Posts by vtraag@mastodon.online
(DIR) Post #APcc2k9g6auTuoouDg by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-15T07:53:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
De recente migratie van Twitter gebruikers naar #Mastodon opent mogelijkheden om onze sociale media gezonder te maken. Zonder centrale autoriteit die alles beslist, kunnen in dit #decentrale systeem individuele gemeenschappen zelf beslissen hoe die sociale media eruit zou moeten zien. Maar dat is niet genoeg, beargumenteer ik hier. https://www.volkskrant.nl/cs-bcc96a9d
(DIR) Post #APtkVwLPvoiKMWtN4a by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T13:43:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jacomyma @jboy @tiago In general, I would tend to agree with @tiago that we could be more careful about inference. Having said that, the purported mechanism in an SBM *only* concerns graph generation, not any process that takes place on top of it. In the prototypical example of @tiago, in the random graph (bottom-right), there might well be an opinion formation process, leading to an outcome where node's opinions would cluster, as can be seen in the "community" network (bottom-left).
(DIR) Post #APtkVx4REQj6c9xKFM by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T13:45:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jacomyma @jboy @tiago to make matters more complicated, typically, in most social systems, processes take place simultaneously (i.e. processes *on* graphs and graph generation processes). This is how I would interpret the comment by @jboy that it is almost never accounted for by a single mechanism. In such cases, the results from a particular clustering algorithm might be informative, even if there is no clear inference about the graph generation process.
(DIR) Post #APtkVxgiw5LqWtrtvE by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T13:47:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jacomyma @jboy @tiago at the same time, as said, we could be more careful about our inference. This would mean trying to be more specific about graph generation processes versus graph dynamical processes. In many cases, such inferences are doomed to fail however (e.g. general confounding between homophily and social influence), but in some cases we could perhaps infer some aspects of certain processes.
(DIR) Post #APtkVyCd1Ss87qnNeS by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T13:58:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jacomyma @jboy @tiago Finally (or probably not, expecting some comments ;)), I think in many cases, people are not necessarily interested in inferring the exact process of network generation and network dynamics. For instance, in this picture by @manlius, he observes that in the bottom-right (green) group there are many complexity scientists, which seems to be interesting. https://mathstodon.xyz/@manlius/109376457129435179 I'm not sure which method he used, but that's the point, it remains interesting.
(DIR) Post #APtm5v6a7HVOtjfns0 by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T14:53:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tiago @jacomyma @jboy @manlius the limitation, I believe, is that you interpret "inferential" only with respect to the graph generation process. However, it might be equally valid to try to make inferences about dynamical processes on graphs that result in what we would consider clusters. This is different from description, and is about inference.
(DIR) Post #APtn7rDjd8ZDNpVUMS by vtraag@mastodon.online
2022-11-23T15:04:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tiago @jacomyma @jboy @manlius Yes, this is how you define it indeed. But that is exactly the problem. You limit the concept to fit (no pun intended ;) exactly the SBM model, namely that it is about the graph generative process. However, "inference" as a term understood by most people will not be limited to the graph generation process.