Multilevel models for taxonomic data structures

mandelbrot2.png

This post from John Cook about the hierarchy of U.S. census divisions (nation, region, division, state, county, census tract, block group, census block, household, family, person) reminded me of something that I’ve discussed before but have never really worked out, which is the construction of families of hierarchical models for taxonomic data structures.

A few ideas come into play here:

1. Taxonomic structures come up a lot in social science. Cook gives the example of geography. Two other examples are occupation and religion, each of which can be categorized in many layers. Check out the Census Bureau’s industry and occupation classifications or the many categories of religion, religious denomination, etc.

2. Hierarchical modeling. If you have a national survey of, say, 2000 people classified by county, you won’t want to just do a simple “8 schools“-style hierarchical model, because if you do that you’ll pool the small counties pretty much all the way to the national average. You’ll want to include county-level predictors. One way of doing this is to include indicators for state, division, and region: that is, a hierarchical model over the taxonomy. This would be a simple example of the “unfolding flower” structure that expands to include more model structure as more data come in, thus avoiding the problem that the usual forms of weak priors are very strong as the dimensionality of the model increases while the data remain fixed (see Section 3 of my Bayesian model-building by pure thought paper from 1996).

I think there’s a connection here to quantum mechanics, in the way that, when a system is heated, new energy levels appear.

3. Taxonomies tend to have fractal structure. Some nodes have lots of branches and lots of depth, others just stop. For example, in the taxonomy of religious denominations, Christians can be divided into Catholics, Protestant, and others, then Protestants can be divided into mainline and evangelical, each which can be further subdivided, whereas some of the others, such as Mormons, might not be divided at all. Similarly, some index entries in a book will have lots of sub-entries and can go on for multiple columns, within which some sub-entries have many sub-sub-entries, etc., and then other entries are just one line. You get the sort of long-tailed distribution that’s characteristic of self-similar processes. Mandelbrot wrote about this back in 1955! This might be his first publication of any kind about fractals, a topic that he productively chewed on for several decades more.

My colleagues and I have worked with some taxonomic models for voting based on geography:
– Section 5 of our 2002 article on the mathematics and statistics of voting power,
– Our recent unpublished paper, How democracies polarize: A multilevel perspective.
These are sort of like spatial models or network models, but structured specifically based on a hierarchical taxonomy. Both papers have some fun math.

I think there are general principles here, or at least something more to be said on the topic.

2 thoughts on “Multilevel models for taxonomic data structures

  1. There’s a rich literature on phylogenetic Gaussian Process models in ecology and evolution for modelling trait similarity using phylogenetic similarity (see https://leanpub.com/correlateddata for a review). These models effectively use the phylogeny as the basis for a prior model of how some observed trait changes across the tree. This includes models that allow for varying rates of change in latent state across the tree (https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1813823116).

    A lot of these models can be represented as Markov Random Fields that can be generalized to any taxonomy. In the MRF form, the taxonomic model is represented as the precision matrix of a MVN prior on the outcome of interest. Each node in the taxonomy is directly connected to its parent node in the precision matrix, which acts to penalize nodes close to one another on the taxonomy closer together. It is a pretty flexible structure, because you can change the strength of penalty of the internal nodes of the taxonomy as you move up the tree (for instance, if you think that mainline and evangelical Protestants should be more strongly penalized towards one another than Protestants should be penalized toward Catholics).

    We’re working on this right now in my lab; I think it’s a very promising approach for modelling this kind of hierarchically structured data set.

  2. > nation, region, division, state, county, census tract, block group, census block, household, family, person

    the inclusion of “household, family, person” at the end is striking.

    the others have a part-whole relation and natural geometry: a block group is exhaustively partitioned by the census block groups that make it up. the nation just is a mereological fusion of its regions. the census block itself i think of as atomic in this schema.

    households are made up of persons, but they do have a relationship to a particular housing unit, which itself would be located within a census block. but still, housing units do not seem natural to me because the fusion of housing units within a block does not make a block. and anyway, there is also the 2D versus 3D thing: blocks partition the surface of teh earth, whereas housing units can stack atop each other. very different imo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *