---
abstract: 'EC paper authors form a complex network of co-authorship which is, by itself, an example of an evolving system with its own rules, concept of fitness, and patterns of attachment. In this paper we explore the network of authors of evolutionary computation papers found in a major bibliographic database. We examine its macroscopic properties, and compare it with other co-authorship networks; the EC co-authorship network yields results in the same ballpark as other networks, but exhibits some distinctive patterns in terms of internal cohesion. We also try to find some hints on what makes an author a sociometric star. Finally, the role of proceeding editorship as the origin of long-range links in the co-authorship network is studied as well. [**Keywords**]{}: Evolutionary computation, sociometric studies, complex networks, scale-free networks, power laws, co-authorship networks.'
author:
- |
    [**Carlos Cotta**]{}\
    [ccottap@lcc.uma.es]{}\
    Dept. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computación,\
    University of Málaga, Spain,\
    \
    [**Juan-Julián Merelo**]{}\
    [jj@merelo.net]{}\
    Dept. Arquitectura y Tecnología de Computadores,\
    University of Granada, Spain
bibliography:
- 'coauthorship.bib'
title: '**The Complex Network of Evolutionary Computation Authors: an Initial Study**'
---

Introduction
============

The study of all kind of networks has undergone an accelerated expansion in the last few years, after the introduction of models for power-law [@emerg:barabasi1999] and scale-free networks [@watt98], which, in turn, has induced the study of many different phenomena under this new light. One of them have been co-authorship networks: nodes in these networks are paper authors, joined by edges if they have written at least a paper in common. Even as most papers are written by a few authors staying at the same institution, science is a global business nowadays, and lots of papers are co-authored by scientists continents apart from each other. There are several interesting facts that can be computed on these co-authorship networks: first, what kind of macroscopic values they yield, and second, which are the most outstanding *actors* (authors) and edges (co-authorships) within this network. A better understanding of the structure of the network and what makes some nodes stand out goes beyond mere curiosity to give us some insight on the deep workings of science, what makes an author popular, or some co-authors preferred over others.

Co-authorship networks are studied within the field of sociometry, and, in the case at hand, scientometry. First studies date back to the second half of the nineties: Kretschmer [@kretschmer97] studied the [*invisible colleges*]{} of physics, finding that their behavior was not much different to other collaboration networks, such as co-starring networks in movies. However, it was at the beginning of this century when Newman [@newman01a; @newman01b] studied co-authorship networks as complex networks, giving the first estimations of their overall shape and macroscopic properties. In general, these kind of networks are both small worlds [@watt98], that is, there is, on average, a short distance between any two scientists taken at random, and scale free, which means they follow a power law [@emerg:barabasi1999] in several node properties (e.g., the in-degree, or number of nodes linking a particular one) . Newman made measurements on networks from several disciplines: physics, medicine and computer science, showing results for clustering coefficients (related to transitivity in co-authorship networks), and mean and maximum distances (which gives an idea of the shape of the network). Barabási and collaborators [@barabasi02] later proved that the scale free structure of these co-authorship networks can be attributed to preferential attachment: authors that have been more time in business publish more papers on average, and thus get more new links than new authors. However, even as this model satisfactorily explains the overall structure of the network, there must be much more in the author positions in the network than just having been there for more time. In addition to these general works, several studies have also focused in particular scientific communities: computer support of cooperative work [@horn2004], psychology and philosophy [@psy2003], chemistry [@chem2004], SIGMOD authors [@SIGMOD2003] and sociology [@moody04], to name a few.

In this work, we analyze the co-authorship network of evolutionary computation researchers. Studying this network gives us a better understanding of its cohesiveness as a discipline, and sheds some light on the collaboration patterns of the community. It also provides interesting hints about who are the central actors in the network, and what determines their prominency in the area.

Materials and Methods {#sec:mm}
=====================

The bibliographical data used for the construction of the scientific-collaboration network in EC has been gathered from the DBLP[^1] –*Digital Bibliography & Library Project*– computer Science bibliography server, maintained by Michael Ley at the University of Trier. This database provides bibliographic information on major computer science journals and proceedings, comprising more than 610,000 articles and several thousand computer scientists (as of March 2005).

The database provides bibliographical data indexed by author and by conference/journal. This turns out to be one of its advantages since, for example, the URL of the page containing the information for a certain author can be used as identifying key for that author. To some extent this alleviates one of the problems typically found in this kind of studies, namely the fact that a single author may report his/her name differently on different papers (e.g., using the first name or just initials, including a middle name or not, etc.)[^2]. Of course, this kind of situation is still possible in this database, and indeed we have found some instances of it. However, it seems that the maintainers of the database have put some care in avoiding this issue.

