct taxonomies within individual categories of networks, and we thereby expose nontrivial structure. For example, we create taxonomies for similarity networks constructed from both political voting data and financial data. We also construct network taxonomies to compare the social structures of 100 Facebook networks and the growth structures produced by different types of fungi.