Error Bounds for the Network Scale-Up Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologists and social scientists have used the Network Scale-Up Method (NSUM) for over thirty years to estimate the size of a hidden sub-population within a social network. This method involves querying a subset of network nodes about the number of their neighbors belonging to the hidden sub-population. In general, NSUM assumes that the social network topology and the hidden sub-population distribution are well-behaved; hence, the NSUM estimate is close to the actual value. However, bounds on NSUM estimation errors have not been analytically proven. This paper provides analytical bounds on the error incurred by the two most popular NSUM estimators. These bounds assume that the queried nodes accurately provide their degree and the number of neighbors belonging to the hidden sub-population. Our key findings are twofold. First, we show that when an adversary designs the network and places the hidden sub-population, then the estimate can be a factor of Ω(√n) off from the real value (in a network with n nodes). Second, we also prove error bounds when the underlying network is randomly generated, showing that a small constant factor can be achieved with high probability using samples of logarithmic size O(log n). We present improved analytical bounds for Erdős-Rényi and Scale-Free networks. Our theoretical analysis is supported by an extensive set of numerical experiments designed to determine the effect of the sample size on the accuracy of the estimates in both synthetic and real networks.
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 | 0.023 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".