Node-level community detection within edge exchangeable models for interaction processes
Extracted source text · arXiv 2208.08539
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amsmath,amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{changepage}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
%\usepackage[demo]{graphicx}
% \usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{biblatex}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{standalone, tikz}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usetikzlibrary{topaths, calc, trees, positioning, arrows, shapes, shapes.multipart, shadows, matrix, decorations.pathreplacing, decorations.pathmorphing,backgrounds}
\addbibresource{main.bib}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
}
% start local defns
\def\I{\mathcal{I}}
\def\P{\mathcal{P}}
\def\pr{\text{pr}}
\def\Nat{\mathbb{N}}
\def\B{\mathcal{B}}
\def\H{\mathcal{H}}
\def\bfy{\mathbf{y}}
\def\bfY{\mathbf{Y}}
\def\bfS{\mathbf{S}}
\def\fin{\text{fin}}
% end local defns
\usepackage{setspace}
\doublespacing
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{xr}
% Keywords command
\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\small
\textbf{\textit{Keywords---}} #1
}
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\rom}[1]{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral #1@}
\makeatother
\newcommand{\walt}[1]{\textcolor{red}{[\textit{WD: #1}]}}
%%% HELPER CODE FOR DEALING WITH EXTERNAL REFERENCES
%\usepackage{xr}
%\makeatletter
%\newcommand*{\addFileDependency}[1]{
% \typeout{(#1)}
% \@addtofilelist{#1}
% \IfFileExists{#1}{}{\typeout{No file #1.}}
%}
%\makeatother
%\newcommand*{\myexternaldocument}[1]{
% \externaldocument{#1}
% \addFileDependency{#1.tex}
% \addFileDependency{#1.aux}
%}
%%% END HELPER CODE
%\myexternaldocument{BEEM-supplementary}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{assm}[thm]{Assumption}
\newtheorem{defn}[thm]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[thm]{Example}
\newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{rmk}[thm]{Remark}%\endlocaldefs
%\listfiles
\author{
Zhang, Yuhua\\
\texttt{zyuhua@umich.edu}
\and
Dempsey, Walter\\
\texttt{wdem@umich.edu}
}
\title{Node-level community detection within edge exchangeable models for interaction processes}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Scientists are increasingly interested in discovering community structure from modern relational data arising on large-scale social networks.
While many methods have been proposed for learning community structure, few account for the fact that these modern networks arise from processes of interactions in the population.
% such as user post and comment exchanges.
We introduce block edge exchangeable models (BEEM) for the study of interaction networks with latent node-level community structure.
The block vertex components model (B-VCM) is derived as a canonical example. Several theoretical and practical advantages over traditional vertex-centric approaches are highlighted.
In particular, BEEMs allow for sparse degree structure and power-law degree distributions within communities.
Our theoretical analysis bounds the misspecification rate of block assignments, while supporting simulations show the properties of the network can be recovered.
A computationally tractable Gibbs algorithm is derived.
We demonstrate the proposed model using post-comment interaction data from Talklife, a large-scale online peer-to-peer support network, and contrast the learned communities from those using standard algorithms including spectral clustering and degree-correct stochastic block models.
\noindent \keywords{Large-scale Sparse Network, Edge Exchangeable Model, Community Detection, Interaction Process, Power-law Degree Distribution}
\end{abstract}
%\section{Abstract}
%Health scientists are increasingly interested in understanding the relationship between interaction process and health outcomes,
%To serve the purpose of provide better supports to certain population, an important question in statistical network analysis is how to detect the community structures underlying these interactions. On the other hand, the properties of the network themselves have been largely ignored. For example, the sparsity and the power-law properties are properties that are frequently observed in real-life networks, but have not been emphasized much in the previous works. In this paper, we propose a new model incorporating these two properties into detecting the community structures. Our proposed model infers the cluster assignments of the nodes in the sparse network, as well as estimates the power-law parameters within each cluster. We show the misspecification rate of our model can be bounded and demonstrate it with simulated data. Besides, the power-law properties of the network can be retrieved. The proposed method is illustrated using Talklife data, which is mental health-related large-scale online peer supporting network.\\
\section{Introduction}
%Para 1. Introduction of mobile health data. And why it is important to solve the problem.
The WorldWideWeb, social media, and technological innovation allow people from around the world to easily interact across geographical, cultural and economic boundaries. Among its many benefits, increased connectivity enhances information flow, promotes community building, and facilitates the formation of support systems for individuals struggling with illness and addiction.
% Network data are gaining attentions these days. Such data can be collected in many different forms, aiming for different study purposes.
In this paper, we focus on network data arising from sequences of interactions collected on social media platforms such as peer-to-peer support networks.
%Scientists are primarily interested in improving peer support by understanding these digital interactions \cite{fortuna2020digital}.
Network data arising from such sequences naturally fit within models that treat the interaction as the statistical unit~\cite{crane2021sts} rather than the users. Such networks often exhibit node-level community structure, i.e., an individual is more likely to comment on a post by someone from the same community.
% Edge-exchangeable models were introduced as a natural framework for statistical analysis of interaction data~\cite{crane2016edge}. While an attractive theoretical framework, the set of current edge exchangeable models do not allow for node-level latent communities.
% In suicide research, for example, social support has been shown to be a preventative factor for future suicidal ideation \cite{kleiman2013social}.
% To further und goals, this paper focuses on discovery of latent community structure.
Though there has been much progress on community detection, the current algorithms and models in the network literature do not account for the fact that many modern networks arise from processes of interactions. Edge exchangeable models~\cite{crane2016edge} are built specifically to analyze datasets containing these complex interactions. Current models within the edge exchangeable framework can capture both global and local sparsity and power-law behavior~\cite{dempsey2021hierarchical}. While edge exchangeability is attractive as a theoretical framework, the set of current edge exchangeable models is inadequate to account for latent node-level communities which are common in modern network data.
% Meanwhile, it also incorporated the power-law structure and the sparsity of the network into the estimation of the network properties.
%
Motivated by the important fact that most common complex networks constructed from interaction data exhibit latent node-level community behavior,
% The current set of edge exchangeable models focus mainly on the inference of the statistics of the network, but doesn't consider the community structure.
we propose a new class of models in this paper, which extends the edge exchangeable framework to allow for community structure while permitting power-law degree and sparsity. Our main objective is the consistent identification of node-level latent communities as well as accurate estimates of the power-law parameters within each community.
% \walt{Need 3 paragraphs: p1: general $\to$ interaction data, p2: community detection is important, p3: this paper allows for community detection in interaction data}
\subsection{Relevant Prior Work}
%Para 2. The proposed methods that can be used to the analysis. What are the problems.
A popular model class for community detection is the class of stochastic block models (SBMs) \cite{holland1983stochastic}. The simplest version of the SBM assumes vertices within the same block have the same probability of forming an edge (i.e., interact) with other vertices, and within-block interactions are more likely than between-block interactions. Many associated methods have been proposed. These include but are not limited to spectral clustering based methods (\cite{rohe2011spectral}, \cite{chin2015stochastic}), Bayesian methods (\cite{van2018bayesian}, \cite{morup2012bayesian}), and pseudo-likelihood based methods (\cite{amini2013pseudo}, \cite{strauss1990pseudolikelihood}). The stochastic block model was later generalized to the degree-corrected stochastic block model (DC-SBM) \cite{karrer2011stochastic}, which allows for vertex degree heterogeneity. Theoretical guarantees of community recovery have been well established \cite{gao2018community, amini2013pseudo, zhao2012consistency}.
%Para 3. The contribution of this paper.
Prior literature has demonstrated empirical power law degree distribution in many communication and social networks~\cite{adamic2001search}. That is, such networks contain a few high degree nodes and many low degree nodes. This network feature may be exploited when performing community detection. Recent work has extended the SBM to account for power-law degree distributions within each community \cite{qiao2018adapting}.
Though SBM and the DC-SBM have been successfully applied in many situations, these approaches do not account for the fact that many modern networks arise from processes of interactions and are therefore ill-suited for network data arising in these settings. This is illustrated empirically via case study in Section~\ref{sec:Talklife}.
% \subsection{Motivation}
% Though much progress has been made, the SBM and its extensions do not account for the fact that many modern networks arise from processes of interactions. Edge exchangeable models~\cite{crane2016edge} are built specifically to analyze datasets containing these complex interactions. Current models within the edge exchangeable framework can now capture both global and local sparsity and power-law~\cite{dempsey2021hierarchical}. While edge exchangeability is attractive as a theoretical framework, the set of current edge exchangeable models is inadequate to detect latent node-level communities which are common in modern network data.
% % Meanwhile, it also incorporated the power-law structure and the sparsity of the network into the estimation of the network properties.
% %
% Motivated by an important fact: most common complex networks constructed from interaction data exhibit latent community behavior,
% % The current set of edge exchangeable models focus mainly on the inference of the statistics of the network, but doesn't consider the community structure.
% we propose a new class of models in this paper, which extends the edge exchangeable framework to allow for community structure while permitting power-law degree and sparsity. Our main objective is the consistent identification of node-level latent communities as well as accurate estimates of the power-law parameters within each community.
%Part 4. The overview of the paper's structure.
\subsection{Outline and main contributions}
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We formally define network data with block structure and notation in Definition \ref{defn:blockintdata}.
\item We define, in Section~\ref{section:seqdesc}, the block vertex components models (B-VCM) - a subfamily of block edge exchangeable models that allow for node-level communities; we then prove a representation theorem for block edge exchangeable processes in Theorem~\ref{thm:repthm}.
\item We establish basic statistical properties of the B-VCM in Section~\ref{sec:property}. In particular, we show the misspecification rate of block assignments can be bounded and the sparsity and power-law of the network can be guaranteed.
\item A computationally tractable Gibbs sampling inferential algorithm is derived in Section~\ref{sec:alg}. Simulation results that support our models ability to capture power-law degree distributions and community structure are presented in Section~\ref{sec:simu}.
\item We then apply our method to a peer-to-peer mental health support network in Section~\ref{sec:Talklife}, contrasting the learned communities from those using standard algorithms including spectral clustering and degree-corrected stochastic block models.
%using the TalkLife data and the interpretation of the results.
\end{enumerate}
We end the paper with a summary of the proposed methods and implications in Section~\ref{section:discussion}. Overall this paper presents a statistically rigorous, principled framework for incorporating node-level communities into the edge exchangeability framework.
\section{Block Edge Exchangeable Model}
\subsection{Motivating Example}
Our motivating example is TalkLife, a large-scale online peer support network for mental health. Talklife's users post short text snippets to which other users can react and/or comment. Each post consists of a poster and a set of commentators. Every post is flagged using machine-learning classifiers with at least one health-related topic, e..g, Anxiety/ Panic/ Fear suspected, Body Image/ Eating Disorders suspected and so on. The platform has collected millions of interactions among its users.
A primary goal of TalkLife is to strengthen its peer support network and improve mental health outcomes for its users.
% The network is of complex structures, and viewing the entire dataset as a whole network will lead to the loss of many features of the interactions among the users.
A natural question that arises as part of this work is node-level community detection from the large-scale interaction data generated by the platform.
\subsection{Notations and Data}
\label{sec:2.2}
%The overall structure of this section:
%Def 1. the interaction data, $\mathcal{P}$ and $fin(\mathcal{P})$.
%Def 2. the block structured interaction data. $B(\cdot): \mathcal{P}\rightarrow fin(P)$
%Def 3. The equivalence class: Let $\pho$ be a relabeling of the population, such that if $B(a)=B(b)$, then $B(\rho(a))=B(\rho(b))$.\\
We start by defining block structured interaction data. Inspired by the previous work on edge exchangeability~\cite{crane2016edge}, we extend the definition of interaction data to the setting where there exists an underlying block structure. To start, we consider a simple example based on interaction data from Talklife. Recall each TalkLife post consists of a poster $s$ and a set of commentators $\{ r_1, \ldots, r_k \}$. Then a post on Talklife can be summarized by the ordered pair $\{ \{ s \}, \{ r_1, \ldots, r_k \} \} $. See Figure~\ref{Fig.3.2} for a visualization of Talklife's interaction data and its corresponding network construction. Here, posters and commentators are drawn from the same underlying population, which we denote as $\mathcal{P}$. Definition~\ref{defn:intdata} formalizes this example into a general definition of interaction data. \\
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\input{z_concep_fig_h.tex}
% \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig.3.2.PNG}
\caption{Example of interaction data with block structure collected on TalkLife (left) and the corresponding network (right).
% In this example, there are 3 posts and 8 users involved. Post 1 is posted by User a and commented on by Users b, c, and d; Post 2 is posted by User e and commented on by Users d and f; Post 3 is posted by User g and commented on by Users f and h. The first 5 users are from block 1. The subsequent 3 users are from block 2.