Besides this indexing issue, the DBLP exhibits two additional advantages. Firstly, it is a “moderated” database, meaning that it is not updated via authors’ submitting their references. On the contrary, the maintainers add themselves new entries by inspecting published volumes, or incorporate full BibTeX collections provided by publishers or editors. This eliminates a potential source of bias in the sample of publications, i.e., some authors being very active in submitting their bibliographical entries while other being less proactive in this sense. Finally, the second additional advantage is the fact that DBLP pages are highly structured and regular. Hence they are very amenable for automated parsing by a scraping program. In particular, hyperlinks are provided for every co-author of a paper, making navigation through the database very easy.

The process to obtain the raw data is the following: our scraping robot is firstly fed with a collection of DBLP author keys, stored in a stack. Subsequently, while this stack is not empty, a key is extracted from it, and the corresponding HTML page is downloaded. Then, it is parsed to extract the textual name of the author, and the papers he/she has authored. For each of these papers, the hyperlinks of co-authors are identified, and added to the stack (cycles are avoided by keeping track of processed authors using an ordered binary tree). An important issue to be taken into account is the fact that we are interested in obtaining a network for the EC community. However, an EC author may also publish articles in other fields; hence, we cannot blindly parse all entries in a certain page since non-EC papers (and later on, non-EC authors) would be included in the network. To avoid this, we have used a double check: firstly we look for certain patterns in the publication reference. These include the acronyms of EC-specific conferences –such as GECCO, PPSN, EuroGP, etc.– or keywords –such as “Evolutionary Computation”, “Genetic Programming”, etc.– that account for the relevant journals and/or additional conferences. Papers with any of these strings in its publication reference are directly classified as EC papers and parsed as described above. If this criterion is not fulfilled, then the title is scanned in order to detect another set of relevant keywords such as “evolutionary algorithm”, “genetic algorithm”, etc., or acronyms such as “EA”, “GA” or “GP”. Again, if a paper triggers this criterion, it is classified as an EC paper and processed accordingly. It must be noted that this system has turned out to be rather accurate in detecting EC papers. Actually, the visual inspection of the resulting network indicated that only a small fraction of false positives (well below 1% of the total number of papers) passed the filters. These were mostly computational biology papers, and were readily removed from the network.

As a final consideration, we have chosen a large representative sample of authors as the seed of our search robot. To be precise, we have used a collection composed of all authors that have published at least one paper in the last five years in any of the following large EC conferences: GECCO, PPSN, EuroGP, EvoCOP, and EvoWorkshops (unfortunately, CEC is not indexed in the DBLP; however, this does not alter the macroscopic properties of the network, as it will be shown below). This way, the immense majority of active EC researchers is guaranteed to be included in the sample. Actually, active authors not publishing in these fora are in practice linked –directly or indirectly– with all likelihood with authors who do publish in them. Just as an indication, the number of authors used as seed is 2,536 whereas the final number of authors in the network is 5,492, that is, more than twice as many.

Macroscopic Network Properties {#sec:macro}
==============================

The overall characteristics of the EC co-authorship network are shown in Table \[tab:todo\] alongside with results obtained by Newman [@newman01a]. The latter correspond to co-authorship networks in Medline (biomedical research), the Physics E-print Archive and SPIRES (several areas of physics and high-energy physics respectively), and NCSTRL (several areas of computer science).

  ----------------------------- ------- --------- --------- -------- -------- --
                                  EC     Medline   Physics   SPIRES   NCSTRL  
  total papers                   6199    2163923    98502    66652    13169   
  total authors                  5492    1520251    52909    56627    11994   
  mean papers per author          2.9      6.4       5.1      11.6     2.6    
  mean authors per paper         2.56     3.75      2.53      8.96     2.22   
  collaborators per author        4.2     18.1       9.7     173.0     3.6    
  size of the giant component    3686    1395693    44337    49002     6396   
       as a percentage           67.1%    92.6%     85.4%    88.7%    57.2%   
  2nd largest component           36       49        18        69       42    
  clustering coefficient         0.798    0.066     0.43     0.726    0.496   
  mean distance                   6.1      4.6       5.9      4.0      9.7    
  diameter (maximum distance)     18       24        20        19       31    
  ----------------------------- ------- --------- --------- -------- -------- --

  : Summary of results of the analysis of five scientific collaboration networks.\[tab:todo\]

