pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25872 · v1 · pith:FYC67I4Wnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · math.DS

Collective variables for homophily-driven network rewiring dynamics

S\"oren Nagel , Stefanie Winkelmann , P\'eter Koltai , Nata\v{s}a Djurdjevac Conrad , Marvin L\"ucke This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph math.DS
keywords collective variableshomophilynetwork rewiringconsensus measuretransition manifoldgraphonsreduced-order modelsadaptive networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

A consensus measure of similar-node edges captures the macro dynamics of homophily-driven network rewiring.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper identifies low-dimensional collective variables that capture the essential macroscopic behavior of stochastic network rewiring processes driven by homophily. For two representative models, the optimal collective variable is a consensus measure that quantifies the fraction of edges whose incident nodes differ by less than a certain threshold. Building on this variable, the authors construct reduced macroscopic models both via data-driven sparse regression and through an analytical derivation using graphons that produces a closed-form evolution equation. A sympathetic reader would care because the reduction turns high-dimensional stochastic network evolution into tractable low-dimensional dynamics applicable to social and neural modeling.

Core claim

For homophily-driven rewiring models, the optimal collective variable is a consensus measure quantifying the fraction of edges whose incident nodes differ by less than a certain threshold. This identification comes from the data-driven transition manifold approach, and the variable is validated by building reduced models that include a closed-form evolution equation derived analytically using graphons.

What carries the argument

Consensus measure: the fraction of edges connecting nodes whose attributes differ by less than a threshold, serving as the low-dimensional collective variable that tracks the network's macroscopic state.

If this is right

  • The full network dynamics reduce to the evolution of this single consensus measure.
  • Data-driven sparse regression yields effective macroscopic equations from observed trajectories.
  • Graphon analysis supplies an exact closed-form differential equation for the consensus measure.
  • The reduced models apply directly to the two representative homophily rewiring processes studied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same consensus variable may serve as an order parameter in related adaptive-network models such as opinion dynamics.
  • Applying the transition-manifold method to rewiring rules other than homophily could uncover analogous low-dimensional reductions.
  • The analytic validation suggests the approach can be used to derive macroscopic equations for other edge-rewiring mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The data-driven transition manifold approach accurately extracts the dominant slow dynamics from the full high-dimensional rewiring process in these models.

What would settle it

Simulate the original stochastic rewiring model and test whether the time series of the proposed consensus measure follows the closed-form graphon-derived equation; systematic deviation would falsify the identification of this CV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25872 by Marvin L\"ucke, Nata\v{s}a Djurdjevac Conrad, P\'eter Koltai, S\"oren Nagel, Stefanie Winkelmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the process state A(t) (adjacency matrix) at time t = 150 for exemplary realizations of the ergodic model with different parameters. The inlays display the corresponding network, where node colors indicate the opinion values (θ1, . . . , θN ). Opinions are drawn from a uniform distribution (left column), or a bimodal distribution (right column). Results are shown for acceptance probabilitie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the process state A(t) (adjacency matrix) at time t = 15 for exemplary realizations of the threshold model with the same initial graph (top left) and opinions (θ1, . . . , θN ) distributed in either of three ways: equidistant θi+1 − θi = 1/N (top right); or drawn from a normal distribution with mean µ = 0.5 and variance σ 2 = 0.2 (bottom left) as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The embedding of the transition manifold for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SINDy results for the training data (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the consensus measure ct given by Eq. (24) compared to E[Cr(t)] in the sparse regime, e ≤ |C|, for different initial graphs: Erd˝os-R´enyi (ER), Watts–Strogatz (WS; rewiring parameter 0.3), and a three-block stochastic block model (SBM) with uniformly distributed opinions. Dynamics for denser networks with N = 100 nodes and K = 500 edges (left). Dynamics for moderately sparse networks with N =… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the consensus measure ct given by Eq. (24) compared to E[Cr(t)] in the dense regime, e > |C|. All parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the MMD for two WS models with different rewiring parameters p1 and p2. If the bandwidth is too small (ε = K 2 ), the MMD cannot distinguish between relevant distributions (left). A good bandwidth (ε = K) resolves the space while keeping large range of MMD values (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The transition manifold embedding yields the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The transition manifold embedding as shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation of φ1 with Cr for the transition manifold shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the right-hand side of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the consensus measure ct compared to E[Cr(t)] for different initial graph topologies. All parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stochastic network rewiring processes, in which edges dynamically rewire based on fixed node attributes, are widely used in applications ranging from social dynamics to neuroscience and form an important component of adaptive network modelling. In this paper, we identify low-dimensional collective variables (CVs) that capture the essential macroscopic behavior of such time-evolving networks and enable reduced-order descriptions of their dynamics. To this end, we apply the data-driven transition manifold approach to homophily-driven rewiring models, in which edges preferentially connect nodes with similar attributes. For two representative models, we find that the optimal CV is a consensus measure quantifying the fraction of edges whose incident nodes differ by less than a certain threshold. Building on the learned CV, we construct reduced macroscopic models using a data-driven approach based on sparse regression and through an analytical derivation using graphons. The latter yields a closed-form evolution equation for the consensus measure and analytically validates the identified CV.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper applies the data-driven transition manifold approach to identify low-dimensional collective variables (CVs) for two homophily-driven stochastic network rewiring models. It reports that the optimal CV is a consensus measure (fraction of edges whose incident nodes differ by less than a threshold), then constructs reduced-order models via sparse regression on this CV and derives a closed-form evolution equation analytically using graphons, which independently validates the identified CV.