}
% The network is constructed by connecting User 1 to User 3, 4, and 5; User 2 to User 6 and 7; User 10 to User 8 and 9. Note that Users 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are from cluster 1, and Users 7,8,9, and 10 are from cluster 2.}
% Therefore, 4 of the interactions are from cluster 1 to cluster 1, 1 of them is from cluster 1 to cluster 2, the rest are from cluster 2 to cluster 2.}
\label{Fig.3.2}
\end{figure}
\begin{defn}[Interaction data] \normalfont
\label{defn:intdata}
For a set $\P$, let $fin(\P)$ be the set of all finite multisets of $\P$. The interaction process of $\P$ is the correspondence $\I: \Nat \rightarrow fin(\P)$ between the natural numbers and finite multisets of $\P$.
\end{defn}
Additional structure can be incorporated into Definition~\ref{defn:intdata}. In Talklife, for example, there is a single poster and multiple commentators. Definition~\ref{defn:intdata} can capture this by replacing $fin (\P)$ with $fin_1(\P) \times fin(\P)$ where $fin_1(\P)$ are sets of size one from $\P$. This generalization can also be extended into other types of interactions. See~\cite{dempsey2021hierarchical} for additional examples of these extensions.
% Note that the nodes are labeled in the order of appearance. If a new individual is chosen, that person is given the next label in the order of appearance. For example, if they are the $10$th person to be observed, they are labelled as individual $10$.
Using Figure~\ref{Fig.3.2} as an example, each interaction is represented by the user who posts and the users who comment. The users, regardless of being posters or commentators, are drawn from the population $\P \subseteq \Nat$. The interaction process is a correspondence $\I:\Nat \rightarrow fin_1(\P)\times fin(\P)$, i.e., $\I (1)=(\{a \} ,\{b,\ c,\ d\}), \I (2)=(\{e\},\{d,\ f\})$, and $\I(3)=(\{g\},\{f,\ h\})$.
Individuals who post and comment are likely to exhibit latent node-level community behavior. That is, commentators and posters form a block structure. In Figure~\ref{Fig.3.2}, for example, Users a, b, c, and d all belong to block 1, while Users f, g and h belong to block 2. Within-block interactions are more likely to be observed than between-block interactions. Note, however, that users from distinct blocks may appear within a single interaction, i.e., User f comments on a post by User e. We formalize this idea in Definition~\ref{defn:blockintdata}. \\
%%%%%% BLOCK AND CLUSTER: CHOOSE 1 (OR CLARIFY)
\begin{defn}[Block structured interaction data] \normalfont
\label{defn:blockintdata}
A \emph{K-block structure} is defined as the mapping $B: \mathcal{P}\rightarrow [K]$, i.e., for all $x\in\mathcal{P}$, $B(x)\in [K]$ is the block to which $x$ is assigned. The interaction process induced by $B$ is called the \emph{block interaction process}, which is the correspondence $\I_B:\Nat\rightarrow fin\textbf{}([K])$.
\end{defn}
In the running example shown in Figure~\ref{Fig.3.2}, $K=2$ and the interaction process induced by $B$ is $\I_B(1)=(\{1\},\{1,1,1\})$, $\I_B(2)=(\{1\},\{1,2\})$, and $\I_B(3)=(\{2\},\{2,2\})$. Note that for the pre-image $B^{-1}$, $B^{-1}(i)\cap B^{-1}(j)=\emptyset$ if $i\neq j$, and $\cup_{i=1}^K B^{-1}(i) = \P$. That is, $B$ partitions $\P$ into $K$ non-overlapping sets.
Above, interaction processes are distinct if they are defined on different populations or given distinct block structures. Here, we formally address the equivalence of networks built from two different block structured interaction processes that can be linked via a set of bijections. Let $\rho: \mathcal{P}\rightarrow \mathcal{P}^{\prime}$ be the bijection which acts on $I$ via $\rho \mathcal{I}: \mathbb{N}\rightarrow fin(\mathcal{P}^{\prime})$. That is, for $( s_1, \ldots, s_m ) \in fin (\P) $:
$$\rho \circ (s_1, \ldots, s_m) = (\rho(s_1), \ldots, \rho(s_m)) \in fin(\P^\prime) $$
The bijection also acts on the block structure~$B$ defining the map $\rho B := B \circ \rho^{-1} : \P^\prime \rightarrow fin([K])$. Consider a second block structure,~$B': \P' \rightarrow fin([K])$. Then a second bijection~$\rho': [K] \to [K]$ acts on the block interaction process $I_{B'}$ via $\rho' \mathcal{I}_{B'}: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow fin([K])$. In other words, the bijection~$\rho'$ preserves the block structure but changes the block labels. With this, the interaction-labeled network with block structure~$B$ is then the equivalence class constructed from the interaction network by quotienting out over pairs of bijections $(\rho, \rho')$ that preserve block structure:
$$\mathbf{Y}_{\mathcal{I}, B}=\bigcup_{\#\mathcal{P}^{\prime}=\#\mathcal{P}}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c c c}
\mathcal{I^{\prime}}:\Nat\rightarrow fin(\mathcal{P}^{\prime}): &
\rho \mathcal{I}=\mathcal{I}^{\prime}, &
\text{for }\rho: \mathcal{P}\rightarrow\mathcal{P}^{\prime} \\
B' : \P^\prime \rightarrow [K]: &
\rho' \mathcal{I}_{\rho B} =\mathcal{I}_{B'} &
\text{for }
\rho': [K] \rightarrow [K]
\end{array}
\right\}
$$
where $\# P$ is the cardinality of the population. Note we have only quotiented out labels of constituent elements and the blocks, so the network $\mathbf{Y}_{\mathcal{I}, B}$ still has uniquely labelled interactions with a unique node-level block structure. To avoid cumbersome notation, we often write $\mathbf{Y}$ to denote the interaction-labeled network with block structure, leaving the associated interaction process $I$ and block structure~$B$ implicit.
For any $S \subset \mathbb{N}$, we define the \emph{restriction} of the interaction process $\mathcal{I}$ to $S$ by $I_{S}$. This restriction induces a restriction of the interaction labeled network $\mathbf{Y}$ which we denote $\mathbf{Y}_{S}$. For $S = [n] = \{1,\ldots, n\}$, we simply write $I_n$ to denote the restricted structured interaction process and $\bfY_n$ to denote the corresponding structured interaction network. Moreover, we define the restriction of the interaction process to only the elements from a particular block~$b$ by $I_b$ and $\bfY_b$ to denote the corresponding structured interaction network. In our recurring example, for instance, $I_1 (2) = (\{e \}, \{ d \})$ where element $\{f\}$ is removed from~$I(2)$ as it belongs to block~$2$. This restriction is useful in defining block-specific network properties.
\subsection{Exchangeable interaction-labeled networks with block structure}
For any finite permutation $\sigma : \Nat \to \Nat$, let $\mathcal{I}^\sigma$ denote the relabeled interaction process defined by $I^\sigma (i) = I (\sigma^{-1} (i))$ and the relabeled block interaction process defined by $I_B^\sigma (i) = I_B (\sigma^{-1} (i))$ for each $i \in \Nat$. Then $y^\sigma$ denotes the corresponding interaction labeled network constructed from $I^\sigma$. Note that $\sigma$ does not impact the block structure~$B$ but does impact the block structure process~$I_{B}^\sigma$. Note that the choice of representative from the equivalence class $(I,B)$ does not matter. The interaction relabeling by $\sigma$ should not be confused with the bijections~$\rho$ and $\rho'$, which relabel constituent elements and block labels respectively.
In the remainder of the paper, we write~$\bfY$ to denote the random interaction labeled network with block structure~$B$. Interaction exchangeability is characterized by the property that the labeling of the interactions (not the constituent elements or blocks) is arbitrary. We now define block exchangeable interaction networks.
% $\mathcal{Y}$ to indicate the interaction network with edges labeled in , and $E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_m$ as the observed interactions.
% , where $E_j=(\{ S_j, C_j^{(s)}\}$, $\{ R_j, C_j^{(r)}\}),\ j\in [m]$, that is, the interaction $j$ is initiated from the sender $S_j$ of cluster $C_j^{(s)}$ and points to the receiver $R_j$ of cluster $C_j^{(r)}$.
\begin{defn}[Block exchangeable interaction networks] \normalfont
\label{defn:blockee}
A random interaction labeled network with block-structure~$\bfY$ is \emph{exchangeable} if $\bfY^\sigma =_{D} \bfY$ for all permutations $\sigma : \Nat \to \Nat$, where $=_D$ denotes \emph{equality in distribution}.
% network constructed from interactions within the same block $\mathcal{Y}_b\subset \mathcal{Y}_m$, $\in[K]$, is exchangeable if $\mathcal{Y}_b^{\sigma}=_{D}\mathcal{Y}_b$, for all permutations $\sigma:\ \mathcal{P}\rightarrow \mathcal{P}$ where $=_{D}$ denotes equality in distribution. We say an interaction process is block edge exchangeable if this definition holds for all $b\in [K]$.
\end{defn}
We say an interaction process~$I$ and its associated block interaction process~$B$ are exchangeable if its corresponding interaction labeled network is exchangeable.
% Under our model assumption, given the nodes $S_j$ and $R_j$, and the corresponding cluster labels, the interaction $E_j|S_j,R_j$ is a Bernoulli random variable, with $\mathbb{E}(E_j|S_j,R_j)$ being specified by $C_j^{(s)}$ and $C_j^{(r)}$, denoted as $\mathbb{E}(E_j|S_j,R_j)=\B(C_j^{(s)},C_j^{(r)})$, where $\B$ is a $K\times K$ propensity matrix. In the remainder of this paper, $\B(c,)$ is used to indicate the $c$th row of $\B$, $c\in[K]$.
% Let $v(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the number of vertices in the network, and $m(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the total degree of the network. We subscript $c\in[K]$ to indicate the cluster specific statistics, e.g., $m(\mathcal{Y}_{m,c})$ is the total degree of cluster $c$ in the network~$\mathcal{Y}_m$. We now give the definition of the block edge exchangeable network.\\
\subsection{Sequential description of the B-VCM model}
\label{section:seqdesc}
\noindent Here we provide a sequential description of a particular family of block exchangeable interaction processes, termed the B-VCM, assuming the block structure~$B$ is observed; see Section~\ref{sec:property} for why this name was chosen.
%, termed the C-VCM
For ease of comprehension, the process is described in the context of TalkLife posts assuming a \emph{single commentator}. Suppose $m$ posts $E_{[m]} := \{E_1,...,E_{m}\}$ have been observed along with the block assignments for each observed individual. That is, the post $j\in [m]$ is given by $E_j = (S_j, R_j)$ where $S_j \in \Nat$ is the sender and $R_j \in \Nat$ is the commentator with the associated blocks $(B (S_j), B(R_j) )$.
% Let $\mathcal{H}_{n}^{(c)}$ denote the set of unique individuals in cluster $c \in [K]$ that have either posted or commented on a post in the first $m$ interactions.
The post $E_{m+1}$ conditional on $E_{[m]}$ and the block structure~$B$ is constructed as follows. First, the sender's block assignment is drawn according to
%$$P(C^{(s)}_{m+1}=c|\pi_1,...,\pi_K)\sim \text{Multinomial}(\pi_1,...,\pi_K)$$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:clus_ass1}
P(B(S_{m+1}) = b \mid E_{[m]}; \omega_B)\propto
\begin{cases}
D_m (b) + \omega_B , & \text{if}\ b \in [K_m] \\
(K - K_m) \omega_B, & \text{if}\ b \not \in [K_m]
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where~$D_m (b) = \sum_{j=1}^m I( B(S_j) = b)$ is the number of individuals from block~$b$ that have been observed in $E_{[m]}$, $K_m \leq K$ is the number of unique blocks observed in $E_{[m]}$, and $\omega_b > 0$ is a model parameter.
% Intuitively speaking, the probability of an interaction initiating from cluster $c$ is proportional to $\pi_c$, the pre-specified propensity, such that $\sum_{c=1}^{K}\pi_c=1$.
% Eq~\eqref{eq:clus_ass} provides a sequential description of the same procedure by assuming the $\{\pi_1,..,\pi_K\}$ are generated from a symmetric Dirichlet distribution parameterized by $\eta$. Similar to picking a specific node, the clusters are ranked by the order of appearance.
Let $D_{m} (i)$ be the number of times individual $i \in \Nat$ has been observed (either as a poster or commentator) in the first $m$ interactions~$E_{[m]}$.
Similar to the Chinese Restaurant Process \cite{pitman2002combinatorial}, given parameters $0<\alpha_b<1$ and $\theta_b > -\alpha_b$ for each~$b \in [K]$, poster $S_{m+1}$ can be either chosen from one of the previously observed nodes, or an unobserved node in block $b$ with probability:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:select_prob}
P(S_{m+1} = s \mid E_{[m]}, B(S_{m+1}) = b )\propto
\begin{cases}
D_{m} (s) -\alpha_b, & \text{if}\ s \in V_m \cap B^{-1} (b) \\
\theta_b+\alpha_b \sum_{i\in V_m \cap B^{-1} (b)} D_{m} (i), & \text{if}\ s \not \in V_m, s \in B^{-1} (b)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $V_m$ is the set of the observed senders in the first $m$ interactions.
