General Additive Network Effect Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the interest of business innovation, social network companies often carry out experiments to test product changes and new ideas. In such experiments, users are typically assigned to one of two experimental conditions with some outcome of interest observed and compared. In this setting, the outcome of one user may be influenced by not only the condition to which they are assigned but also the conditions of other users via their network connections. This challenges classical experimental design and analysis methodologies and requires specialized methods. We introduce the general additive network effect (GANE) model, which encompasses many existing outcome models in the literature under a unified model-based framework. The model is both interpretable and flexible in modeling the treatment effect as well as the network influence. We show that (quasi) maximum likelihood estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal for a family of model specifications. Quantities of interest such as the global treatment effect are defined and expressed as functions of the GANE model parameters, and hence inference can be carried out using likelihood theory. We further propose the “power-degree” (POW-DEG) specification of the GANE model. The performance of POW-DEG and other specifications of the GANE model are investigated via simulations. Under model misspecification, the POW-DEG specification appears to work well. Finally, we study the characteristics of good experimental designs for the POW-DEG specification. We find that graph-cluster randomization and balanced designs are not necessarily optimal for precise estimation of the global treatment effect, indicating the need for alternative design strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".