# Interpretation functions for ergm and btergm objects

### Description

Interpretation functions for ergm and btergm objects.

### Usage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | ```
## S4 method for signature 'ergm'
interpret(object, formula = getformula(object),
coefficients = coef(object), target = NULL, type = "tie", i, j)
## S4 method for signature 'btergm'
interpret(object, formula = getformula(object),
coefficients = coef(object), target = NULL, type = "tie", i, j,
t = 1:object@time.steps)
## S4 method for signature 'mtergm'
interpret(object, formula = getformula(object),
coefficients = coef(object), target = NULL, type = "tie", i, j,
t = 1:object@time.steps)
``` |

### Arguments

`object` |
An |

`formula` |
The formula to be used for computing probabilities. By default, the formula embedded in the model object is retrieved and used. |

`coefficients` |
The estimates on which probabilities should be based. By default, the coefficients from the model object are retrieved and used. Custom coefficients can be handed over, for example, in order to compare versions of the model where the reciprocity term is fixed at 0 versus versions of the model where the reciprocity term is left as in the empirical result. This is one of the examples described in Desmarais and Cranmer (2012). |

`target` |
The response network on which probabilities are based. Depending on whether the function is applied to an |

`type` |
If |

`i` |
A single (sender) node i or a set of (sender) nodes i. If |

`j` |
A single (receiver) node j or a set of (receiver) nodes j. If |

`t` |
A vector of (numerical) time steps for which the probabilities should be computed. This only applies to |

### Details

The `interpret`

function facilitates interpretation of ERGMs and TERGMs at the micro level via block Gibbs sampling, as described in Desmarais and Cranmer (2012). There are generic methods for `ergm`

objects, `btergm`

objects, and `mtergm`

objects. The function can be used to interpret these models at the tie or edge level, dyad level, and block level.

For example, what is the probability that two specific nodes i (the sender) and node j (the receiver) are connected given the rest of the network and given the model? Or what is the probability that any two nodes are tied at t = 2 if they were tied (or disconnected) at t = 1 (i.e., what is the amount of tie stability)? These tie- or edge-level questions can be answered if the `type = "tie"`

argument is used.

Another example: What is the probability that node i has a tie to node j but not vice-versa? Or that i and j maintain a reciprocal tie? Or that they are disconnected? How much more or less likely are i and j reciprocally connected if the `mutual`

term in the model is fixed at 0 (compared to the model that includes the estimated parameter for reciprocity)? See example below. These dyad-level questions can be answered if the `type = "dyad"`

argument is used.

Or what is the probability that a specific node i is connected to nodes j1 and j2 but not to j5 and j7? And how likely is any node i to be connected to exactly four j nodes? These node-level questions (focusing on the ties of node i or node j) can be answered by using the `type = "node"`

argument.

The typical procedure is to manually enumerate all dyads or sender-receiver-time combinations with certain properties and repeat the same thing with some alternative properties for contrasting the two groups. Then apply the `interpret`

function to the two groups of dyads and compute a measure of central tendency (e.g., mean or median) and possibly some uncertainy measure (i.e., confidence intervals) from the distribution of dyadic probabilities in each group. For example, if there is a gender attribute, one can sample male-male or female-female dyads, compute the distributions of edge probabilities for the two sets of dyads, and create boxplots or barplots with confidence intervals for the two types of dyads in order to contrast edge probabilities for male versus female same-sex dyads.

See also the edgeprob function for automatic computation of all dyadic edge probabilities.

### References

Desmarais, Bruce A. and Skyler J. Cranmer (2012):
Micro-Level Interpretation of Exponential Random Graph Models with
Application to Estuary Networks.
*The Policy Studies Journal* 40(3): 402–434.