Given the sender, a similar process is used to choose the $(m+1)st$ commentator. The block assignment for $R_{m+1}$ is chosen according to:
%$$P(C_{m^*+1}^{(r)}=c'|C_{m^*+1}^{(s)}=c,\B)\sim \text{Multinomial}(\B(c,1),...,\B(c,K))$$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:clus_ass2}
P(B(R_{m+1}) = b' | B(S_{m+1})=b, E_{[m]}) \propto
\begin{cases}
D_m (b,b') + \zeta_{B} & \text{if}\ b' \in [K_{m,b}] \\
(K-K_{m,b'}) \zeta_{B}, & \text{if}\ b' \not \in [K_{n,b}]
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where~$D_m (b, b') = \sum_{j=1}^m [I( B(S_j) = b, B(R_j) = b')]$ is the number of interactions from block $b$ to block~$b'$ that have been observed in $E_{[m]}$, where $K_{m,b} \leq K$ are the number of unique blocks observed as a commentator from this block, and $\zeta_{B} > 0$ is a model parameter.
% I(C_{i}^{(s)}=c,C_{i}^{(r)}=k)$ is the count of the interactions between cluster $c$ and $k$ among $m$ interactions. Similar to the logic as described before, we assume the propensity matrix $\B(c,)$ is generated from a symmetric Dirichlet distribution parameterized by $\nu$.
% Let the set of previously observed nodes in cluster $c'$ in the first $m$ interactions be $\H_{m}^{(c')}$. Note that if $c'=c$, $\H_{m}^{(c')}=\H_{m}^{(c')}\cup \{s\}$, and $D_{m}(s,c')=D_{m}(s,c')+1$.
Finally, the receiver $R_{m+1}$ is selected with probability whose expression takes the same explicit form as that of Eq~\eqref{eq:select_prob}. Note that in the above sequential description, blocks and individuals within blocks are labelled in order of appearance.
% Let $\mathbf{C}_{m}$ denote the cluster assignments of all observed nodes in the first $m$ interactions.
Let~$\bfy_m$ denote the observed interaction-labelled network with block structure~$B$ after $m$ interactions,~$v(\bfy_b)$ denote the number of non-isolated vertices in $\bfy_m$ belonging to block~$b$, and~$m(\bfy_b)$ is the total degree of block~$b$. Then, based on the above sequential description, the probability of observing~$\bfy_m$ takes the explicit form:
%\begin{equation}
%\label{eq:jointform1}
% \begin{aligned}
%P(\mathcal{Y}_m=\mathbf{y}_m|\{\alpha_c ,\theta_c\}, \mathbf{C}_m)=&\prod_{c=1}^{K}\pi_c^{L_c}\times \prod_{j=1}^{m}P(S_j=s|{\alpha_c,\theta_c},\H_{j}^{(c)},C_{j}^{(s)}=c) \\
%&\times P(R_j=r|\alpha_{c'},\theta_{c'},\{S_j\},\H_{j}^{(c')},C_{j}^{(r)}=c')\times\prod_{c'=1}^{K} \B(c,c')^{W_m(c,c')}
%\end{aligned}
%\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jointform1}
\begin{split}
\underbrace{\frac{[K-1]_{-1}^{K_m}}{[K\omega_B]_1^{m}} \prod_{b \in [K_m]} [\omega_B]_1^{D_m(b)}}_{(\rom{1})}
&\times
\underbrace{\prod_{b \in [K_m]} \frac{[\alpha_{b}+\theta_{b}]_{\alpha_b}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}}{[\theta_{b}+1]_1^{m(\mathbf{y}_b)-1}}
\prod_{j\in v(\bfy_b)}
[1-\alpha_{b}]_1^{D_m(j)-1}}_{(\rom{2})} \\
\times
&\underbrace{\prod_{b \in [K_m]}
\frac{[K-1]_{-1}^{K_{m,b}}}{[K\zeta_B]_1^{m_b}} \prod_{b' \in [K_{m,b}]} [\zeta_B]_1^{D_m(b,b')}}_{(\rom{3})}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where for real number $x$ and $a$, and non-negative integer N, the operation on x, $[x]^{N}_a=x(x+a)...(x+(N-1)a)$. Component $(\rom{1})$ of~\eqref{eq:jointform1} is the probability of an interaction initiating from block $b$. Component $(\rom{2})$ of~\eqref{eq:jointform1} is the joint distribution of all the nodes within the each block $b$. Component $(\rom{3})$ of~\eqref{eq:jointform1} is the propensity of connection between block $b$ and $b'$. Proposition~\ref{prop:blocke2} proves the sequential description yields a block exchangeable interaction labelled network as desired.
% where $L_c$ is the number of observed interactions that are initiated from cluster $c$; $W_m(c,c')$ is the number of observed interactions from cluster $c$ to $c'$. Part $(\rom{1})$ of Eq~\eqref{eq:llk} is the probability of an interaction initiating from cluster $c$. Part $(\rom{2})$ of Eq~\eqref{eq:llk} is the joint distribution of all the nodes within the same cluster $\H_{m}^{(c)}$ which can be expressed explicitly as \cite{pitman2002combinatorial}:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:pochhammertime}
% P(\H_{m}^{(c)}|\alpha_{c},\theta_{c},\{C_m\})=\frac{[\alpha_{c}+\theta_{c}]_{\alpha_c}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{c})-1}}{[\theta_{c}+1]_1^{m(\mathbf{y}_c)-1}}\prod_{j\in \H_{m}^{(c)}}[1-\alpha_{c}]_1^{D_m(j,c)-1}
% \end{equation}
% where for real number $x$ and $a$, and non-negative integer N, the operation on x, $[x]^{N}_a=x(x+a)...(x+(N-1)a)$. Part $(\rom{3})$ of Eq~\eqref{eq:llk} is the propensity of connection between cluster $c$ and $c'$. By replacing Part(~\rom{2}) with Eq~\eqref{eq:pochhammertime}, we have:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:llk}
% P(\mathcal{Y}_m=\mathbf{y}_m|\{\alpha_c, \theta_c\}, \mathbf{C}_m)=\prod_{c=1}^{K}\pi_c^{L_c}\times
% \frac{[\alpha_{c}+\theta_{c}]_{\alpha_c}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{c})-1}}{[\theta_{c}+1]_1^{m(\mathbf{y}_c)-1}}\prod_{j\in \H_{m}^{(c)}}[1-\alpha_{c}]_1^{D_m(j,c)-1}
% \times\prod_{c'=1}^{K} \B(c,c')^{W_m(c,c')}
% \end{equation}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:blocke2}
The B-VCM with parameters $\Psi = (\omega_{B}, \{ \theta_c, \alpha_c \}, \zeta_B)$ determines a block exchangeable
interaction-labeled network for all $\Psi$ in the parameter space.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Statistical Properties}
\label{sec:property}
The B-VCM is an example of block exchangeable interaction-labeled networks. A question is whether B-VCMs represent all block exchangeable interaction labeled networks. Here, we show that this is not the case by providing a representation theorem. We focus on the setting where each interaction $(s,r)$ is either never observed or observed infinitely often, i.e.,~the ``blip-free'' setting~\cite{crane2016edge}. This setting is most relevant to the statistical applications we consider. We then leverage this representation theorem to demonstrate connections between the proposed B-VCM and the degree-corrected stochastic block model.
% Under the exchangeable assumption, we provide a formulation of the interaction process in Section~\ref{section:seqdesc} (C-VCM). It is noticeable that the formation is not unique. We show the representation theorem for block structured interaction processes. Inspired by the edge exchangeable model \cite{crane2016edge}, we focus on the "blip-free" setting of each cluster. That is, each interaction within the same cluster is either never observed or observed infinitely often.
We first define the $\fin_2([K])$-simplex, denoted $\mathcal{F}_K$, and the restricted $\fin_2(\Nat)$-simplex, denoted $\mathcal{F}_{\bar b}$ where $\bar b \in \fin ([K])$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_K:=\{(f_s)_{s\in \fin_2([K])}: f_s\ge 0\text{ and }\sum_{s\in \fin_2([K])} f_s =1\} \\
\mathcal{F}_{\bar b}:=\{(f^\prime_s)_{s\in \fin_2(\Nat)}: B(s) = \bar b, f^\prime_s \ge 0\text{ and }\sum_{s \in \fin_2(\Nat), B(s) = \bar b} f_s^\prime =1\}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let $\phi_K$ be a probability measure on $\mathcal{F}_K$ and define $f_K \sim \phi_K$ be the random variables drawn from the measure. For each $\bar b \sim f_K$, we draw~$f_{\bar b} \sim \phi_{\bar b}$ a random variable drawn from a probability measure~$\phi_{\bar b}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\bar b}$.
Each~${\bf f} := (f_K, \{ f_{\bar b} \})$ determines a distribution on finite multisets of $\mathbb{N}$ relative to the block structure~$B$ by
$$
\text{pr} ( E = (s, r) | {\bf f}; B) = f_K (b, b') \times f_{(b,b')} (s,r)
$$
where~$\bar b = (b,b')$, $B(s) = b$, and $B(r) = b'$. This determines a block interaction exchangeable network.
% Letting~$X_1, X_2, \ldots, $
% The Eq~\eqref{eq:pochhammertime} as described in the previous section can be one explicit form of $f_c$. Given $\{f_c\}$ and sets $\{S_c\}\in \mathcal{P}_c$ and $\{R_c\}\in\mathcal{P}_c$, we have the following statement.\\
%let the sequence of interactions $E_1$, $E_2$,... be generated by:
%$$P(E_j=\{S_j,R_j\}|f_c)=f_c$$
\begin{thm}[Representation Theorem]
\label{thm:repthm}
Let $\bfY$ be the interaction exchangeable network relative to block structure~$B$ that is blip-free. Then there exists probability measures $\phi_K$ on $\mathcal{F}_K$ and $\phi_{\bar b}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\bar b}$ such that $\mathcal{Y} \sim \epsilon_{\phi}$ where $\phi = (\phi_K, \{ \phi_{\bar b} \})$ and
$$
\epsilon_{\phi}(\cdot)=
\int_{\mathcal{F}_K \times \{ \mathcal{F}_{\bar b}\} } \epsilon_{(f_K, \{ f_{\bar b} \}) }(\cdot) \phi(df)
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
If $K=1$, then $f_1 (1,1) = 1$, and so we only draw $\phi_{(1,1)}$ on $\mathcal{F}_{(1,1)}$. This recovers the representation theorem for edge exchangeable networks without block structure~\cite{crane2016edge}. \end{rmk}
Theorem~\ref{thm:repthm} presents a general framework for generating interaction exchangeable networks relative to block structure~$B$. Proof can be found in Section A.4 of the supplementary materials. Using the representation theorem, the B-VCM corresponds to particular choices of distributions~$\phi_{F}$ and $\phi_{\bar b}$. Specifically, the B-VCM corresponds to the following choices: (1) the propensity of block~$b$ initiating an interaction corresponds to $\pi = (\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_K)$ chosen from the symmetric Dirichlet distribution with parameter~$(\omega_B, \ldots, \omega_B)$ on the $(K-1)$-simplex; (2) the propensity of block~$b'$ commentating on an interaction initiated by block~$b$ corresponds to $\B(b,\cdot) = (\B(b,1), \ldots, \B(b,K))$ each chosen from the symmetric Dirichlet distribution with parameter~$(\zeta, \ldots, \zeta_B)$ on the $(K-1)$-simplex; and (3) propensities per block~$b$ the propensities per block $f_b = (f_s^{(b)}))_{s \geq 1: B(s) = b}$ are chosen from the Griffiths–Engen–McCloskey (GEM) distribution with parameter $(\alpha_b, \theta_b)$ for each~$b \in [K]$. Then:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:repthme2}
P( E = (s, r) \mid \pi_b, f, \B) =
\underbrace{\left[ \pi_b \times \mathcal{B}(b,b^\prime) \right]}_{(f_K)} \times \underbrace{\left[ f_{s}^{(b)} \times f_{r}^{(b^\prime)} \right]}_{(f_{\bar b})}
\end{equation}
\begin{rmk}[Connection to Degree-corrected SBMs] \label{rmk:connectionsbm}
\normalfont
% The $f_s^{(c)}$ and $f_{r}^{(c')}$ can be interpreted as the degree parameter under the e2 framework, the value of which is determined by the power-law property. $\mathcal{B}$ determine the propensity of observing the interaction from cluster c to c'. The extra parameter in the model $\pi_c$ is the prior on the power law structure of cluster c. Note that though these two models are similar in many ways, they still have different properties. For example, the DC-SBM can be approximated through Poisson distribution. But the same approximation is not feasible in our model.
From~\eqref{eq:repthme2}, we can relate the proposed B-VCM to the degree-corrected stochastic block model (DC-SBM). The DC-SBM models adjacency matrices $A=[A_{i,j}]$ of a random graph~$G = (V,E)$. The probability of an edge between node $i$ and $j$ according to the DC-SBM is $\mathbb{E}(A_{i,j})=\theta_{i}\theta_{j} P (B(i),B(j))$. In~\eqref{eq:repthme2}, node-level parameters~$\theta_i$ are replaced by block-specific vertex propensities~$f_s^{(b)}$ and the likelihood of link between clusters~$P(b, b')$ is replaced by the likelihood of initiating and then interacting with that other cluster $\pi_b B(b, b')$.