Significance. If the analytical graphon derivation holds independently of the data-driven steps, the work provides a concrete, low-dimensional macroscopic description of adaptive network dynamics that could enable reduced-order modeling across applications in social dynamics and neuroscience. The dual validation route (data-driven identification plus analytical closure) is a strength when the graphon equation is shown to be non-circular.

minor comments (3)
  1. §3.2: the threshold parameter in the consensus measure definition is introduced without explicit justification for its selection across the two models; a brief sensitivity check or derivation of its value from the attribute distribution would clarify reproducibility.
  2. Figure 4: the comparison between the sparse-regression reduced model and the graphon-derived equation would benefit from an overlay of both trajectories on the same panel with error bands, rather than separate subplots, to facilitate direct visual assessment of agreement.
  3. Notation: the symbol for the consensus measure is reused in both the data-driven and graphon sections without a clarifying remark that the same functional form is recovered; a short sentence in §4.1 would prevent reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their supportive summary, recognition of the work's significance, and recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were enumerated in the report, so we have no individual points requiring point-by-point rebuttal or revision at this stage. We will of course address any additional comments that may arise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper applies a data-driven transition manifold method to identify the consensus measure CV from simulation data of two rewiring models, then separately constructs reduced models via sparse regression on that CV and derives a closed-form evolution equation analytically using graphons. The analytical step is presented as an independent validation route that produces an equation for the identified CV rather than re-deriving the CV itself from fitted parameters or self-citations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs, no self-citation chain is invoked for uniqueness or ansatz, and the central claim rests on the separation between data-driven discovery and graphon-based analysis, which are externally falsifiable. This is the normal non-circular outcome for a paper whose macroscopic reduction is benchmarked against an independent analytical route.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities used in the models or derivations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5710 in / 1042 out tokens · 28720 ms · 2026-06-25T19:25:14.444806+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pick a nodeiuniformly at random

  2. [2]

    Select a neighborjof nodeiuniformly at random

  3. [3]

    Sample a potential new neighborj ∗ according to the rewiring probabilitiesp i→j∗ defined in Equa- tion (1)

  4. [4]

    Otherwise, this replacement is performed anyway with probabilityp∈(0,1)

    Ifj ∗ is closer toiin opinion thanj, i.e.,|θ i −θ j∗ | ≤ |θi −θ j|, the edge (i, j ∗) replaces the edge (i, j). Otherwise, this replacement is performed anyway with probabilityp∈(0,1). We model the rewiring dynamics in continuous-time from an agent-based perspective. We assume that each node executes steps 2–4 after exponentially distributed wait- ing tim...