6.5cm 6.5cm

First of all, the number of EC papers and authors is much smaller than those for the communities studied by Newman; however, it must be taken into account that these communities are much more general and comprise different subareas. Notice also that in most aspects, EC data seems closer to the NCSTRL database than to any other. This indicates that despite the interdisciplinary nature of EC, the publication practices of this area are in general those of computer science. This way, average scientific productivity per author (2.9) is not so high as in physics (5.1, 11.6) and biomedicine (6.4). It nevertheless follows quite well Lotka’s Law of Scientific Productivity [@lotka26], as shown by the power law distribution illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (left). The most interesting feature is the [*long tail*]{}: while most authors appear only once in the database, there are quite a few that have authored dozens of papers.

The average size of collaborations (2.56) is also smaller than in biomedical research (3.75) or high-energy physics (8.96), although similar to those of average physicists (2.53), and slightly superior to average computer scientists (2.22). It also follows a power law (up from 3 authors) as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (right). Notice the peak in the tail of the distribution, caused by the large collaborations implied by proceedings. Their role will be examined in Sect. \[sec:sociometric\_stars\]

Relevant considerations can be also done regarding the total number of collaborators per author (4.2); physics and biomedicine are areas in which new collaborations seem more likely than in EC (9.7, 173.0, and 18.1). However, the figure for NCSTRL (3.6) is lower than for EC, thus suggesting that the EC author is indeed open to new collaborations, as regarded from a computer science perspective. The histogram of number of collaborators per authors (not shown) also fits quite well to a power law with exponent -2.58. In this case, this power law can be attributed to a model of preferential attachment such as the one proposed by Barabási [@barabasi02]: *new* authors tend to link (be co-authors) of those that have published extensively before. However, as we pointed out before, that cannot be the whole story. For starters, information on who is the most prolific author is not usually available (although educated guesses can go a long way), and, besides, there are strong constraints that avoid free linking: a person can only tutor so many PhD students at the same time, for instance, and not everybody is ready, or able, to move to the university of the professor she wants to work with. However, let us point out that actors with many links do not necessarily coincide with the most prolific; they are rather persons that have diverse interests, reflected in their choice or co-authors, participate in transnational projects, or have a certain wanderlust, being visiting professors in many different institutions, which leads them to co-author papers with their sponsors or hosts in those institutions. The fact that the clustering coefficient (that is, the average fraction of an actor’s collaborators that are collaborators themselves) in the EC co-authorship networks is so high, and the mean degree of separation is so close to the proverbial six degrees, means that in general all authors in this field are no more than 6 degrees of separation of those *sociometric stars* with a wide variety of interests, projects or visits. These sociometric stars will be analyzed more in depth in next section.

Another interesting aspect refers to the so-called *giant component*. This is a connected subset of vertices whose size encompass most of the network. The remaining vertices group in components of much smaller size (actually, independent of the total size of the network). As pointed out in [@newman01a], the existence of this giant component is a healthy sign, for it shows that most of the community is connected via collaboration, and hence by person-to-person contact ultimately. In the case of the EC network, the giant component comprises more than 2/3 of the network (see Fig. \[fig:fig2\]), again superior to the computer science network, but significantly smaller than for physics or biomedicine. This fact is nevertheless counteracted by the high clustering coefficient (actually the highest of the set). This indicates a much closer contact among actors, since one’s collaborators are very likely to collaborate among themselves too. It is also significant that the mean distance among actors is halfway between the medical/physics communities (around 4) and the computer science community (around 9), while diameter is the second-smallest. This shows that the EC community is halfway between computer science and more theoretical fields, such as physics.

Evolutionary Computation Sociometric Stars {#sec:sociometric_stars}
==========================================

In the previous section we have considered global collaboration patterns that can be inferred from macroscopic properties of the network. Let us know take a closer look at the fine detail of the network structure. More precisely, we are going to identify which actors play a more prominent role in the network, and analyze why they are important. The term *centrality* is used to denote this prominency status for a certain node.

Centrality can be measured in multiple ways. We are going to focus on metrics based on geodesics, i.e., the shortest paths between actors in the network. These geodesics constitute a very interesting source of information: the shortest path between two actors defines a “referral chain” of intermediate scientists through whom contact may be established – cf. [@newman01b]. It also provides a sequence of research topics (recall that common interests exist between adjacent links of this chain, as defined by the co-authored papers) that may suggest future joint works.