Note $\sum_{b'=1}^K P(b,b')$ need not sum to one but~$\sum_{b'=1}^K B(b,b')=1$.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Statistical properties of B-VCM}
We next highlight two key statistical properties, the first being network properties of the B-VCM and the second being an inferential consistency property under an approximate local updating rule.
\subsubsection{Network Properties}
For an interaction-labeled network~$\bfY$, let $v(\bfY)$ denote the number of non-isolated receivers; $e(\bfY)$ be the number of interactions; $M_k (\bfY)$ is the number of interactions with $k$ receivers; $N_k (\bfY)$ is the number of receivers that appear exactly $k$ times; and $d(\bfY) = (d_k(\bfY))_{k \geq 1}$ is the degree distribution where $d_k(\bfY) = N_k (\bfY) / v(\bfY)$. These are global statistics that do not depend on the interaction labels. We define block-specific versions by superscripting each statistic by $b \in [K]$ to denote the statistic on the network~$\bfY_b$, i.e., each interaction restricted to those elements that belong to block~$b$. For instance, $v^{(b)} (\bfY)$ is the number of non-isolated receivers from block~$b$. The statistics~$e^{(b)} (\bfY)$, $M^{(b)}_k (\bfY)$, $N^{(b)}_k (\bfY)$, $d^{(b)} (\bfY)$, and $d^{(b)}_k (\bfY)$ are defined similarly.
\begin{defn}[Global and block-level sparsity]
Let $(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ be a sequence of interaction-labeled networks for which $e(\bfY_m) \to \infty$ as $m \to \infty$. The sequence~$(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ is \emph{sparse} if
$$
\lim \sup_{m \to \infty} \frac{e(\bfY_m)}{v(\bfY_m)^{m_{\bullet} (\bfY_m)}} = 0,
$$
where $m_\bullet (\bfY_m) = e(\bfY_m)^{-1} \sum_{k \geq 1} k M_k (\bfY_m)$ is the average arity (i.e., number of elements) of the interactions in the restricted network~$\bfY_b$. A non-sparse network is \emph{dense}. We say the sequence $(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 0}$ is $b$-locally sparse if
$$
\lim \sup_{m \to \infty} \frac{e^{(b)}(\bfY_m)}{v^{(b)} (\bfY_m)^{m_{\bullet}^{(b)} (\bfY_m)}} = 0,
$$
where $m_\bullet^{(b)} (\bfY_m) = e^{(b)}(\bfY_m)^{-1} \sum_{k \geq 1} k M^{(b)}_k (\bfY_m)$ is the average arity (i.e., number of elements from block $b$) of the interactions in~$\bfY_m$. A network that is not $b$-locally sparse is \emph{$b$-locally dense}.
\end{defn}
For~$(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$ a sequence of positive random variables and $(y_n)_{n \geq 1}$ a sequence of positive non-random variables, let $X_n \simeq y_n$ indicate $\lim_{n \to \infty} X_n / y_n$ exists almost surely and equals a finite positive random variable.
% Given the empirical importance of network sparsity, a critical question is whether network sparsity holds for both the block-specific sub-networks as well as the entire network.
% In many real world networks the number of the edges in the network grows linearly with respect to the number of the nodes. %One of the examples is the TalkLife network, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:test}. In each of these small sub-networks, which are subsets of the large network, the degree distribution shows the power-law property. This property is also observed in the large network.
Theorem~\ref{eq:sparsity} shows the canonical B-VCM model may be either globally and locally sparse and/or dense.
\begin{thm}%[Sparsity]
\label{eq:sparsity}
Let~$(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ be a sequence of random exchangeable interaction-labeled networks drawn from the B-VCM. Then, for all~$b \in [K]$, the expected number of non-isolated vertices in $\bfY_m$ belonging to block $b$ satisfies
$$
E[ v^{(b)} (\bfY_m) ] \simeq \frac{\Gamma(\theta_b + 1)}{\alpha_b \Gamma (\theta_b + \alpha_b)} (\mu_b \cdot m)^{\alpha_b}
$$
where~$\mu_b$ is the mean arity when restricted to elements only from block~$b \in [K]$. Then $1/\mu_b < \alpha_b < 1$ implies $b$-local sparsity for~$b \in [K]$. Furthermore, $E[ v(\bfY_m) ] = \sum_{b=1}^K E[ v^{(b)} (\bfY_m)] \simeq m^{\alpha_\star}$ where~$\alpha_\star = \max_b \alpha_b$. Therefore, $1/\mu < \alpha_\star < 1$ implies global sparsity.
\end{thm}
The proof can be found in Section A.2 of the supplementary materials. Theorem~\ref{eq:sparsity} establishes that the B-VCM can capture degrees of sparsity. Note that $\mu_b \leq \mu$ implies a dense network must be $b$-locally dense for all blocks (i.e.~$\alpha_b \leq \alpha_\star \leq 1/\mu \leq 1/\mu_b$). We next turn to considerations of power-law degree distribution. %We start with a definition.
\begin{defn}[Global power-law degree distributions]
A sequence $(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ exhibits \emph{power-law degree distribution} if for some~$\gamma > 1$ the degree distributions $(d(\bfY_m))_{m \geq 1}$ satisfy $d_k (\bfY_m) \sim l(k) k^\gamma$ as $m \to \infty$ for all large $k$ for some slowly varying function $l(x)$; that is, $\lim_{x \to \infty} l(tx) / l(x) = 1$ for all $t > 0$, where $a_m \sim b_m$ indicates that $a_m/b_m \to 1$ as $m \to \infty$. More precisely, $(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ has power law degree distribution with index~$\gamma$ if:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:powerlawdefn}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{d_k (\bfY_m)}{l(k) k^{-\gamma}} = 1.
\end{equation}
We say the sequence has \emph{$b$-local power-law degree distribution} with index~$\gamma_b$ if~\eqref{eq:powerlawdefn} holds with $d_k^{(b)} (\bfY_m)$ replacing the global degree distribution statistic.
\end{defn}
Theorem~\ref{thm:powerlaw} establishes the power-law degree distribution for the block-specific restricted networks built from the B-VCM as well as the global network.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:powerlaw}
Let~$(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 0}$ obey the B-VCM sequential description in Section~\ref{section:seqdesc}. For each~$m \geq 1$, let $p_m (k) = N_k (\bfY_m)/v(\bfY_m)$ and $p_m^{(b)} (k) = N_k^{(b)} (\bfY_m)/v^{(b)} (\bfY_m)$ for $k \geq 1$ be the empirical global and local degree distributions. Then, for every~$k \geq 1$, $$
p_m^{(b)} (k) \sim \alpha_b k^{-(\alpha_b + 1)} / \Gamma(1-\alpha_b)
$$
where $\Gamma(t) = \int_0^\infty x^{t-1} e^{-x} dx$ is the gamma function. That is, $(\bfY_m)_{m \geq 1}$ has $b$-local power law degree distributions with exponents $\gamma_b = 1 + \alpha_b \in (1,2)$ for all $b \in [K]$. Moreover, $\lim_{k \to \infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} p_m(k) / p_m^{(b_\star)} (k) = 1$ where $b_\star = \arg \max_b \alpha_b$ implying the sequence has global power law degree distribution with exponent $\gamma = 1 + \alpha_\star$.
\end{thm}
\subsubsection{Consistent recovery of block structure}
In prior sections, the block structure was assumed known and observed as part of the sequential data generating process. In most real-world settings, the block structure is latent and must be recovered from the observed data. An important theoretical question is whether the estimated block structure is consistent (up to label permutation) with the true block structure. Theoretical guarantees for DC-SBMs have been well established~\cite{zhao2012consistency, gao2018community, gao2015rate}.
Here, based on the connection to the DC-SBM as discussed in Remark~\ref{rmk:connectionsbm}, we consider an analogue of a DC-SBM setting~\cite{amini2013pseudo} where the misspecification rate was shown to be bounded as the number of observed vertices in the adjacency graph increases. In the edge exchangeability framework, however, the asymptotics are with respect to the number of observed interactions leading to different asymptotic behavior. Specifically, Theorem~\ref{thm:powerlaw} implies that even as the number of interactions grows, a significant fraction of vertices will have low degree. Therefore, we also bound the misclassification rate as a function of minimal degree. The proof can be found in Section A.1 of the supplementary materials.
\begin{thm}%[Consistency]
\label{thm:consist}
Let~$(Y_m)_{m \geq 0}$ obey the sequential description in Section~\ref{section:seqdesc} assuming $K=2$, $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$, and $\theta_1=\theta_2$. Let~$B$ denote the true block assignments and~$e_m: [v(\bfY_m)] \mapsto [K]$ denote a current labeling of the non-isolated vertices after observing $m$ interactions.
Under a symmetry condition provided in Section A.1, an approximate updating rule can be derived such that $\hat B (i) = 1$ if $Deg(i,1) > Deg(i,2)$ and $\hat B(i) = 2$ otherwise, where $Deg(i,b)$ is the number of interactions involving node $i$ and an element from block~$b$ (as determined by the current labeling $e_m$). Let
$$
M_{v(\bfY_m)}= \inf_{\rho':[K]\mapsto [K]} \frac{1}{v(\bfY_m)}\sum_{i=1}^{v(\bfY_m)} 1(\hat{B} (i) \neq \rho' B (i))
$$
denote the misclassification rate (under potential label switching). As $m\rightarrow\infty$, for any $u \ge\frac{1}{e}$, under certain conditions on the current labeling provided in Section A.1 and the approximate updating rule we have
$$\mathbb{P}[M_{v(\bfY_m)}\ge euP_{out}]\le \exp\left[-ev(\bfy_m)P_{out}u\log u\right]$$
where $e$ is Euler's number, $u > 1/e$ is a constant, and~$P_{out} \to \sum_{d=1}^\infty \alpha B(d, \alpha+1) \exp (- d \mu_{\min}^2 /4)$ as $m \to \infty$ where $\mu_{\min}$ is a constant depending on the current labeling. Specifically, restricting the misclassification rate to nodes of at least degree~$D_m$ denoted~$M_{v(\bfY_m)}^{D_m}$, it is possible to construct a sequence $D_m$, such that $|\{ i \in v(\bfY_m) : \text{Deg}(i) \ge D_m\}|/|v(\bfY_m)|$ is non-empty with probability one and
$$\lim_{m(Y_m)\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[ M_{v(\bfY_m)}^{D_m} \ge \epsilon]= 0, \quad \text{for all } \epsilon > 0.$$
\end{thm}
%\noindent\textbf{Theorem 3} (Consistency) Given the power-law parameters $\alpha_c$ and $\theta_c$ for all $c\in[K]$, let $v(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the number of nodes in the network; $m(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the total degree of the graph; and $\gamma m(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the exactly number of node in community 1 under the one of the labeling $e$ of all the possible permutations. Assume there are two underlying clusters in the network and $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$ and $\theta_1=\theta_2$. Denote $M_{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}=\frac{1}{v(\mathcal{Y}_c)}\sum_{i=1}^{v(\mathcal{Y}_c)}1(\hat{C}^{(i)}\neq C^{(i)})$. Then, as $m(\mathcal{Y}_m)\rightarrow\infty$, for a sequence $\mu_n \ge\frac{1}{e}$, we have:
%$$\mathbb{P}[\sup_e M_{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}\ge\frac{4h(\gamma)}{\log \mu_n}]\le \exp\left[-2v(\mathcal{Y}_m)(h(\gamma)-\kappa_{\gamma}(2v(\mathcal{Y}_m))\right]$$
%$$
%\lim_{m(\mathcal{Y}_m) \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left[\left(\frac{1}{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}\sum_{i=1}^{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}\textbf{1}(\hat{I_i}\neq I_i)\right)>\frac{4h(\gamma)}{\log \mu}\right] = 1,
%$$
%where $\hat{C}^{(i)}$ and $C^{(i)}$ stands for the inferred cluster assignment of the node $i$ in the network and the underlying truth under the generative model. \\
%The proof can be found in the Appendix~\ref{sec:pf1.1}, as well as details on the necessary conditions and definitions of $\gamma$ and $\kappa_{\gamma}(v(\mathcal{Y}_m))$. Setting~$D_m := D_\max$ a fixed value, an upper bound on the misclassification rate can be calculated. Figure XX plots the boundary value as a function of $D_\max$ for several values of $\gamma$ which shows that the boundary value decays rapidly, i.e., the overall misclassification rate is driven by low degree nodes for any size interaction network.
%Note that the left part of the inequality goes to 0 as the number of nodes goes to infinity. The boundary value $\frac{4h(\gamma)}{\log\mu}$, as a function of $\gamma$, is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:7.1}.
