- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Dynamics of social interaction: Modeling the genesis of scientific collaboration

Emma R. Zajdela1,*, Kimberly Huynh2, Andy T. Wen3, Andrew L. Feig2, Richard J. Wiener2, and Daniel M. Abrams1,4,5,†

  • 1Department of Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, 60208 Illinois, USA
  • 2Research Corporation for Science Advancement, Tucson, 85712 Arizona, USA
  • 3Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, 60208 Illinois, USA
  • 4Northwestern Institute for Complex Systems, Northwestern University, Evanston, 60208 Illinois, USA
  • 5Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, 60208 Illinois, USA

  • *emmazajdela@u.northwestern.edu
  • †dmabrams@northwestern.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L042001 – Published 4 October, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L042001

Abstract

Collaboration plays a key role in physics and in the broader scientific enterprise. Here we develop a mathematical model for predicting new collaborations. We demonstrate that a simple ordinary differential equation model is a good fit to a data set that tracks collaborations resulting from four series of annual conferences on diverse scientific topics, 12 conferences in total over a period of five years. The model, inspired by the physics of catalysis, attempts to quantify the time-varying probability that any pair of individuals will initiate a new collaboration. It takes as input the pair's prior familiarity with one another as well as their pattern of interaction over time, and incorporates the effect of temporally decaying memory. This model accurately reproduces the collaborations formed across all first-year conferences in the four series and outperforms seven other candidate models. We also find evidence that prescribed interaction can lead to novel team formation, with observed collaboration probabilities increased by almost an order of magnitude. These results suggest that encounters among individual researchers at conferences, including encounters engineered by organizers, play an important role in shaping the future of science.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (37)

  1. F. Baumann, P. Lorenz-Spreen, I. M. Sokolov, and M. Starnini, Modeling Echo Chambers and Polarization Dynamics in Social Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 048301 (2020).
  2. B. Karamched, M. Stickler, W. Ott, B. Lindner, Z. P. Kilpatrick, and K. c. v. Josić, Heterogeneity Improves Speed and Accuracy in Social Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 218302 (2020).
  3. P. J. Górski, K. Bochenina, J. A. Hołyst, and R. M. D'Souza, Homophily Based on Few Attributes Can Impede Structural Balance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 078302 (2020).
  4. X. Wang, A. D. Sirianni, S. Tang, Z. Zheng, and F. Fu, Public Discourse and Social Network Echo Chambers Driven by Socio-Cognitive Biases, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041042 (2020).
  5. C. W. Lynn, L. Papadopoulos, D. D. Lee, and D. S. Bassett, Surges of Collective Human Activity Emerge from Simple Pairwise Correlations, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011022 (2019).
  6. H. Z. Brooks and M. A. Porter, A model for the influence of media on the ideology of content in online social networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023041 (2020).
  7. C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591 (2009).
  8. M. Jusup, P. Holme, K. Kanazawa, M. Takayasu, I. Romić, Z. Wang, S. Geček, T. Lipić, B. Podobnik, L. Wang, W. Luo, T. Klanjšček, J. Fan, S. Boccaletti, and M. Perc, Social physics, Phys. Rep. 948, 1 (2022).
  9. M. Perc, The social physics collective, Sci. Rep. 9, 16549 (2019).
  10. S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge, Science 316, 1036 (2007).
  11. S. Fortunato, C. T. Bergstrom, K. Börner, J. A. Evans, D. Helbing, S. Milojević, A. M. Petersen, F. Radicchi, R. Sinatra, B. Uzzi, A. Vespignani, L. Waltman, D. Wang, and A.-L. Barabási, Science of science, Science 359, eaao0185 (2018).
  12. S. Milojević, Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3984 (2014).
  13. M. Ahmadpoor and B. F. Jones, Decoding team and individual impact in science and invention, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 13885 (2019).
  14. S. Mallapaty, Paper authorship goes hyper, Nature Index (January 30, 2018).
  15. B. Uzzi, S. Mukherjee, M. Stringer, and B. Jones, Atypical combinations and scientific impact, Science 342, 468 (2013).
  16. L. Wu, D. Wang, and J. A. Evans, Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology, Nature (London) 566, 378 (2019).
  17. A. Lungeanu, Y. Huang, and N. S. Contractor, Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance, J. Informetric. 8, 59 (2014).
  18. A. Wax, L. A. DeChurch, and N. S. Contractor, Self-organizing into winning teams: Understanding the mechanisms that drive successful collaborations, Small Group Res. 48, 665 (2017).
  19. M. Klöwer, D. Hopkins, M. Allen, and J. Higham, An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19, Nature (London) 583, 356 (2020).
  20. S. Sarabipour, A. Khan, and Y. Seah, Changing scientific meetings for the better, Nature Hum. Behav. 5, 296–300 (2021).
  21. R. J. Funk and J. Owen-Smith, A dynamic network measure of technological change, Manag. Sci. 63, 791 (2017).
  22. G. Siudem, B. Żogała Siudem, A. Cena, and M. Gagolewski, Three dimensions of scientific impact, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13896 (2020).
  23. E. Vasilyeva, A. Kozlov, K. Alfaro-Bittner, D. Musatov, A. M. Raigorodskii, M. Perc, and S. Boccaletti, Multilayer representation of collaboration networks with higher-order interactions, Sci. Rep. 11, 5666 (2021).
  24. B. F. Jones, S. Wuchty, and B. Uzzi, Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science, Science 322, 1259 (2008).
  25. A. Zeng, Y. Fan, Z. Di, Y. Wang, and S. Havlin, Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research, Nature Hum. Behav. 5, 1314 (2021).
  26. R. Guimerà, B. Uzzi, J. Spiro, and L. A. N. Amaral, Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance, Science 308, 697 (2005).
  27. R. B. Freeman, I. Ganguli, and R. Murciano-Goroff, Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration, in The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2014), pp. 17–48.
  28. S. Chai and R. B. Freeman, Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery: Who confers at conferences, Strat Mgmt J 40, 2138 (2019).
  29. R. Campos, F. Leon, and B. McQuillin, Lost In the Storm: The Academic Collaborations That Went Missing In Hurricane Issac, Econ. J. 128, 995 (2018).
  30. K. J. Boudreau, T. Brady, I. Ganguli, P. Gaule, E. Guinan, A. Hollenberg, and K. R. Lakhani, A Field Experiment on Search Costs and the Formation of Scientific Collaborations, Rev. Econ. Stat. 99, 565 (2017).
  31. R. J. Wiener and S. Ronco, Scialog: The catalysis of convergence, ACS Energy Lett. 4, 1020 (2019).
  32. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L042001 for details on the nonlinear catalysis model potential, pre-conference survey, group assignments, and example interaction patterns.
  33. H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney, On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other, Ann. Math. Statist. 18, 50 (1947).
  34. F. Wilcoxon, Individual comparisons by ranking methods, Biometrics Bull. 1, 80 (1945).
  35. S. Galam, When humans interact like atoms, in Understanding Group Behavior, edited by I. E. Witte and J. Davis (Psychology Press, Milton Park, 1996), Vol. 1, pp. 293–312.
  36. H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716 (1974).
  37. E. R. Zajdela, Exploring the dynamics of team formation at conferences, shiny Web Application Framework for R (2022), https://mathemmatician.shinyapps.io/DynamicsOfConferences/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L042001– Published 4 October, 2022
  • Received 9 May 2022
  • Accepted 20 July 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation