4.7 Article

Structural transition in social networks: The role of homophily

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40990-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEXT as Exploratory Challenges on Post-K computer (Studies of multi-level spatiotemporal simulation of socioeconomic phenomena)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (JSPS KAKENHI [18H03621]
  3. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2018R1D1A1A09081919]
  4. Rutherford Foundation Visiting Fellowship at The Alan Turing Institute, UK
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H03621] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We introduce a model for the formation of social networks, which takes into account the homophily or the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, and the mechanisms of global and local attachment as well as tie reinforcement due to social interactions between people. We generalize the weighted social network model such that the nodes or individuals have Ffeatures and each feature can have q different values. Here the tendency for the tie formation between two individuals due to the overlap in their features represents homophily. We find a phase transition as a function of F or q, resulting in a phase diagram. For fixed q and as a function of F the system shows two phases separated at F-c. For F < F-c large, homogeneous, and well separated communities can be identified within which the features match almost perfectly (segregated phase). When F becomes larger than Fc the nodes start to belong to several communities and within a community the features match only partially (overlapping phase). Several quantities reflect this transition, including the average degree, clustering coefficient, feature overlap, and the number of communities per node. We also make an attempt to interpret these results in terms of observations on social behavior of humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据