% \textcolor{blue}{(I annotated this out in the proof, not sure if we still need it)This conclusion can be generalized to the scenario where the power-law parameters are different across the two clusters and the number of clusters $K>2$. The discussion can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:pf1.2}.}\\
%\subsection{The Hierarchical Extension of the Model}
%\textcolor{blue}{How to categorize the interactions instead of the nodes? I need some hints.}
\section{Inference}
Theorem~\ref{thm:consist} shows that a simple updating rule can lead to consistent estimation of the latent block structure for high degree nodes. Figure 2 in Section A.5 of the supplementary materials shows empirical misclassification rate decreases rapidly as degree increases in a simulation study. The theory and empirical evidence thus suggests a potential large misclassification rate for low degree nodes. This uncertainty motivates the consideration of a Bayesian framework to assess posterior uncertainty. Specifically, we introduce a Gibbs sampling algorithm for sampling from the posterior distribution of $(\Psi, B)$ given observed interaction-labeled network $\bfY_m$ with latent block structure. We start with the discussion of the selection of priors, followed by a brief overview of the Gibbs sampling algorithm.
% We then proceed into the accurate estimate of the power-law parameters and the recoverability of the cluster assignment. At the end of this section, we propose one potential model selection criteria based on the marginal log likelihood.
\subsection{Selection of Priors}
% The likelihood shown in Eq~\eqref{eq:jointform1} doesn't have closed form solution for the power-law parameters $\{\alpha_b\}$ and $\{\theta_b\}$, the entries in the propensity matrix $\B$, and the latent block assignment $\{\mathbf{C}_m\}$ for each nodes. Therefore, the Bayesian framework was applied to estimate the posterior of these model parameters.
Here we outline an approach to choosing priors for the B-VCM parameters that admit conjugate Gibbs updates. First, consider the estimated block assignment $\hat B$. An equivalent mixture representation of the sequential description leads to the natural prior:
$$\hat B(i) \mid \pi \sim \text{Multinomial}(\pi_1,...,\pi_K); \quad \pi:= (\pi_1,...,\pi_K) \sim \text{Dirichlet}(\omega)$$
where $\omega > 0$ is a constant, i.e., $\pi$ follows a symmetric Dirichlet distribution.
%In terms of the number of cluster $K$, a model selection criteria based on likelihood can be utilized to determine the number of clusters as discussed in Section 4.3.
Next, considering equation~\eqref{eq:repthme2}, based on a similar argument and the fact that the entries in the same row of propensity matrix $\mathcal{B}$ should sum up to 1, we propose a row-wise Dirichlet prior for the propensity matrix:
$$(\B(b,1)\ldots \B(b,K))\sim \text{Dirichlet}(\zeta),\ b\in[K].$$
This choice of prior does not enforce symmetry, i.e. $\B (b,b')$ may not equal $\B (b',b)$. A discussion of a prior under a symmetry constraint can be found in Section A.9 of the supplementary materials.
%To accommodate the assumption that the within cluster connection is stronger than between cluster assumption, it is reasonable to set a higher propensity for the diagonal elements in the prior than the off-diagonal elements.
For the block-specific parameters~$\{ \alpha_b, \theta_b \}$, conjugate priors given block assignments~$B$ exists. Specifically, a conjugate prior for the power-law parameters~$\alpha_b$ is a Beta distribution. For datasets of reasonable size, empirically we have found that the choice of hyper-parameters does not significantly affect the resulting posterior distributions. In the subsequent examples, the size of the datasets was more than sufficient to not be strongly affected by the choice of global priors. For the power-law parameter, this suggests using~$\alpha_b \sim \text{Beta} (1, 1)$, i.e., the Uniform distribution, for each~$b \in [K]$. For the other parameter~$\theta_b$, we find Gamma(1,1) is an appropriate prior in both the simulations and the real world data after applying our method to the Talklife data. An alternative approach is to fit the Hollywood model~\cite{crane2016edge} to the entire dataset, and get the estimate $\hat{\theta}$. In TalkLife, we found that $\hat{\theta}$ was between 1 and 2. Therefore, $\text{Gamma}(\hat{\theta},1)$ is also a reasonable choice of prior such that the mean is centered at the global fit. %we follow~\cite{dempsey2021hierarchical} and choose a high-variance Gamma distribution. Specifically, we have found that $\theta_b \sim Gamma(1, 1000)$ is an appropriate diffuse prior that allows for fast mixing. An alternative approach would be to fit the hollywood model~\cite{crane2016edge} to the entire dataset, and use $\text{Gamma}(\hat \theta/100, 100)$ as a prior for the $\theta_b$ (i.e., a diffuse prior centered at the global fit).
% In terms of the priors of power-law parameters $\{\alpha_b\}$ and $\{\theta_b\}$, let $\alpha_b \sim P(\mu)$, $\theta_b\sim P(\delta)$, $b\in[K]$. A reasonable choice could be a Beta distribution and a Gamma distribution.
%\textcolor{red}{Yuhua: how did you choose the hyperparameters for theta? A diffuse prior?} \textcolor{blue}{Gamma($\hat{\theta}$/10,100) in Talklife data, Gamma(1,1) in simulation data.}
\subsection{Gibbs Sampling Algorithm}
\label{sec:alg}
Here we introduce a Gibbs sampling algorithm for sampling from the posterior distribution of~$(\Psi, B)$ given an observed interaction-labeled network~$\bfY_m$ with latent block structure~$B$. The algorithm uses auxiliary variable methods~\cite{West1995} to perform conjugate updates for all parameters~$\Psi$. Pseudo-code is provided in~Algorithm~\ref{alg:cap}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Pseudo-code of Gibbs-sampling based algorithm}\label{alg:cap}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State Specify $\omega$, $\zeta$, $\delta$, $\mu$, $K$
\State Initiate $\B$, $\{\alpha_b\}$, $\{\theta_b\}$, $\{ B(i) \}$
\For{\text{iterations}}
\For{$i \in v(\mathcal{Y}_m)$}
\State Update $B(i)$ according to Eq (\ref{eq:c})
\EndFor
\For{$b\in [K]$}
\State Update $\alpha_b$ using auxiliary variables according to Eq (\ref{eq:alpha_c})
\State Update $\theta_b$ using auxiliary variable according to Eq (\ref{eq:theta_c})
\EndFor
\For{$b\in [K]$}
\State Update $\B(b,1)\ldots B(b,K)$ according to Eq (\ref{eq:prop_mat})
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In Algorithm~\ref{alg:cap}, we first sequentially update block assignments, $\{B (i)\}_{i \in v(\bfY_m)}$. Let $\H_m^{(b)}= v(\bfY_m) \cap B^{-1}(b)$ denote all observed vertices in block~$b \in [K]$. Then the probability of assigning $i \in v(\bfY_m)$ to block $b \in [K]$ given $\Psi$ and all other block assignments $\{ B(i')\}_{i' \not = i}$ is proportional to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c}
p_b := \underbrace{\mathscr{B}(\omega+L)}_{(\rom{1})}\times \underbrace{\frac{D_m(i)!}{\prod_b D_m(i,b)!}\prod_{b'=1}^{K}\B(b,b')^{D_m(i,b^\prime)}}_{(\rom{2})}\times \underbrace{P(\{\H_m^{(b)}\}|\alpha_b,\theta_b,\delta,\mu)}_{(\rom{3})}
\end{equation}
where $L=\{L_1,...,L_K\}$ is the counts of the interactions initiated from block $1$ to $K$ respectively, $\mathscr{B}(\cdot)$ is the Beta function, $D_m(i)$ is the degree of node i, and $D_m(s,b)$ is the number of interactions node $i$ has with block~$b$.
Term~($\rom{1}$) is derived by integrating over the latent parameter $\pi$ in the distribution $P(\{B(i)\}|\pi,\omega)$.
% $$P(\{C^{(s)}_m\}|\omega)=\int_{\pi}P(\{C^{(s)}_m\}|\pi)P(\pi|\omega)d\pi=$$
Term~($\rom{2}$) is derived by considering nodes that have connections with the node $i$ that is being updated in the current iteration.
% $$P(\B(C^{(s)}_m=b,)|\zeta)\propto \frac{D_m(s)!}{D_m(s,1)!...,D_m(s,K)!}\prod_{b'=1}^{K}\B(b,b')^{D_m(s,b^\prime)}$$
Term~($\rom{3}$) takes the explicit form as shown in Part $\rom{2}$ of Eq~\eqref{eq:jointform1}.
% Normalizing over all $b \in [K]$, the conditional probability of assigning the node to block $b$ with probability
% \begin{equation}\label{eq:c}
% P( B(i) = b |\alpha_b,\theta_b,\B, \omega, \{ B(i') \}_{i' \not = i} ) = \frac{p_b}{\sum_{k=1}^{K}p_{k}}.
% \end{equation}
The conditional updates of $\alpha_b$ and $\theta_b$ is shown as follows. Given the block assignment $\{B(i)\}$, the values of $\alpha_b$ and $\theta_b$ can be sampled from the posterior distribution.
% First, consider the $\theta_b$:
% $$P(\theta_b|\{\mathbf{C}_m\},\delta)\propto\frac{[\theta_b+\alpha_b]^{v(\mathbf{y}_b)-1}_{\alpha_b}}{[\theta_b+1]^{m(\mathbf{y}_b)-1}_{1}}P(\theta_b|\delta)$$
Here, auxiliary variable methods \cite{teh2006bayesian} are used in a similar way as in prior inferential approaches for edge exchangeable model \cite{dempsey2021hierarchical}.
% Let $\{\alpha_b^{*}\}$ and $\{\theta_b^*\}$ be the values of the power-law parameters from the previous Gibbs updating iteration, and $\{a,b,c,d\}$ be the pre-specified constants.
Then, from Eq~\eqref{eq:jointform1}, we have
\begin{align}
x_b &\sim Beta \left(\theta_{b}+1,m(\mathbf{Y}_{b})-1 \right), b \in [K] \nonumber \\
y_{i,b}&\sim Bernoulli \left( \frac{\theta_{b}}{\theta_{b}+\alpha_b \cdot i} \right),
i =1,\ldots,v(\bfY_b)-1, b\in[K] \nonumber \\
z_{s,j,b} &\sim \text{Bernoulli} \left( \frac{j-1}{j-\alpha_b} \right),
s \in v (\bfY_b), j = 1,\ldots, D_m (s,b)-1 \nonumber \\
\theta_b &\sim \text{Gamma} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{v(\bfY_b)-1}y_{i,b}+a,b-log x_b \right) \label{eq:theta_c} \\
\alpha_b &\sim \text{Beta}\left(b+\sum_{i=1}^{v(\mathbf{Y}_{b})-1}(1-y_{i,b}),d+\sum_{s\in v(\bfY_b)}\sum_{j=1}^{D_m(b,s)-1}(1-z_{s,j,b}) \right) \label{eq:alpha_c}
\end{align}
where~$\{a,b,c,d\}$ are the hyperparameters for the Gamma and Beta priors respectively.
The difference between this algorithm and~\cite{dempsey2021hierarchical} is that the prior work considered hierarchical structure while here we consider latent non-overlapping communities.
% $$\frac{1}{[\theta_b+1]^{m(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}}=\frac{1}{\Gamma(m(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1)}\int_{0}^{1}x^{\theta_b}(1-x)^{m(\mathbf{y}_{b})-2}dx$$
% where $x$ is an intermediate variable that can be sampled given $\{\theta_b^{*}\}$, such that $x\sim Beta(\theta_{b^*}+1,m(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1)$. Similarly,
% $$[\theta_b+\alpha_b]^{v(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}_{\alpha_b}=\prod_{i=1}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}\sum_{y_i\in[0,1]}\theta_b^{y_i}(\alpha_b*i)^{1-y_i}$$
% where $y_i\sim Bernoulli(\frac{\theta_{b}^*}{\theta_b^*+\alpha_b^{*} *i})$. Eventually, the posterior of $\theta_b$ is given by
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:theta_c}
% \theta_b|C_m\sim \text{Gamma}(\sum_{i=1}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{c})-1}y_i+a,b-log x)
% \end{equation}.
% Similarly, the posterior of $\alpha_b$ is given by \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:alpha_c}
% \alpha_b|C_m\sim \text{Beta}(b+\sum_{i=1}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}(1-y_i),d+\sum_{s_c}\sum_{j=1}^{D_m(c,s)-1}(1-z_{s_c,j}))\end{equation}
% where $y_i\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\frac{\theta_b}{\theta_b+\alpha_b*i})$ and $z_{s_c,j}\sim \text{Bernoulli} (\frac{j-1}{j-\alpha_c^*})$.
% To summarize, the algorithm first draws the values of intermediate variables $x$, $y$, and $z$ based on the previous round values of $\alpha_b^*$ and $\theta_b^*$. Given the values of these variables, we draw the values of the updated $\alpha_b$ and $\theta_b$ according to Eq~\eqref{eq:alpha_c} and Eq~\eqref{eq:theta_c}.
Last, given the block assignment~$\{ B(i)\}$, the row-wise update of the propensity matrix follows from the conjugate Dirichlet prior:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop_mat}
(\B(b,1)\ldots\B(b,K))\sim \text{Dirichlet}(D_m(b,1)+\zeta_{b,1}\ldots D_m(b,K)+\zeta_{b,K})
\end{equation}
for each~$b \in [K]$. Convergence of Algorithm~\ref{alg:cap} can be checked via traceplots and, in our experiments, occurs within the first hundred or so iterations; see Figure 8 and Figure 9 in the supplementary materials for trace plots from our simulation and case study.