  5. [5]

    Select a discordant edge (i, j) uniformly at random from all discordant edges

  6. [6]

    Without loss of generality, assume that nodejis selected

    Pick one of the incident nodesiorjuniformly at random for rewiring. Without loss of generality, assume that nodejis selected

  7. [7]

    Sample a new neighborj ∗ to replacejaccording to the rewiring probabilitiesp i→j∗ defined in Equa- tion (1)

  8. [8]

    Again, the continuous-time network dynamicsA(t) is driven by a Poisson process with an event rateλby con- ducting the above edge update at each event

    Replace the edge (i, j) with the edge (i, j ∗). Again, the continuous-time network dynamicsA(t) is driven by a Poisson process with an event rateλby con- ducting the above edge update at each event. LetA c :={A∈A| ∀i, j:A ij = 1⇒ |θ i −θ j| ≤r}be the set of adjacency matrices containing only concordant edges. Note thatA c is also the set of absorbing stat...

  9. [9]

    SampleA∈Auniformly at random using the Erd˝ os–R´ enyi random graph model

  10. [10]

    Sample a timetuniformly at random from the in- terval [0, T]

  11. [11]

    crowding

    Sample the anchor as the stateA(t) obtained from the trajectory started atA(0) =A. Here,Tshould be chosen large enough so that, for any initial condition,A(T) has approximately reached the stationary distribution. This method creates diverse an- chor points since it uses an unbiased uniform sample of the state spaceAand then integrates the system forward ...

    2000

  12. [12]

    The projected dynamics are captured well by the ODE in Equation (D32), in both the sparse and the dense regime, as can be seen in Figures 5 and 6 in the main text

    This yields the maximal stagnation factor S(α(c max)) = 1,(D36) resulting in a regular fixed point of the consensus dynam- ics atc= |C| e , which is approached from below. The projected dynamics are captured well by the ODE in Equation (D32), in both the sparse and the dense regime, as can be seen in Figures 5 and 6 in the main text. In the limit of very ...

  13. [13]

    Berner, T

    R. Berner, T. Gross, C. Kuehn, J. Kurths, and S. Yanchuk, Adaptive dynamical networks, Phys. Rep. 1031, 1 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Sayama, I

    H. Sayama, I. Pestov, J. Schmidt, B. J. Bush, C. Wong, J. Yamanoi, and T. Gross, Modeling complex systems with adaptive networks, Comput. Math. Appl.65, 1645 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    Zschaler, Adaptive-network models of collective dy- namics, Eur

    G. Zschaler, Adaptive-network models of collective dy- namics, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.211, 1 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    U. Kan, M. Feng, and M. A. Porter, An adaptive bounded-confidence model of opinion dynamics on net- works, J. Complex Netw.11, 415 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Kozma and A

    B. Kozma and A. Barrat, Consensus formation on adap- tive networks, Phys. Rev. E77, 016102 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    Vazquez, V

    F. Vazquez, V. M. Egu´ ıluz, and M. S. Miguel, Generic Absorbing Transition in Coevolution Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 108702 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Y. Peng, Y. Zhao, J. Dong, and J. Hu, Adaptive opin- ion dynamics over community networks when agents can- not express opinions freely, Neurocomputing618, 129123 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    J. Su, B. Liu, Q. Li, and H. Ma, Coevolution of opinions and directed adaptive networks in a social group, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    H. P. Maia, S. C. Ferreira, and M. L. Martins, Adap- tive network approach for emergence of societal bubbles, Physica A572, 125588 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Holme and M

    P. Holme and M. E. J. Newman, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions, Phys. Rev. E74, 056108 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Gross, C

    T. Gross, C. J. D. D’Lima, and B. Blasius, Epidemic dynamics on an adaptive network, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 208701 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    Topping, F

    J. Topping, F. Di Giovanni, B. P. Chamberlain, X. Dong, and M. M. Bronstein, Understanding over-squashing and bottlenecks on graphs via curvature, inInt. Conf. Learn. Represent.(2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Rubinov, O

    M. Rubinov, O. Sporns, C. van Leeuwen, and M. Breaks- pear, Symbiotic relationship between brain structure and dynamics, BMC Neurosci.10, 55 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    P. P. A. Staniczenko, O. T. Lewis, N. S. Jones, and F. Reed-Tsochas, Structural dynamics and robustness of food webs, Ecol. Lett.13, 891 (2010)

    2010

  27. [27]

    Fialkowski, S

    J. Fialkowski, S. Yanchuk, I. M. Sokolov, E. Sch¨ oll, G. A. Gottwald, and R. Berner, Heterogeneous Nu- cleation in Finite-Size Adaptive Dynamical Networks, Phys.Rev.Lett.130, 067402 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Nagel, J

