arXiv++ Combinatorics

Triadic closure has been conceptualized and measured in a variety of ways, most famously the clustering coefficient. Existing extensions to affiliation networks, however, are sensitive to repeat group attendance, which manifests in bipartite models as biclique proliferation. Whereas this sensitivity does not reflect common interpretations of triadic closure in social networks, this paper proposes a measure of triadic closure in affiliation networks designed to control for it. To avoid arbitrariness, the paper introduces a triadic framework for affiliation networks, within which a range of measures can be defined; it then presents a set of basic axioms that suffice to narrow this range to the one measure. An instrumental assessment compares the proposed and two existing measures for reliability, validity, redundancy, and practicality. All three measures then take part in an investigation of three empirical social networks, which illustrates their differences.

The S-metric has grown popular in network studies, as a measure of ``scale-freeness'' restricted to the collection G(D) of connected graphs with a common degree sequence D=(d_1,\ldots,d_n). The calculation of S depends on the maximum possible degree assortativity r among graphs in G(D). The original method involves a heuristic construction of a maximally assortative graph g*. The approximation by Beichl and Cloteaux involves constructing a possibly disconnected graph g' with r(g') >= r(g*) and requires O(n^2) tests for the graphicality of a degree sequence. The present paper uses the Tripathi-Vijay test to streamline this approximation, and thereby to investigate two collections of graphs: Barabasi-Albert trees and coauthorship graphs of mathematical sciences researchers. Long-term trends in the coauthorship graphs are discussed, and contextualized by insights derived from the BA trees. It is known that greater degree-based preferential attachment produces greater variance in degree sequences, and these trees exhibited assortativities restricted to a narrow band. In contrast, variance in degree rose over time in the coauthorship graphs in spite of weakening degree-based preferential attachment. These observations and their implications are discussed and avenues of future work are suggested.