%Given the cluster allocation $c\in[K]$, we have the row-wise update of the propensity matrix taking the following form:
%\begin{equation}
% {\B}(c,)|C_m\sim \text{Dirichlet}(\nu+\vec *)
%\end{equation}
%where $\vec *$ is the count of interactions between cluster $c$ and cluster $\{1,...,K\}$. The propensity matrix $\B$ can be either symmetric or not, the possible solutions to guarantee the symmetry of the propensity matrix are briefly discussed in the \textcolor{yellow}{Appendix 7.4}.
\begin{rmk}[Scalability]
\label{rmk:scalable}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:cap} may not scale well to large networks.
% Specifically, there are loops over all nodes and blocks.
Given $K \ll |v(\bf Y)|$, the critical issue in scaling up our proposal is finding good approximate algorithms for updating block assignments. Equation~\eqref{eq:c} suggests an approximate sampling algorithm that relies on small, local node neighborhoods. Moreover, Theorem~\ref{thm:consist} suggests high degree nodes may have low posterior uncertainty. Both suggest a path forward via a parallel, approximate algorithm that may perform well in practice. We do not pursue this here, but we consider this important future work.
\end{rmk}
\section{Simulations}
\label{sec:simu}
In this section, we demonstrate via simulation that Algorithm~\ref{alg:cap} performs empirically well in recovering network properties. These include (1) recoverability of the block assignment and (2) accurate estimation of the power-law parameters. At the end of this section, we propose and empirically assess a model selection criteria to identify the number of latent communities, $K$.
\subsection{Recovering Block Assignment Labels}
\label{sec:recover}
% Theorem \ref{thm:consist} establishes a bound on the mis-specification rate, which decays rapidly to zero when restricting to nodes of increasing minimum degree. To empirically assess this, a generative model as described in Section \ref{section:seqdesc} is used to simulate various networks to assess our ability to recover the correct community labels of each node. We show in simulation that the posterior concentrates on the correct block assignment labels when only a finite number of interactions are observed.
In this section, we assume the number of blocks is $K=2$. The standardized $L_2$ norm is used as a distance metric between true block assignment and the posterior distribution over block assignments.
% Recall that for a network consisting of $m$ interactions $\bfY_m$, $v(\bfY_m)$ is the number of nodes in the network.
In the $i$th iteration of the Gibbs sampler, let the inferred block assignment be $\hat{B}_{m}^{(i)}\in\{0,1\}^{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}$ and $B_m\in\{0,1\}^{v(\mathcal{Y}_m)}$ be the true block assignment. Define the standardized $L_2$ norm to be:
$$
\mathcal{L}_m = \frac{1}{\sqrt{v(\mathbf{Y}_m)}} \left \|B_m-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\hat{B}_{m}^{(i)}} \right \|_2
$$
where $n$ is the total number of Gibbs iterations. The norm is standardized by dividing the number of nodes in the network such that the minimum (0) and maximum (1) values represent entirely correct and incorrect node assignments respectively. Note that the block labels are arbitrary; that is, when calculating the $\mathcal{L}_m$, one must be concerned with \emph{label switching} \cite{jasra2005markov}. Given a complete random guess, the $\mathcal{L}_m$ norm will be approximately 0.5 as $m$ increases. To account for potential label switching, the $\mathcal{L}_m$ norm was calculated for the inferred block assignment $\hat B_m^{(i)}$ as well as it's conjugate $1-\hat B_m^{(i)}$ and the minimum of the two norms was taken. This leads to a range of 0 to 0.5 for the estimated distance, such that the closer the distance is to 0, the better the recovery of the community structure.
In our simulations, we consider simulated datasets with different propensity matrices and power-law parameters. We assume the power-law parameters are the same across different blocks, i.e. $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$, and we fix $\theta_1=\theta_2=5$. The number of interactions in each simulated network vary from 1000, 2500, to 10000. The probability of an interaction initiated from either block is the same, i.e. $\pi_1=\pi_2=0.5$. We repeated the simulation in each setting 20 times. The
mean values of the $L_2$ norm in different settings are shown in Table~\ref{tab:l2norm_same}. Two conclusions based on the results are: (1) given the same value of the power-law parameter $\alpha$ and the size of the network, the lower the inter-community connection rate, the better the recovery of the block assignments; (2) as the number of observations increase, the block assignments become more accurate in almost all settings.
\begin{table}[!th]
\centering
%\begin{adjustwidth}{-1.8cm}{}
\begin{tabular}{SSSSS} \toprule
& {\# Interactions} &{$\B=\{0.1,0.9\}$} & {$\B=\{0.3,0.7\}$} &{$\B=\{0.5,0.5\}$} \\ \midrule
{$\alpha=\{0.1,0.1\}$} & 1,000 & {0.043 (0.016)} & {0.183 (0.033)} & {0.458 (0.028)} \\
&2,500 & {0.067 (0.096)} & {0.161 (0.042)} & {0.457 (0.023)} \\
& 10,000 & {0.053 (0.072)} & {0.226 (0.139)} & {0.454 (0.018)}\\
\midrule
{$\alpha=\{0.3,0.3\}$} &{1,000} & {0.075 (0.013)} & {0.255 (0.067)} & {0.475 (0.020)} \\
&{2,500} & {0.067 (0.008)} & {0.232 (0.058)} & {0.465 (0.037)}\\
& {10,000} & {0.058 (0.007)} & {0.232 (0.068)} & {0.462 (0.024)} \\
\midrule
{$\alpha=\{0.5,0.5\}$} & {1,000} & {0.104 (0.013)} & {0.303 (0.028)} &{0.466 (0.035)} \\
&{2,500} & {0.101 (0.008)} & {0.298 (0.044)} & {0.476 (0.019)} \\
& {10,000} & {0.089 (0.006)} & {0.295 (0.047)} & {0.474 (0.025)} \\
\midrule
{$\alpha=\{0.7,0.7\}$} &{1,000} & {0.184 (0.041)} & {0.382 (0.039)} & {0.474 (0.030)} \\
&{2,500} & {0.156 (0.012)} & {0.378 (0.022)} & {0.490 (0.009)}\\
& {10,000} & {0.143 (0.008)} & {0.348 (0.014)} & {0.480 (0.023)} \\
\midrule
{$\alpha=\{0.9,0.9\}$} &{1,000} & {0.388 (0.068)} & {0.482 (0.023)} & {0.484 (0.032)} \\
&{2,500} & {0.335 (0.034)} & {0.465 (0.023)} & {0.488 (0.012)} \\
& {10,000} & {0.279 (0.028)} & {0.454 (0.017)} & {0.489 (0.011)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
%\end{adjustwidth}
\caption{Standardized L2 norm of the inferred block assignments and the underlying truth in different settings. For each set with the same values of the connectivity propensity $\B$, the power-law parameters $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}$, and the number of interactions ($\{1,000, 2,500, 10,000\}$), we repeated the simulation 20 times. The mean values (SD) over 20 simulations are shown here.}
\label{tab:l2norm_same}
\end{table}
To empirically demonstrate the conclusion from Theorem \ref{thm:consist} on high-degree nodes, we calculated the $L_2$ norm as a function of the degree cutoff, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spg_high_deg}. The visualization is based on the setting where $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0.5$, and the within block interaction propensity $\B(1,1)=\B(2,2)=0.9$. And the $L_2$ norm is calculated with nodes whose degree is greater or equal to the value indicated by the x-axis. Regardless of the size of the observed network, the higher the degree, the smaller the $L_2$ norm, which indicates a lower misspecification rate. Meanwhile, as the number of interactions increases, the $L_2$ norm decreases to 0 given the same degree cutoff. See Section A.5 of the supplementary materials for similar plots for the misspecification rate as a function of the degree cutoff, which yields similar conclusions.
% Further, we compare the results in the other settings with a certain degree cutoff value that is proportional to $m(\mathbf{y}_m)^{\alpha}$. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:l2norm_same_deg} in the Appendix.
\begin{figure}[!th]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Spaghetti_plot_1000_same_alpha.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.1.1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Spaghetti_plot_2500_same_alpha.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.1.2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Spaghetti_plot_10000_same_alpha.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.1.3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The $L_2$ norm as a function of the degree cutoff, in the setting where $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0.5$, $\B(1,1)=\B(2,2)=0.9$, with (a) 1,000, (b) 2,500, and (c) 10,000 interactions presented in the network. The solid dark line is the average $L_2$ norm over 20 replications. The $L_2$ norm is calculated based on the nodes whose degree is greater or equal to the degree cutoff as indicated by the x-axis. The grey shadow indicates the SD.}
\label{fig:spg_high_deg}
\end{figure}
Note that the $L_2$ norm is not applicable when there are multiple blocks ($K>2$). To overcome this potential problem, we also use the Cross Entropy Loss as a criteria to evaluate the accuracy of the block assignment (See Table 3 in Section A.8 of the supplementary materials), which gives similar conclusions. Results from simulation settings where $\alpha_1\neq\alpha_2$ are presented in Table 4 in Section A.7.
\subsubsection{Estimates of power-law parameters}
\label{sec:pl_est}
Another important question is whether the posterior distributions adequately concentrate around the true block-specific parameters $\{ \alpha_b \}_{b \in [K]}$ which controls the within-block sparsity and power-law structure. Following the same generative steps as described in Section \ref{section:seqdesc}, we simulate various networks to assess our ability to accurately estimate these parameters.
In the generative model, we set the number of blocks $K$ equal to 2 and choose $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}$ to be from the set $\{\{0.1,0.9\}$, $\{0.2,0.8\}$, $\{0.3,0.7\}$, $\{0.4,0.6\}\}$ and set $\theta_1=\theta_2=5$. %The within-group interaction propensity is set to 0.9 (i.e., $a: = \B(1,1)=\B(2,2)=0.9$), and between-group is set to 0.1 (i.e., $b := \B(1,2)=\B(2,1)=0.1$).
Blocks are assumed equally likely to initiate an interaction (i.e., $\{\pi_1,\pi_2\}=\{0.5,0.5\}$). Networks of size 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 were simulated, repeated 20 times. Given the priors specified in the previous section, the means of the posterior of the power-law parameters and the entries in propensity matrix are shown in Table~\ref{tab:powerlaw}.
First, for fixed within-block propensities and sample size, estimation accuracy is higher for larger power-law parameter values.
For example, when $m=1000$, $\{ a, b \} = \{0.9, 0.1\}$ and $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}=\{0.3,0.7\}$, the power-law estimate for $\alpha_2 = 0.7$ was more accurate than the estimate for $\alpha_1 = 0.3$ (highlighted in red). This statement empirically holds even when latent communities are known. Second, power-law estimation accuracy degrades as the inter-community connection rate increases. For example, in the 1000 interaction setting where $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}=\{0.2,0.8\}$, the power-law estimate decreases in accuracy as the likelihood of inter-community connections goes up from $0.1$ to $0.5$ (highlighted in yellow).
Third, estimation accuracy increases as the number of interactions increase. When $\alpha_1=0.1$, and $\{a,b\}=\{0.9,0.1\}$, for example, the power-law estimate becomes more accurate as the sample size grows from $N=1,000$ to $100,000$ (highlighted in blue). In Section A.10 of the supplementary materials, simulation results are presented for varying values of $\{\theta_1,\theta_2\}$.
