Permutation tests for hypothesis testing with animal social data: problems and potential solutions
Abstract
O_LIPermutation tests are widely used to test null hypotheses with animal social network data, but suffer from high rates of type I and II error when the permutations do not properly simulate the intended null hypothesis. C_LIO_LITwo common types of permutations each have limitations. Pre-network (or datastream) permutations can be used to control "nuisance effects" like spatial, temporal, or sampling biases, but only when the null hypothesis assumes random social structure. Node (or node-label) permutation tests can test null hypotheses that include nonrandom social structure, but only when nuisance effects do not shape the observed network. C_LIO_LIWe demonstrate one possible solution addressing these limitations: using pre-network permutations to adjust the values for each node or edge before conducting a node permutation test. We conduct a range of simulations to estimate error rates caused by confounding effects of social or non-social structure in the raw data. C_LIO_LIRegressions on simulated datasets suggest that this "double permutation" approach is less likely to produce elevated error rates relative to using only node permutations, pre-network permutations, or node permutations with simple covariates, which all exhibit elevated type I errors under at least one set of simulated conditions. For example, in scenarios where type I error rates from pre-network permutation tests exceed 30%, the error rates from double permutation remain at 5%. C_LIO_LIThe double permutation procedure provides one potential solution to issues arising from elevated type I and type II error rates when testing null hypotheses with social network data. We also discuss alternative approaches that can provide robust inference, including fitting mixed effects models, restricted node permutations, testing multiple null hypotheses, and splitting large datasets to generate replicated networks. Finally, we highlight ways that uncertainty can be explicitly considered and carried through the analysis. C_LI
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Common datastream permutations of animal social network data are not appropriate for hypothesis testing using regression models
M. N. Weiss, D. W. Franks, … D. P. Croft·bioRxiv·Apr 29, 2020
- Common Permutation Methods in Animal Social Network Analysis Do Not Control for Non-independence
J. D. A. Hart, M. N. Weiss, … D. W. Franks·bioRxiv·Jun 4, 2021
- Spurious inference when comparing networks
D. Farine, L. M. Aplin·bioRxiv·May 2, 2019
- Calculating effect sizes in animal social network analysis
D. W. Franks, M. N. Weiss, … D. P. Croft·bioRxiv·May 8, 2020
- Reliable hypotheses testing in animal social network analyses: global index, index of interactions and residual regression
S. Sosa, C. Pasquaretta, … W. Hoppitt·bioRxiv·Dec 14, 2021
- How to make methodological decisions when inferring social networks
A. C. Ferreira, R. Covas, … D. R. Farine·bioRxiv·Aug 20, 2019