The first geodesic-based centrality measure that we are going to analyze is *betweenness* [@freeman77], i.e., the total number of geodesics between any two actors $i,j$ that passes through a third actor $k$. The rationale behind this measure lies in the information flow between actors: when a joint paper is written, the authors exchange lots of information (research ideas, unpublished results, etc.) which can in turn be transmitted (at least to some extent) to their colleagues in other papers, and so on. Hence, actors with high betweenness are in some sense “hubs” that control this information flow; they are recipients –and emitters– of huge amounts of cutting-edge knowledge; furthermore, their removal from the network would result in the increase of geodesic distances among a large number of actors [@wassermanFaust94].

The second centrality measure we are going to consider is precisely based on this geodesic distance. Intuitively, the length of the shortest path indicates the number of steps that research ideas (and in general, all kind of memes) require to jump from one actor to another. Hence, scientists whose average distance to other scientists is small are likely to be the first to learn new information, and information originating with them will reach others quicker than information originating with other sources. Average distance (i.e., *closeness*) is thus a measure of centrality of an actor in terms of their access to information.

  ----- --------------- ---- -- --------------- ------- -- --------------- -------
                                                                           
  1.    K. Deb            98    K. Deb            19.06    K. Deb            28.60
  2.    D.E. Goldberg     75    D.E. Goldberg     14.24    W. Banzhaf        27.28
  3.    R. Poli           67    D. Corne          10.23    D.E. Golberg      26.87
  4.    M. Schoenauer     62    X. Yao             7.90    R. Poli           26.86
  5.    W. Banzhaf        58    W. Banzhaf         7.70    H.-G. Beyer       26.55
  6.    D. Corne          56    H. de Garis        6.92    P.L. Lanzi        26.50
  7.    X. Yao            56    R. Poli            6.86    D. Corne          25.93
  8.    J.A. Foster       54    J.J. Merelo        6.50    M. Schoenauer     25.73
  9.    J.J. Merelo       53    H. Iba             6.48    E.K. Burke        25.62
  10.   J.F. Miller       51    M. Schoenauer      6.33    D.B. Fogel        25.54
  ----- --------------- ---- -- --------------- ------- -- --------------- -------

  : Most central actors in the EC network. D. E. Goldberg, author of one of the most famous books on EC, figures prominently in all rankings, as well as Kalyanmoy Deb, who is a well known author in theoretical EC and multi-objective optimization. The rest of the authors are well known as conference organizers, or as leaders of some subfields within EC. The three columns show rankings for three quantities: number of co-authors, and two centrality measures: betweenness and closeness.

\[tab:centrality\_1\]

6.5cm 6.5cm

The result of our centrality analysis of the EC network is shown in Table \[tab:centrality\_1\]. The numbers provided for each actor indicate the normalized values of betweenness and closeness (that is, their actual values divided by the maximum possible value, expressed as a percentage). Regarding betweenness, the analysis provides clear winners, with large numerical differences among the top actors. These differences are not so marked for closeness values with all top actors clustered in a short interval. Notice that there are some actors that appear in both top-lists. Using Milgram’s terminology [@milgram67], these constitute the *sociometric superstars* of the EC field.

Several factors are responsible for the prominent status of these actors. Obviously, scientific excellence is one of them. This excellence is difficult to measure in absolute, objective terms, but the number of collaborators provides some hints on it[^3]. This quantity is shown for the top ten actors in the network in Table \[tab:centrality\_1\]. Certainly, some correlation between degree and centrality is evident. This is further illustrated in Fig. \[fig:distance\] (left). As it can be seen, there is a trend of decreasing average distance to other actors as the actor degree increases. By crossing this information with the percentile distribution of distances shown in Fig. \[fig:distance\] (right) we can obtain some interesting facts about the collaborative strength of elite scientists. For example, consider the top 5% percentile; it is composed of actors whose average distance to the remaining actors is at most 4.61. According to Fig. \[fig:distance\] (left), 23 collaborators are required at least to have an average distance below this value. A more sensitive analysis indicates that 33 collaborators are required to have an statistically significant (using a standard t-test) result.

7.2cm

Another important factor influencing the particular ranking shown above is the presence of conference proceedings among authors’ publications. These play a central role in the creation and structure of the network, to the point that its features change dramatically if links arising from proceedings co-authorship are removed. To begin with, the visual aspect of the network is different, as is shown in the left hand side of Fig. \[fig:noproc\] (compare it to the network with proceedings included, shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). The reader should notice that the core is much more diffuse (actually, it looks like there are several micro-cores, plausibly corresponding to different EC subareas).