\begin{table}[!th]
\begin{adjustwidth}{-2.2cm}{}
\vspace*{0cm}
\begin{tabular}{SSSSSS} \toprule
{\textbf{1,000 interactions}}
&{Parameters}&{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.1,0.9\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.2,0.8\}$} &{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.3,0.7\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.4,0.6\}$} \\ \midrule
{$\{a,b\}=\{0.9,0.1\}$} &{$\alpha_1$} & {\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{0.301 (0.182)}}}& {\textbf{\textcolor{yellow}{0.296 (0.116)}}} & {\textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.374 (0.08)}}}& {\textbf{0.449 (0.083)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_1$ } & {0.200 (0.100)} & {0.274 (0.084)} & {0.354 (0.068)}& {0.460 (0.086)} \\
&{$\alpha_2$}& {\textbf{0.886 (0.079)}} & {\textbf{0.804 (0.022)}}& {\textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.712 (0.037)}}} & {\textbf{0.612 (0.056)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_2$ } & {0.904 (0.015)} & {0.805 (0.021)} & {0.714 (0.037)}& {0.604 (0.057)} \\
& {Diagonal} & {0.907 (0.020)}& {0.905 (0.019)} & {0.903 (0.019)} & {0.898 (0.018)} \\
\midrule
{$\{a,b\}=\{0.7,0.3\}$} &{$\alpha_1$} & {\textbf{0.335 (0.196)}}& {\textbf{\textcolor{yellow}{0.335 (0.139)}}}& {\textbf{0.412 (0.143)}}& {\textbf{0.501 (0.099)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_1$ } & {0.226 (0.094)}& {0.256 (0.095)} & {0.384 (0.113)} & {0.470 (0.100)} \\
&{$\alpha_2$}& {\textbf{0.886 (0.069)}} & {\textbf{0.801 (0.029)}} & {\textbf{0.704 (0.061)}} & {\textbf{0.604 (0.064)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_2$ } & {0.901 (0.015)}& {0.806 (0.025)} & {0.712 (0.061)} & {0.617 (0.058)} \\
& {Diagonal} & {0.709 (0.031)} & {0.710 (0.028)} & {0.708 (0.030)} & {0.708 (0.034)} \\
\midrule
{$\{a,b\}=\{0.5,0.5\}$} &{$\alpha_1$} & {\textbf{0.627 (0.162)}} & {\textbf{\textcolor{yellow}{0.624 (0.185)}}} & {\textbf{0.613 (0.115)}} & {\textbf{0.523 (0.124)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_1$ } & {0.212 (0.096)}& {0.290 (0.079)} & {0.368 (0.078)}& {0.479 (0.105)} \\
&{$\alpha_2$}& {\textbf{0.800 (0.267)}} & {\textbf{0.726 (0.125)}} & {\textbf{0.604 (0.112)}} & {\textbf{0.555 (0.106)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_2$ } & {0.898 (0.017)}& {0.804 (0.025)} & {0.710 (0.030)} & {0.601 (0.064)} \\
& {Diagonal} & {0.521 (0.042)} & {0.532 (0.051)} & {0.540 (0.053)} & {0.526 (0.050)} \\
\bottomrule
{\textbf{10,000 interactions}}
&{Parameters}&{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.1,0.9\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.2,0.8\}$} &{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.3,0.7\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.4,0.6\}$} \\ \midrule
{$\{a,b\}=\{0.9,0.1\}$} &{$\alpha_1$} & {\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{0.201 (0.089)}}} & {\textbf{0.273 (0.083)}}& {\textbf{0.336 (0.051)}}& {\textbf{0.426 (0.042)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_1$ } & {0.175 (0.063)}& {0.244 (0.063)} & {0.336 (0.043)}& {0.420 (0.039)} \\
&{$\alpha_2$}& {\textbf{0.899 (0.006)}} & {\textbf{0.799 (0.011)}}& {\textbf{0.700 (0.017)}} & {\textbf{0.605 (0.020)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_2$ } & {0.900 (0.006)}& {0.800 (0.011)} & {0.701 (0.017)} & {0.607 (0.019)} \\
& {Diagonal} & {0.900 (0.006)}& {0.900 (0.006)} & {0.901 (0.006)} & {0.900 (0.006)} \\
\bottomrule
{\textbf{100,000 interactions}}
&{Parameters}&{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.1,0.9\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.2,0.8\}$} &{$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.3,0.7\}$} & {$\{\alpha_c\}=\{0.4,0.6\}$} \\ \midrule
{$\{a,b\}=\{0.9,0.1\}$} &{$\alpha_1$} & {\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{0.157 (0.063)}}}& {\textbf{0.242 (0.054)}}& {\textbf{0.322 (0.034)}}& {\textbf{0.413 (0.025)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_1$ } & {0.136 (0.045)} & {0.220 (0.040)} & {0.319 (0.027)} & {0.412 (0.022)} \\
&{$\alpha_2$}& {\textbf{0.900 (0.002)}}& {\textbf{0.799 (0.004)}} & {\textbf{0.700 (0.006)}}& {\textbf{0.604 (0.012)}} \\
&{$\tilde{\alpha}_2$ } & {0.900 (0.002)} & {0.799 (0.004)} & {0.700 (0.006)} & {0.605 (0.011)} \\
& {Diagonal} & {0.900 (0.002)} & {0.900 (0.002)} & {0.900 (0.002)} & {0.900 (0.002)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustwidth}
\caption{Posterior means (SD) of power-law parameters $\{\alpha_c\}$ and within/between block propensity $\{a,b\}$ in different settings. To assess uncertainty due to latent communities, we also infer the posteriors of power-law parameters given true block assignments, denoted $\tilde{\alpha}_c$, $c\in[K]$. Three main conclusions are highlighted in red, yellow, and blue correspondingly.} \label{tab:powerlaw}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{The selection of K}
\label{sec:slct_K}
So far we have assumed the number of communities $(K)$ known. Here we address the selection of K. Prior solutions include but are not limited to likelihood ratio test (LRT) methods (\cite{vuong1989likelihood}, \cite{wang2017likelihood}), cross validation (CV) methods (\cite{grun2011topicmodels},\cite{grimmer2010bayesian}), and Bayesian selection criteria methods (\cite{yan2016bayesian},\cite{teh2007collapsed}). Though applicable in many cases, these methods do not fit well into our current setting. LRT methods require a good distributional approximation, which is hard to find in our setting. CV methods lead to additional sampling issues and lack interpretability; and Bayesian selection criteria can be computationally expensive.
Here, we consider a model selection criteria based on the marginal posterior maximization that is similar to techniques used in the topic modeling~\cite{taddy2012estimation}. The number of blocks is determined by choosing $K$ that maximizes the marginal likelihood.
% $P(\bfY_m|\{\alpha_b, \theta_b\}, \{ B(i) \} \in [K]^{(v(\bfY_m)})$.
We simulate 10,000 interactions and set the number of blocks K to be 3, 5, and 10 correspondingly. The true values of $\alpha_b$ are randomly chosen from $\text{Uniform}(0.4,0.8)$, and $\{\theta_b\}$ are all set to be 5. The intra-block connectivity is set to be $a=0.9$, while the inter-block connectivity is set to be $b=\frac{0.1}{K-1}$. We calculate the marginal log likelihood for different K and repeat the procedure 20 times.
\begin{figure}
%\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{spaghetti_plot_a.jpeg}
\caption{}
% \caption{B=0.8,random selected alpha, varying K}
\label{fig:sub1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{spaghetti_plot_b.jpeg}
\caption{}
% \caption{B=0.8,random selected alpha, varying K}
\label{fig:sub2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{spaghetti_plot_c.jpeg}
% \caption{B=0.8,random selected alpha, varying K}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub3}
\end{subfigure}\\
\caption{The trace plot of the log likelihood when the underlying true number of blocks is (a) K=3, (b) K=5, and (c) K=10. The grey lines represent results from 20 simulated datasets. The black line is their average. The red vertical line indicates the underlying true number of blocks in the generative model.}
\label{fig:spa}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:spa} presents traceplots of the marginal log-likelihood as a function of~$K$ for each simulated dataset. In all settings, the true~$K$ gives the largest marginal likelihood, which serves as empirical evidence in support of our proposed method. Note that the likelihood is also affected by the underlying power-law properties of the network and the strength of the inter/intra connectivity ($a$ and $b$) of different blocks as shown in Figure 3 in the supplementary materials.
% We consider a formal study of the model selection criteria in the block edge exchangeable setting important future work.
%In general, the plateau of likelihood is observed before hitting the truth. As the K increases, the likelihood drops immediately after passing the truth. Based on what is observed in the simulations, we suggest a careful checking of the marginal likelihood. And a second criteria is to choose the K right before the likelihood begin to drop.
\section{Case Study}
\label{sec:Talklife}
\subsection{Data overview}
In this section, we apply the B-VCM to the TalkLife dataset which consists of millions of user posts and comments.
%Recall that TalkLife is a large-scale peer support network for mental health. Individuals on the network receive support for a variety of mental health issues including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and self-harm. Users can post to the platform and respond to other users' posts. The social network has collected millions of interactions among users to date. To better understand how users organize on their platform, TalkLife is interested in identification of any underlying communities and each community's network properties.
Here we consider all non-deleted posts on TalkLife during the year 2019. %Since users can delete their own posts and comments, we limit our analysis to those posts that were not later deleted by the user.
%that is a total of 1,508,895 posts with an average of 2.82 comments per post, leading to 4,258,792 post-comment pairs.
TalkLife deploys a series of classification algorithms to determine whether a post can be flagged as including language related to one of several mental health topics. For example, a post could be flagged as \emph{Anxiety Panic Fear Suspected} if the corresponding classifier was triggered by the text of the post. Posts that are not tagged by any one of the 33 classifiers are removed, leading to a final dataset consisting 1,481,296 posts with an average of 2.83 comments, summing up to 4,194,609 post-comment pairs. Figures 10 and 11 in the supplementary materials highlight overlap among classifiers, which shows that most posts are only flagged by a single classifier and very few users have posts that are flagged by multiple classifiers.
Figure~\ref{fig:test} shows the global degree distribution for posts, and the distribution for subsets of posts flagged by 4 out of 33 different classifiers.
% including Emptiness Suspected, Nausea With Eating Disorder Suspected, SelfHarm Remission Or Relapse Suspected, and Emotional Exhaustion Suspected.
The power-law degree distribution is apparent in the overall network of 2019, as well as the classifier-specific sub-networks.
%The empirical phenomenon exactly fits the power-law assumption of the proposed model. We thus applied our model to the data in the following sections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{deg_plot_2019_a.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub1rep}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{deg_plot_2019_b.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub2rep}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Overview of the degree distribution of 2019 senders; (b) Degree distribution of the 2019 senders in sub-networks.}
\label{fig:test}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[Htp]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig1.PNG}
% \caption{Global degree distribution (left) for 2019 posts and some examples of classifier-specific degree distributions (right)}
% \label{fig:heatmap.jpg}
%\end{figure}
%\subsection{Cluster-label and power-law estimation}
%In this section, we aim to identify the community structure of TalkLife's users and estimate corresponding power-law parameters. In Section~\ref{section:seqdesc}, the C-VCM only considers pairs $(S,\{R_1,...,R_k\})$. That is, a specific user $S$ only compose a single poster. In TalkLife, however, the data consists of multiple posters posted by a singe user. That is, the $j$th post by user $S$ can be summarized by $(S_j, \{ R_{j,1}, \ldots, R_{j, k_j} \})$ where $k_j \geq 1$ is the number of commentators on the $j$th post. Here, we make a conditional independence assumption such that the link between poster and commentator depends not only on their propensities and cluster assignments, but the poster as well, that is, for a specific poster $S$:
%$$
% P(\cup_j \{S_j, \{ R_{j,1}, \ldots, R_{j, k_j} \}\}|C_s=c,\pi,f,B)
% =\pi_c \times \prod_{j} f_{s_j}^{(c)} \times \prod_{l=1}^{k_j}\left[ f_{r_l}^{(c_l)} \times B(c,c_l) \right].
%$$
%where $f$ is the degree-related parameter, that include the power-law parameters and the degrees of the nodes in the network.
%Recall that each poster comes up with a presumed topic tag. We subset the data based on these intrinsic machine learning generated tags. The entire procedure is shown in \textcolor{red}{Figure~\ref{fig:Workflow}}. We filter the data based on the pair-wise topics, that is, subsetting posts that have either two tags over all the combinations. A total number of 496 datasets are generated. Further, we apply our method to these datasets and categorize the users that contributed to either of the topics assuming the underlying true clusters are equal to 2. The rationale is that most users are supposed to have less connection with other users whose focus are on a different topic than those whose focus are on the same topic.
%\begin{figure}[Htp]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig.5.2.1.PNG}
% \caption{Workflow of the generation of the data}
% \label{fig:Workflow}
%\end{figure}
%We split the data into two parts, corresponding to the first half and the second half of the 2019 data, and apply our model to the two parts of data separately. To evaluate the cluster labeling results, we checked (1) the overlapping of the communities and the mean value of the inferred cluster assignments over Gibbs iterations; (2) the consistency of the cluster labels over time. In terms of (1) the overlapping of the communities, we utilize the idea of Gini coefficient, which is defined in the following way:
%$$\text{Gini}=\frac{\sum_{i}\sum_{j}|C_i-C_j|}{2n^2\overline{C}}$$
%where $C$ is the mean value of the cluster assignment. In the network scenario, the Gini coefficient, ranging from 0 to 1, measures the statistical disparity of the cluster assignment. For example, if two clusters have very little overlapping, that is, the Gibbs samplers have clear boundaries of being either 0 or 1 for all nodes in the network, the Gini coefficient should be close 1. We apply our model to the first half of 2019 data, the results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Gini}. The Gini coefficients form a bi-modal distribution. We further checked the average degrees of the nodes corresponding to whether the Gini coefficient greater than 0.5. The networks with larger Gini coeffcients also show higher connectivity.
%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{19_Gini_dist.jpg}
% \caption{Distribution of Gini coefficients}
% \label{fig:sub3}
%\end{subfigure}%
%\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{19_Gini_dist2.jpg}
% \caption{Connectivity of the network categorized by different Gini values}
% \label{fig:sub4}
%\end{subfigure}
%\caption{Gini coefficients}
%\label{fig:Gini}
%\end{figure}
%In terms of the consistency over time, we calculate the L2 norm between the cluster assignments inferred from two data sets. Within the same year range, the communities detected are supposed to be relatively stable over time. We compare the results from our model with the (1) grouping of individuals based on the topics generated by the machine learning algorithm; (2) the spectral clustering methods. The results are shown in \textcolor{red}{Figure ~\ref{fig:heatmap.jpg}}.
