PreprintCited by 0Complex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Media and Politics

DSP: A Statistically-Principled Structural Polarization Measure

Open access
Preti, Giulia, Riondato, Matteo, Gionis, Aristides, Morales, Gianmarco De Francisci·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Social and information networks may become polarized, leading to echo chambers and political gridlock. Accurately measuring this phenomenon is a critical challenge. Existing measures often conflate genuine structural division with random topological features, yielding misleadingly high polarization scores on random networks, and failing to distinguish real-world networks from randomized null models. We introduce DSP, a Diffusion-based Structural Polarization measure designed from first principles to correct for such biases. DSP removes the arbitrary concept of 'influencers' used by the popular Random Walk Controversy (RWC) score, instead treating every node as a potential origin for a random walk. To validate our approach, we introduce a set of desirable properties for polarization measures, expressed through reference topologies with known structural properties. We show that DSP satisfies these desiderata, being near-zero for non-polarized structures such as cliques and random networks, while correctly capturing the expected polarization of reference topologies such as monochromatic-splittable networks. Our method applied to U.S. Congress datasets uncovers trends of increasing polarization in recent years. By integrating a null model into its core definition, DSP provides a reliable and interpretable diagnostic tool, highlighting the necessity of statistically-grounded metrics to analyze societal fragmentation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2512.03937

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 9

Authors
Preti, G., Riondato, M., Gionis, A., & Morales, G. D. F.
Affiliations
  • Amherst College (US)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
531-540
OpenAlex
W7129025265
Cited by
0
References
9
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CAREER, 2238693)
  • European Commission (101168951)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  • Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
structural polarization, null models, echo chambers, political polarization, United States Congress, cliques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review