  Random graph null models have found widespread application in diverse
research communities analyzing network datasets, including social, information,
and economic networks, as well as food webs, protein-protein interactions, and
neuronal networks. The most popular family of random graph null models, called
configuration models, are defined as uniform distributions over a space of
graphs with a fixed degree sequence. Commonly, properties of an empirical
network are compared to properties of an ensemble of graphs from a
configuration model in order to quantify whether empirical network properties
are meaningful or whether they are instead a common consequence of the
particular degree sequence. In this work we study the subtle but important
decisions underlying the specification of a configuration model, and
investigate the role these choices play in graph sampling procedures and a
suite of applications. We place particular emphasis on the importance of
specifying the appropriate graph labeling (stub-labeled or vertex-labeled)
under which to consider a null model, a choice that closely connects the study
of random graphs to the study of random contingency tables. We show that the
choice of graph labeling is inconsequential for studies of simple graphs, but
can have a significant impact on analyses of multigraphs or graphs with
self-loops. The importance of these choices is demonstrated through a series of
three vignettes, analyzing network datasets under many different configuration
models and observing substantial differences in study conclusions under
different models. We argue that in each case, only one of the possible
configuration models is appropriate. While our work focuses on undirected
static networks, it aims to guide the study of directed networks, dynamic
networks, and all other network contexts that are suitably studied through the
lens of random graph null models.