### See Also

edgeprob btergm-package btergm timesteps.btergm

### Examples

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 | ```
##### The following example is a TERGM adaptation of the #####
##### dyad-level example provided in figure 5(c) on page #####
##### 424 of Desmarais and Cranmer (2012) in the PSJ. At #####
##### each time step, it compares dyadic probabilities #####
##### (no tie, unidirectional tie, and reciprocal tie #####
##### probability) between a fitted model and a model #####
##### where the reciprocity effect is fixed at 0 based #####
##### on 20 randomly selected dyads per time step. The #####
##### results are visualized using a grouped bar plot. #####
## Not run:
# create toy dataset and fit a model
networks <- list()
for (i in 1:3) { # create 3 random networks with 10 actors
mat <- matrix(rbinom(100, 1, 0.25), nrow = 10, ncol = 10)
diag(mat) <- 0 # loops are excluded
nw <- network(mat) # create network object
networks[[i]] <- nw # add network to the list
}
fit <- btergm(networks ~ edges + istar(2) + mutual, R = 200)
# extract coefficients and create null hypothesis vector
null <- coef(fit) # estimated coefs
null[3] <- 0 # set mutual term = 0
# sample 20 dyads per time step and compute probability ratios
probabilities <- matrix(nrow = 9, ncol = length(networks))
# nrow = 9 because three probabilities + upper and lower CIs
colnames(probabilities) <- paste("t =", 1:length(networks))
for (t in 1:length(networks)) {
d <- dim(as.matrix(networks[[t]])) # how many row and column nodes?
size <- d[1] * d[2] # size of the matrix
nw <- matrix(1:size, nrow = d[1], ncol = d[2])
nw <- nw[lower.tri(nw)] # sample only from lower triangle b/c
samp <- sample(nw, 20) # dyadic probabilities are symmetric
prob.est.00 <- numeric(0)
prob.est.01 <- numeric(0)
prob.est.11 <- numeric(0)
prob.null.00 <- numeric(0)
prob.null.01 <- numeric(0)
prob.null.11 <- numeric(0)
for (k in 1:20) {
i <- arrayInd(samp[k], d)[1, 1] # recover 'i's and 'j's from sample
j <- arrayInd(samp[k], d)[1, 2]
# run interpretation function with estimated coefs and mutual = 0:
int.est <- interpret(fit, type = "dyad", i = i, j = j, t = t)
int.null <- interpret(fit, coefficients = null, type = "dyad",
i = i, j = j, t = t)
prob.est.00 <- c(prob.est.00, int.est[[1]][1, 1])
prob.est.11 <- c(prob.est.11, int.est[[1]][2, 2])
mean.est.01 <- (int.est[[1]][1, 2] + int.est[[1]][2, 1]) / 2
prob.est.01 <- c(prob.est.01, mean.est.01)
prob.null.00 <- c(prob.null.00, int.null[[1]][1, 1])
prob.null.11 <- c(prob.null.11, int.null[[1]][2, 2])
mean.null.01 <- (int.null[[1]][1, 2] + int.null[[1]][2, 1]) / 2
prob.null.01 <- c(prob.null.01, mean.null.01)
}
prob.ratio.00 <- prob.est.00 / prob.null.00 # ratio of est. and null hyp
prob.ratio.01 <- prob.est.01 / prob.null.01
prob.ratio.11 <- prob.est.11 / prob.null.11
probabilities[1, t] <- mean(prob.ratio.00) # mean estimated 00 tie prob
probabilities[2, t] <- mean(prob.ratio.01) # mean estimated 01 tie prob
probabilities[3, t] <- mean(prob.ratio.11) # mean estimated 11 tie prob
ci.00 <- t.test(prob.ratio.00, conf.level = 0.99)$conf.int
ci.01 <- t.test(prob.ratio.01, conf.level = 0.99)$conf.int
ci.11 <- t.test(prob.ratio.11, conf.level = 0.99)$conf.int
probabilities[4, t] <- ci.00[1] # lower 00 conf. interval
probabilities[5, t] <- ci.01[1] # lower 01 conf. interval
probabilities[6, t] <- ci.11[1] # lower 11 conf. interval
probabilities[7, t] <- ci.00[2] # upper 00 conf. interval
probabilities[8, t] <- ci.01[2] # upper 01 conf. interval
probabilities[9, t] <- ci.11[2] # upper 11 conf. interval
}
# create barplots from probability ratios and CIs
require("gplots")
bp <- barplot2(probabilities[1:3, ], beside = TRUE, plot.ci = TRUE,
ci.l = probabilities[4:6, ], ci.u = probabilities[7:9, ],
col = c("tan", "tan2", "tan3"), ci.col = "grey40",
xlab = "Dyadic tie values", ylab = "Estimated Prob./Null Prob.")