    S. Nagel, J. Heitzig, and E. Sch¨ oll, Macroscopic stochas- tic model for economic cycle dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 047402 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Djurdjevac Conrad, N

    N. Djurdjevac Conrad, N. Quang Vu, and S. Nagel, Co- evolving networks for opinion and social dynamics in agent-based models, Chaos34, 093116 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Gubela, H.-y

    N. Gubela, H.-y. Kim, N. Lunchenkov, D. Stern, J. Michel, A. Nitsche, A. J. Schmidt, U. Marcus, and M. Von Kleist, Behavior change and infection induced immunity led to the decline of the 2022 mpox outbreak in berlin, Commun. Med.6, 81 (2026). 16

    2022

  31. [31]

    Rogal, Reaction coordinates in complex systems-a per- spective, Eur

    J. Rogal, Reaction coordinates in complex systems-a per- spective, Eur. Phys. J. B94, 223 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    L¨ ucke,Concentration effects and collective variables in dynamical systems on networks, Ph.D

    M. L¨ ucke,Concentration effects and collective variables in dynamical systems on networks, Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universit¨ at Berlin (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Bittracher, P

    A. Bittracher, P. Koltai, S. Klus, R. Banisch, M. Dell- nitz, and C. Sch¨ utte, Transition Manifolds of Complex Metastable Systems: Theory and Data-Driven Compu- tation of Effective Dynamics, J. Nonlinear Sci.28, 471 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    L¨ ucke, S

    M. L¨ ucke, S. Winkelmann, J. Heitzig, N. Molkenthin, and P. Koltai, Learning interpretable collective variables for spreading processes on networks, Phys. Rev. E109, L022301 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    K. Z. Khanam, G. Srivastava, and V. Mago, The ho- mophily principle in social network analysis: A survey, Multimed. Tools Appl.82, 8811 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.113, 3932 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Annals of Statistics51(2023).doi: 10.1214/22- AOS2253 45

    E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty, and R. Wu, Graphon mean field systems, Ann. Appl. Probab.33, 10.1214/22- aap1901 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1214/22- 2023

  38. [38]

    Hegselmann and U

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.5(2002)

    2002

  39. [39]

    Bittracher, S

    A. Bittracher, S. Klus, B. Hamzi, P. Koltai, and C. Sch¨ utte, Dimensionality Reduction of Complex Metastable Systems via Kernel Embeddings of Transi- tion Manifolds, J. Nonlinear Sci.31, 3 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    R. R. Coifman and S. Lafon, Diffusion maps, Appl. Com- put. Harmon. Anal. Special Issue: Diffusion Maps and Wavelets,21, 5 (2006)

    2006

  41. [41]

    N. M. Kriege, F. D. Johansson, and C. Morris, A survey on graph kernels, Appl. Netw. Sci.5, 1 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Morris, N

    C. Morris, N. M. Kriege, K. Kersting, and P. Mutzel, Faster kernels for graphs with continuous attributes via hashing, inIEEE 16th Int. Conf. Data Min. (ICDM) (2016) pp. 1095–1100

    2016

  43. [43]

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks, Nature393, 440 (1998)

    1998

  44. [44]

    Demirel, F

    G. Demirel, F. Vazquez, G. A. B¨ ohme, and T. Gross, Moment-closure approximations for discrete adaptive networks, Physica D Evolving Dynamical Networks,267, 68 (2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    S. Song, Y. Feng, W. Xu, H.-J. Li, and Z. Wang, Evo- lutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on signed networks based on structural balance theory, Chaos Solitons Frac- tals164, 112706 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    I. Z. Kiss, J. C. Miller, and P. L. Simon,Mathematics of Epidemics on Networks, Interdisciplinary Applied Math- ematics, Vol. 46 (Cham, 2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    M. A. Gkogkas and C. Kuehn, Graphop mean-field limits for kuramoto-type models, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Sys.21, 248 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Lov´ asz and B

    L. Lov´ asz and B. Szegedy, Limits of dense graph se- quences, J. Comb. Theory Ser. B96, 933 (2006)

    2006

  49. [49]

    Borgs, J

    C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, L. Lov´ asz, V. T. S´ os, and K. Vesztergombi, Convergent sequences of dense graphs II. Multiway cuts and statistical physics, Ann. Math. 176, 151 (2012)

    2012