Optimal Adaptivity of Signed-Polygon Statistics for Network Testing
Given a symmetric social network, we are interested in testing whether it has only one community or multiple communities. The desired tests should (a) accommodate severe degree heterogeneity, (b) accommodate mixed-memberships, (c) have a tractable null distribution, and (d) adapt automatically to di...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Given a symmetric social network, we are interested in testing whether it has
only one community or multiple communities. The desired tests should (a)
accommodate severe degree heterogeneity, (b) accommodate mixed-memberships, (c)
have a tractable null distribution, and (d) adapt automatically to different
levels of sparsity, and achieve the optimal phase diagram. How to find such a
test is a challenging problem.
We propose the Signed Polygon as a class of new tests. Fixing $m \geq 3$, for
each $m$-gon in the network, define a score using the centered adjacency
matrix. The sum of such scores is then the $m$-th order Signed Polygon
statistic. The Signed Triangle (SgnT) and the Signed Quadrilateral (SgnQ) are
special examples of the Signed Polygon.
We show that both the SgnT and SgnQ tests satisfy (a)-(d), and especially,
they work well for both very sparse and less sparse networks. Our proposed
tests compare favorably with the existing tests. For example, the EZ and GC
tests behave unsatisfactorily in the less sparse case and do not achieve the
optimal phase diagram. Also, many existing tests do not allow for severe
heterogeneity or mixed-memberships, and they behave unsatisfactorily in our
settings.
The analysis of the SgnT and SgnQ tests is delicate and extremely tedious,
and the main reason is that we need a unified proof that covers a wide range of
sparsity levels and a wide range of degree heterogeneity. For lower bound
theory, we use a phase transition framework, which includes the standard
minimax argument, but is more informative. The proof uses classical theorems on
matrix scaling. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.1904.09532 |