Circular specifications and “predicting” with information from the future: Errors in the empirical SAOM–TERGM comparison of Leifeld & Cranmer

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Network Science Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1017/nws.2022.6
Per Block, James Hollway, Christoph Stadtfeld, J. Koskinen, T. Snijders
{"title":"Circular specifications and “predicting” with information from the future: Errors in the empirical SAOM–TERGM comparison of Leifeld & Cranmer","authors":"Per Block, James Hollway, Christoph Stadtfeld, J. Koskinen, T. Snijders","doi":"10.1017/nws.2022.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We review the empirical comparison of Stochastic Actor-oriented Models (SAOMs) and Temporal Exponential Random Graph Models (TERGMs) by Leifeld & Cranmer in this journal [Network Science 7(1):20–51, 2019]. When specifying their TERGM, they use exogenous nodal attributes calculated from the outcome networks’ observed degrees instead of endogenous ERGM equivalents of structural effects as used in the SAOM. This turns the modeled endogeneity into circularity and obtained results are tautological. In consequence, their out-of-sample predictions using TERGMs are based on out-of-sample information and thereby predict the future using observations from the future. Thus, their analysis rests on erroneous model specifications that invalidate the article’s conclusions. Finally, beyond these specific points, we argue that their evaluation metric—tie-level predictive accuracy—is unsuited for the task of comparing model performance.","PeriodicalId":51827,"journal":{"name":"Network Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Network Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2022.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract We review the empirical comparison of Stochastic Actor-oriented Models (SAOMs) and Temporal Exponential Random Graph Models (TERGMs) by Leifeld & Cranmer in this journal [Network Science 7(1):20–51, 2019]. When specifying their TERGM, they use exogenous nodal attributes calculated from the outcome networks’ observed degrees instead of endogenous ERGM equivalents of structural effects as used in the SAOM. This turns the modeled endogeneity into circularity and obtained results are tautological. In consequence, their out-of-sample predictions using TERGMs are based on out-of-sample information and thereby predict the future using observations from the future. Thus, their analysis rests on erroneous model specifications that invalidate the article’s conclusions. Finally, beyond these specific points, we argue that their evaluation metric—tie-level predictive accuracy—is unsuited for the task of comparing model performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
循环规范与未来信息的“预测”:Leifeld & Cranmer经验SAOM-TERGM比较中的误差
本文综述了Leifeld & Cranmer的随机因子导向模型(SAOMs)和时间指数随机图模型(TERGMs)的实证比较[网络科学7(1):20-51,2019]。在指定TERGM时,他们使用从结果网络观察到的程度计算的外源性节点属性,而不是SAOM中使用的结构效应的内源性ERGM等效物。这使得模型内生性变成了循环性,得到的结果是重复的。因此,他们使用TERGMs进行的样本外预测是基于样本外信息的,因此使用来自未来的观测来预测未来。因此,他们的分析建立在错误的模型规范之上,使文章的结论无效。最后,除了这些特定的点,我们认为他们的评估指标-领带级预测精度-不适合比较模型性能的任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Network Science
Network Science SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Network Science is an important journal for an important discipline - one using the network paradigm, focusing on actors and relational linkages, to inform research, methodology, and applications from many fields across the natural, social, engineering and informational sciences. Given growing understanding of the interconnectedness and globalization of the world, network methods are an increasingly recognized way to research aspects of modern society along with the individuals, organizations, and other actors within it. The discipline is ready for a comprehensive journal, open to papers from all relevant areas. Network Science is a defining work, shaping this discipline. The journal welcomes contributions from researchers in all areas working on network theory, methods, and data.
期刊最新文献
Guiding prevention initiatives by applying network analysis to systems maps of adverse childhood experiences and adolescent suicide The latent cognitive structures of social networks Algorithmic aspects of temporal betweenness When can networks be inferred from observed groups? Generating preferential attachment graphs via a Pólya urn with expanding colors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1