This change is also reflected in the right hand side of Fig. \[fig:noproc\], which plots the histogram of average distances from each node to the rest of the network: without proceedings, the average distance and maximum distance increase by 2 units, and the modal distance increases by 3 units. The resulting distribution is also much more symmetric than the original distribution, which was notably skewed towards low values. This can be explained by the very distinctive *authoring* (in property, *editing*) patterns of proceedings: they are usually edited by a larger number of researchers, typically corresponding to the different thematic areas included in the conference or symposium. These are often senior researchers, with a prominent position in their subareas (thus, centrality and proceeding editorship reinforce each other). Furthermore, the fact that editors come from different areas contribute to the creation of long-distance links, resulting in a dramatic overall decrease of inter-actor distances.

  ----- ---------------- ---- -- ---------------- ------- -- ---------------- -------
                                                                              
  1.    D.E. Goldberg      63    D.E. Goldberg      22.68    Z. Michalewicz     20.21
  2.    K. Deb             55    K. Deb             20.04    K. Deb             20.05
  3.    M. Schoenauer      52    M. Schoenauer      12.68    M. Schoenauer      19.89
  4.    X. Yao             42    H. de Garis        12.62    A.E. Eiben         19.77
  5.    H. de Garis        41    Z. Michalewicz     12.58    B. Paechter        19.70
  6.    T. Higuchi         40    T. Bäck            10.31    D.E. Goldberg      19.64
  7.    Z. Michalewicz     40    R.E. Smith          9.46    T. Bäck            18.70
  8.    L.D. Whitley       39    X. Yao              9.07    D.B. Fogel         18.59
  9.    M. Dorigo          38    A.E. Eiben          8.61    J.J. Merelo        18.52
  10.   J.J. Merelo        38    B. Paechter         8.05    T.C. Fogarty       18.50
  ----- ---------------- ---- -- ---------------- ------- -- ---------------- -------

  : Most central actors in the EC network after removing proceedings.

\[tab:noprocs\]

Although proceeding editorship is certainly a scientific activity, and constitutes a valuable contribution to the community, putting them at the same level of research papers is arguable at the very least. It thus seems reasonable to exclude proceedings from the network to obtain a more unbiased figure of centrality. We have done this, obtaining the results shown in Table \[tab:noprocs\]. As it can be seen, there is now a higher agreement between the two centrality measures (7/10 are the same, vs. 6/10 before). Furthermore, researchers of unquestionable scientific excellence who were not in the previous ranking do appear now. For example, Z. Michalewicz, author of several excellent EC books, is now the author with the highest closeness, the 5th-highest betweeness, and the 7th-highest number of collaborators. Overall, this may provide a more objective view on the central actors of our field.

Discussion and Conclusion
=========================

In this paper, we have made a preliminary study of the co-authorship network in the field of evolutionary computation, paving the way to study the impact of certain measures, such as grants, the establishment of scientific societies or new conferences, has on the subject. The general features of the network suggest that it is quite similar to the field it can be better placed, computer science, but, at the same time, authors are much more closely related with each other. We have also taken into account the impact co-editorship of proceedings have on the overall aspect of the network and most centrality measures. To the best of our knowledge, this issue had not been considered in previous related works, and we believe it plays an important role in distorting some network properties. We suggest to not consider them in the future in this kind of studies.

In connection to this latter issue, we believe that co-authorship networks created by different kind of papers (technical reports, conference papers, journal papers) might be different owing to the different kind of collaboration they imply. Consider that while technical reports may be written in a hurry and present very preliminary results, conference papers are usually somewhat more long term, and journal papers really indicate a committed scientific relationship (due to the long time they take to be published and the several iterations of the revision process). The authors suggest to approach them separately and analyze the features of the networks they yield.

In addition to this, our future lines of work along this topic will include the analysis of the network evolution through time, as well as the impact funded scientific networks and transnational grants (such as EU grants) have had on it. We also plan to study the existence of *invisible colleges* or communities within the EC field, and analyze which their axes of development are, e.g., topical or regional.

[^1]: `http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/\simley/db/`

[^2]: A second kind of problem is possible: having two different authors with exactly the same name. We are not aware of any glaring instance of this duplicity in the EC community.

[^3]: This quantity is strongly correlated with the number of papers ($\rho=.82$), and thus provides information on the efficiency in knowledge transmission, which is the ultimate goal of scientific publishing. Involvement in PhD supervision and research projects, and wide research interests will typically result in a higher number of collaborators as well.
