Structural effects of network sampling coverage I: Nodes missing at random

Structural effects of network sampling coverage I: Nodes missing at random

Network measures assume a census of a well-bounded population. This level of coverage is rarely achieved in practice, however, and we have only limited information on the robustness of network measures to incomplete coverage. This paper examines the effect of node-level missingness on 4 classes of network measures: centrality, centralization, topology and homophily across a diverse sample of 12...

Distinguishing "Missing at Random"i and "Missing Completely at Randomn"

What is the difference between missing completely at random and missing at random?

The terminology describing missingness mechanisms is confusing. In particular the meaning of 'missing at random' is often misunderstood, leading researchers faced with missing data problems away from multiple imputation, a method with considerable advantages. The purpose of this article is to clarify how 'missing at random' differs from 'missing completely at random' via an imagined dialogue be...

Network structure, metadata and the prediction of missing nodes

The empirical validation of community detection methods is often based on available annotations on the nodes that serve as putative indicators of the large-scale network structure. Most often, the suitability of the annotations as topological descriptors itself is not assessed, and without this it is not possible to ultimately distinguish between actual shortcomings of the community detection a...

On Testing the Missing at Random Assumption

Most approaches to learning from incomplete data are based on the assumption that unobserved values are missing at random (mar). While the mar assumption, as such, is not testable, it can become testable in the context of other distributional assumptions, e.g. the naive Bayes assumption. In this paper we investigate a method for testing the mar assumption in the presence of other distributional...