mtext(1, at = bp, text = c("(0,0)", "(0,1)", "(1,1)"), line = 0, cex = 0.5)
##### The following examples illustrate the behavior of #####
##### the interpret function with undirected and/or #####
##### bipartite graphs with or without structural zeros. #####
library("statnet")
library("btergm")
# micro-level interpretation for undirected network with structural zeros
set.seed(12345)
mat <- matrix(rbinom(400, 1, 0.1), nrow = 20, ncol = 20)
mat[1, 5] <- 1
mat[10, 7] <- 1
mat[15, 3] <- 1
mat[18, 4] < 1
nw <- network(mat, directed = FALSE, bipartite = FALSE)
cv <- matrix(rnorm(400), nrow = 20, ncol = 20)
offsetmat <- matrix(rbinom(400, 1, 0.1), nrow = 20, ncol = 20)
offsetmat[1, 5] <- 1
offsetmat[10, 7] <- 1
offsetmat[15, 3] <- 1
offsetmat[18, 4] < 1
model <- ergm(nw ~ edges + kstar(2) + edgecov(cv) + offset(edgecov(offsetmat)),
offset.coef = -Inf)
summary(model)
# tie-level interpretation (note that dyad interpretation would not make any
# sense in an undirected network):
interpret(model, type = "tie", i = 1, j = 2) # 0.28 (= normal dyad)
interpret(model, type = "tie", i = 1, j = 5) # 0.00 (= structural zero)
# node-level interpretation; note the many 0 probabilities due to the
# structural zeros; also note the warning message that the probabilities may
# be slightly imprecise because -Inf needs to be approximated by some large
# negative number (-9e8):
interpret(model, type = "node", i = 1, j = 3:5)
# repeat the same exercise for a directed network
nw <- network(mat, directed = TRUE, bipartite = FALSE)
model <- ergm(nw ~ edges + istar(2) + edgecov(cv) + offset(edgecov(offsetmat)),
offset.coef = -Inf)
interpret(model, type = "tie", i = 1, j = 2) # 0.13 (= normal dyad)
interpret(model, type = "tie", i = 1, j = 5) # 0.00 (= structural zero)
interpret(model, type = "dyad", i = 1, j = 2) # results for normal dyad
interpret(model, type = "dyad", i = 1, j = 5) # results for i->j struct. zero
interpret(model, type = "node", i = 1, j = 3:5)
# micro-level interpretation for bipartite graph with structural zeros
set.seed(12345)
mat <- matrix(rbinom(200, 1, 0.1), nrow = 20, ncol = 10)
mat[1, 5] <- 1
mat[10, 7] <- 1
mat[15, 3] <- 1
mat[18, 4] < 1
nw <- network(mat, directed = FALSE, bipartite = TRUE)
cv <- matrix(rnorm(200), nrow = 20, ncol = 10) # some covariate
offsetmat <- matrix(rbinom(200, 1, 0.1), nrow = 20, ncol = 10)
offsetmat[1, 5] <- 1
offsetmat[10, 7] <- 1
offsetmat[15, 3] <- 1
offsetmat[18, 4] < 1
model <- ergm(nw ~ edges + b1star(2) + edgecov(cv)
+ offset(edgecov(offsetmat)), offset.coef = -Inf)
summary(model)
# tie-level interpretation; note the index for the second mode starts with 21
interpret(model, type = "tie", i = 1, j = 21)
# dyad-level interpretation does not make sense because network is undirected;
# node-level interpretation prints warning due to structural zeros, but
# computes the correct probabilities (though slightly imprecise because -Inf
# is approximated by some small number:
interpret(model, type = "node", i = 1, j = 21:25)
# compute all dyadic probabilities
dyads <- edgeprob(model)
dyads
## End(Not run)
``` |