Fariba Karimi

Mauritz N. Cartier van Dissel, Tomáš Lintner, Samuel Martin-Gutierrez et al.

Three theories offer competing predictions about how people respond to growing diversity in their social environment. Contact theory suggests more exposure to out-groups reduces prejudice; conflict theory predicts a stronger in-group preference; structural opportunity theory argues that shifts in behaviour only reflect changes in the opportunity structure rather than in underlying preference. We test these predictions using friendship and rejection nominations from nearly 5,000 students in 228 classrooms, across gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. We estimate individual preference using a multilevel model based on the Wallenius hypergeometric distribution, which accounts for the finite, asymmetric pool of potential ties. Results show that for ethnicity and socio-economic status, preferences are largely unaffected by classroom composition. For gender, however, same-gender preference strengthens as the out-group increases, supporting conflict theory. This means greater diversity does not necessarily change the intrinsic preference of students toward out-group peers, but creates more opportunities for cross-group interactions.

Fariba Karimi, Marcos Oliveira, Markus Strohmaier

In this chapter, we provide an overview of recent advances in data-driven and theory-informed complex models of social networks and their potential in understanding societal inequalities and marginalization. We focus on inequalities arising from networks and network-based algorithms and how they affect minorities. In particular, we examine how homophily and mixing biases shape large and small social networks, influence perception of minorities, and affect collaboration patterns. We also discuss dynamical processes on and of networks and the formation of norms and health inequalities. Additionally, we argue that network modeling is paramount for unveiling the effect of ranking and social recommendation algorithms on the visibility of minorities. Finally, we highlight the key challenges and future opportunities in this emerging research topic.

Jan Bachmann, Lisette Espín-Noboa, Gerardo Iñiguez et al.

Science is a collaborative endeavor in which "who collaborates with whom" profoundly influences scientists' career trajectories and success. Despite its relevance, little is known about how scholars facilitate new collaborations among their peers. In this study, we quantify brokerage in academia and study its effect on the careers of physicists worldwide. We find that early-career participation in brokerage increases later-stage involvement for all researchers, with increasing participation rates and greater career impact among more successful scientists. This cumulative advantage process suggests that brokerage contributes to the unequal distribution of success in academia. Surprisingly, this affects both women and men equally, despite women being more junior in all brokerage roles and lagging behind men's participation due to their late and slow arrival to physics. Because of its cumulative nature, promoting brokerage opportunities to early career scientists might help reduce the inequalities in academic success.

Jan Bachmann, Samuel Martin-Gutierrez, Lisette Espín-Noboa et al.

Inequalities in social networks arise from linking mechanisms, such as preferential attachment (connecting to popular nodes), homophily (connecting to similar others), and triadic closure (connecting through mutual contacts). While preferential attachment mainly drives degree inequality and homophily drives segregation, their three-way interaction remains understudied. This gap limits our understanding of how network inequalities emerge. Here, we introduce PATCH, a network growth model combining the three mechanisms to understand how they create disparities among two groups in synthetic networks. Extensive simulations confirm that homophily and preferential attachment increase segregation and degree inequalities, while triadic closure has countervailing effects: conditional on the other mechanisms, it amplifies population-wide degree inequality while reducing segregation and between-group degree disparities. We demonstrate PATCH's explanatory potential on fifty years of Physics and Computer Science collaboration and citation networks exhibiting persistent gender disparities. PATCH accounts for these gender disparities with the joint presence of preferential attachment, moderate gender homophily, and varying levels of triadic closure. By connecting mechanisms to observed inequalities, PATCH shows how their interplay sustains group disparities and provides a framework for designing interventions that promote more equitable social networks.

Siamak Ghodsi, Amjad Seyedi, Tai Le Quy et al.

Fair graph clustering seeks partitions that respect network structure while maintaining proportional representation across sensitive groups, with applications spanning community detection, team formation, resource allocation, and social network analysis. Many existing approaches enforce rigid constraints or rely on multi-stage pipelines (e.g., spectral embedding followed by $k$-means), limiting trade-off control, interpretability, and scalability. We introduce \emph{DFNMF}, an end-to-end deep nonnegative tri-factorization tailored to graphs that directly optimizes cluster assignments with a soft statistical-parity regularizer. A single parameter $λ$ tunes the fairness--utility balance, while nonnegativity yields parts-based factors and transparent soft memberships. The optimization uses sparse-friendly alternating updates and scales near-linearly with the number of edges. Across synthetic and real networks, DFNMF achieves substantially higher group balance at comparable modularity, often dominating state-of-the-art baselines on the Pareto front. The code is available at https://github.com/SiamakGhodsi/DFNMF.git.

Daniele Barolo, Chiara Valentin, Fariba Karimi et al.

This paper evaluates the performance of six open-weight LLMs (llama3-8b, llama3.1-8b, gemma2-9b, mixtral-8x7b, llama3-70b, llama3.1-70b) in recommending experts in physics across five tasks: top-k experts by field, influential scientists by discipline, epoch, seniority, and scholar counterparts. The evaluation examines consistency, factuality, and biases related to gender, ethnicity, academic popularity, and scholar similarity. Using ground-truth data from the American Physical Society and OpenAlex, we establish scholarly benchmarks by comparing model outputs to real-world academic records. Our analysis reveals inconsistencies and biases across all models. mixtral-8x7b produces the most stable outputs, while llama3.1-70b shows the highest variability. Many models exhibit duplication, and some, particularly gemma2-9b and llama3.1-8b, struggle with formatting errors. LLMs generally recommend real scientists, but accuracy drops in field-, epoch-, and seniority-specific queries, consistently favoring senior scholars. Representation biases persist, replicating gender imbalances (reflecting male predominance), under-representing Asian scientists, and over-representing White scholars. Despite some diversity in institutional and collaboration networks, models favor highly cited and productive scholars, reinforcing the rich-getricher effect while offering limited geographical representation. These findings highlight the need to improve LLMs for more reliable and equitable scholarly recommendations.