%\begin{figure}[Htp]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig.5.2.3.PNG}
% \caption{The L2 norm of the inferred clustering assignment of (a) our model; (b) raw ML tags; (c) Spectral clustering. (d) The distribution of the $\alpha$ values categorized by the L2 norm.}
% \label{fig:heatmap.jpg}
%\end{figure}
%In conclusion, the cluster assignments given by our model are more consistent over time than the other two methods. On average, the l2 norm given by our model is 0.195, the l2 norm given by the machine learning tags is 0.358, and the l2 norm given by spectral clustering method is 0.293. We further examine the distribution of power-law parameter estimates characterized by different l2 norm values, as shown in \textcolor{red}{Figure ~\ref{fig:heatmap.jpg}}. The larger values of the l2 norm, the more frequent large $\alpha$ values are observed, which indicates the potential complex underlying structure of the corresponding network.
%To benchmark our method, the gold standard of the community detection is set in the following way. For a specific user who has contributed to the posts or comments, define the probability that this user belongs to a specific community as the ratio of the number of activities belonging to that community and the total number of activities. For example, a user who has contributed to 10 posts and comments in total, 6 of which are categorized as Self-harm, and the are categorized as Eating Disorder, then this user is set to be of 60\% probability being in self-harm community, and 40\% likely in Eating Disorder group. Define the inferred cluster assignment probability as the ratio of the total number of the nodes being categorized into a specific cluster over the total Gibbs iterations. We thus calculated the $l_2$ norm between our inferred cluster assignments with the presumed ones. Further, we used KL divergence to compare the difference between the inferred cluster assignment and the "gold standard". The original definition of Cross entropy loss cannot be applied here given the gold standard is the probability itself. Let $\mathcal{KL}(\mathcal{Y}_m)$ be the KL divergence of the entire network, then:
%$$\mathcal{KL}(\mathcal{Y}_m)=\sum_{c=1}^{K}\sum_{j\in \{X_c\}}p(I_j=c)\log\frac{p(I_j=c)}{q(\hat{I}_j=c)}$$
%The results are shown is \textcolor{yellow}{Figure XX}. Note that the KL divergence might take the values of infinity if the $q(\cdot)$ takes the value of 0. To accommodate this scenario, we let $q(\cdot)$ take a very small value, i.e. $0.0001$, such that the overall KL divergence is bounded by some finite value. \textcolor{blue}{(I need to double check the code and figure out how the wierd results come.)}
\subsection{Inferring Block-labels}
%\textcolor{red}{The logic of this section:}
%\noindent \textcolor{red}{
%0) Introduction and data processing;\\
%1) Show the algorithm is learning the real communities; likelihood %and the communities visualization\\
%2) Show for the varying choice of K, the within community connection is greater than the between community;\\
%3) Compare the method with the Spectral clustering/ ML tag, make sure the communities detected by the two methods make sense;\\
%4) Calculate the Hellinger distance for our model and the other methods; show the communities detected by both methods are the same?\\
%5) The power-law estimate?}
In this section, we aim to identify the community structure of TalkLife's users. While the sequential description in Section~\ref{section:seqdesc} assumed a single commentator, TalkLife posts consists of multiple commentators per post. To address this, we naturally extend the B-VCM model by generating additional commentators according to the exact same procedure. Using~\eqref{eq:repthme2}, this is equivalent to a conditional independence assumption given asymptotic propensities:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:talklife}
P( E = (s, \{ r_1, \ldots, r_k \} ) \mid \pi_c, f, \B) =
\pi_b \times f_{s}^{(b)} \times \prod_{l=1}^k \mathcal{B}(b,b_l^\prime) \times \times f_{r_l}^{(b^\prime_l)}.
\end{equation}
% In the running example shown in Section~\ref{sec:2.2}, the model only considers pairs where each user only compose a single poster.
% In TalkLife, however, the data consists of multiple posters posted by a singe user. In the running example shown in Figure~\ref{fig:5.2.1.mod}, the interaction processes are $\I(1)=(\{1\},\{3,4,5\})$, $\I(2)=(\{1\},\{6,7\})$, and $\I(3)=(\{2\},\{8,9\})$.
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig.5.2.1.mod.PNG}
% \caption{Interaction data collected on TalkLife (Left), and the corresponding network (Right). In this example, there are 3 posts and 9 users involved. Post 1 posted by User 1, is commented by User 3, 4, and 5; Post 2 posted by User 1 is commented by User 6 and 7; Post 3 posted by User 10 is commented by User 8 and 9. The network is constructed by connecting User 1 to User 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; User 2 to User 8 and 9.}
% \label{fig:5.2.1.mod}
% \end{figure}
%That is, the $j$th post by user $S$ can be summarized by $(S_j, \{ R_{j,1}, \ldots, R_{j, k_j} \})$ where $k_j \geq 1$ is the number of commentators on the $j$th post.
% Here, we make a conditional independence assumption such that all these interaction processes are independent with each other. Suppose user $s$ has a total number of $J_s$ posters:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:newllk}
% P(\mathcal{Y}_m=\mathbf{y}_m|\{\alpha_b, \theta_b\}, \mathbf{C}_m)=\underbrace{\prod_{c=b}^{K}\pi_b^{L_b}}_{(\rom{1})}\times
% \underbrace{\frac{[\alpha_{b}+\theta_{b}]_{\alpha_b}^{v(\mathbf{y}_{b})-1}}{[\theta_{b}+1]_1^{m(\mathbf{y}_b)-1}}\prod_{j_s=1}^{J_s}\prod_{j\in \H_{m,j_s}^{(b)}}[1-\alpha_{b}]_1^{D_m(j,b)-1}}_{(\rom{2})}
% \times\underbrace{\prod_{b'=1}^{K} \B(b,b')^{D_m(b,b')}}_{(\rom{3})}
% \end{equation}
% %\begin{equation}
% %\label{eq:newllk}
% % P(\cup_j \{S_j, \{ R_{j,1}, \ldots, R_{j, k_j} \}\}|C_s=c,\pi,f,B)
% % =\pi_c \times \prod_{j} f_{s_j}^{(c)} \times \prod_{l=1}^{k_j}\left[ f_{r_l}^{(c_l)} \times B(c,c_l) \right].
% %\end{equation}
% %where $f$ is the degree-related parameter, the value of which is determined by the power-law parameters and the degrees of the nodes in the network.
% where $\H_{m,j_s}^{(c)}}$ stands for the commentators of a specific poster $j_s\in [J_s]$. Note that given the independence assumption, Eq~\eqref{eq:newllk} is equivalent to Eq~\eqref{eq:jointform1}.
Based on preliminary data analysis, the machine learning generated tags partition users into non-overlapping sub-communities. Therefore, we subset the data based on these machine learning generated tags and run the Gibbs-sampling algorithm to learn the latent community structure within each sub-community. We apply the maximal marginal likelihood method in Section~\ref{sec:slct_K} to infer the block assignments of each user over a range of the number of blocks,~$K$.
We next investigate the within and the between block connectivity of the inferred communities. Let the block assignment of each node be a binary variable indicating the maximal hits of the blocks in the Gibbs iterations. Using Alcohol and Substance Abuse network as an example, the connectivity of the detected communities when K is set to be 2, 6, and 10 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sub.5.2.2.1},~\ref{fig:sub.5.2.2.2},and~\ref{fig:sub.5.2.2.3}. It is consistently observed that within-community connectivity is greater than the between-community connectivity. Note that B-VCM infers one larger community across different K values. To check if this is the same community across K values, we compared the overlapping of unique nodes when K=2, 6, and 10. The proportion is defined as $\frac{\text{Number of nodes present in both groups}}{\text{Number of nodes present in either of the groups}}$.
The proportion of the overlapping nodes are 0.58, 0.58, and 0.98 when comparing K=2 to K=6; K=2 to K=10; and K=6 to K=10 correspondingly. This provides empirical evidence that the algorithm is finding sub-communities from this larger block as $K$ increases.
% many nodes the variation of the underlying community structure when setting K to different values.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_2.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.2.1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_6.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.2.2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_10.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.2.2.3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_2.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.1.1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_6.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.1.2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_10.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.1.3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_DCSBM_2.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.2.1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_DCSBM_6.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.2.2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_DCSBM_10.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.5.3.2.3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The inter/intra connectivity of the communities detected by B-VCM ((a)(b)(c)), the spectral clustering ((d)(e)(f)), and the degree corrected stochastic block model ((g)(h)(i)), ranging from 0 to 1, indicates the proportion of the interactions that initiated from one block to the other. The number within each cell is the proportion of the interactions initiated from one cluster (y-axis) to another (x-axis), normalized by each row.}
\label{fig:5.3.1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with Other Methods}
\label{sec:casestudy}
Here we compare our method with the spectral clustering method \cite{van2019scalable, ng2002spectral} and DC-SBM \cite{karrer2011stochastic, funke2019stochastic}. To apply spectral clustering, the interaction data is converted into a binary graph where an edge exists if there was an interaction between the two individuals. The connectivity of the communities detected by the spectral clustering method in Alcohol and Substance Abuse network is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.1.1},~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.1.2}, and~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.1.3}. The spectral clustering method consistently learns two large blocks. The proportion of the overlapping nodes in the largest community detected by spectral clustering are 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99 when comparing K=2 to K=6; K=2 to K=10; and K=6 to K=10 respectively. This indicates little variation in the inferred community structure across values of $K$. We compare the overlapping of nodes clustered in the largest block by B-VCM and the largest two blocks by spectral clustering. The overlapping proportion of the nodes are 0.62, 0.91, 0.90 when K=2, 6, and 10 respectively.
%The overlapping proportion of the nodes are 0.39, 0.47, 0.47 when K=2, 6, and 10 correspondingly.
We then fit the degree corrected stochastic block model (DC-SBM) to the same binary graph .
% where the weight between user $i$ and $j$ is the number of interactions involve both of users.
% , we construct the input network that counts each poster-commentator pair as one edge, and the corresponding poster and commentator as two nodes.
The connectivity of the communities detected by the DC-SBM in Alcohol and Substance Abuse network is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.2.1},~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.2.2}, and~\ref{fig:sub.5.3.2.3} in the supplementary materials. While the sizes of the DC-SBM inferred communities are much more balanced, the within- compared to between-community connectivity is much weaker.
% Since B-VCM tends to cluster the users into a large community,
Users that were part of the largest B-VCM inferred block are distributed across different DC-SBM inferred blocks, indicating strong differences in inferred community structure.
% Note that DC-SBM is designed for dense networks by assumption.
To assess sensitivity to the projection onto a binary graph based on existence of a single interaction, the DC-SBM was fit to a projected network where an edge exists if the number of interactions between the two nodes is greater than or equal to two. This projection had 13\% of the edges of the original binary graph. The results are shown in Section A.14 of the supplementary materials.
%\textcolor{red}{The average proportion of these users in different groups identified by DC-SBM, for example, is 0.62 (0.0008), 0.91 (0.0084), 0.90 (0.011) for K=2, 6, and 10.}
% This indicates that the DC-SBM gives very different community structures from B-VCM.
%Also note there is little variations in the nodes clustered to the largest two groups by spectral clustering over different K values. This makes the communities detected by the spectral clustering method less informative than our method.
%Notice that the spectral clustering method gives very different community structures as compared to our method in the sense that it tends to cluster nodes into one or two large chunks. This makes the communities detected by the spectral clustering method less informative than our method.
%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_2.jpeg}
% \caption{}
% \label{fig:sub.5.3.1.1}
%\end{subfigure}%
%\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_6.jpeg}
% \caption{}
% \label{fig:sub.5.3.1.2}
%\end{subfigure}
%\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{comm_spec_10.jpeg}
% \caption{}
% \label{fig:sub.5.3.1.3}
%\end{subfigure}
%\caption{The inter/intra connectivity of the communities detected by spectral clustering, ranging from 0 to 1, indicating the proportion of the nodes that have within/between cluster connectivity. The number within each cell is the number of nodes.}
%\label{fig:5.3.1}
%\end{figure}
To further assess the quality of the inferred latent community structure, we investigate the inferred block consistency over time. We split the data into two halves based on whether the post occurred before June 30th, and infer the latent community structure within each time window using all three approaches. The Hellinger distance is used to quantify the difference between the block assignments, which is defined as:
$$HL=\frac{1}{v(\bfY)}\sum_{i=1}^{v(\bfy)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{K}(\sqrt{p_{ki}}-\sqrt{q_{ki}})^2}$$
where $K$ is the number of presumed blocks, and $v(\bfY)$ is the number of nodes; $p$ and $q$ correspond to the probability vector of a node belonging to each of the $K$ blocks. To overcome the label switching problem,
% we observe that when the largest one or two communities are correctly matched, the variation in Hellinger distance is small regardless of the matching status of the rest clusters. \textcolor{red}{In particular,
% we randomly sample 20 possible label combinations and take the minimal Hellinger distance. The step is repeated 20 times, and the mean value is set to be the final value.
we perform a greedy matching of blocks by size, starting with the largest communities, followed by the second largest, and so on so forth.
% The conclusions are similar.
For illustrative purposes we use Alcohol and Substance Abuse network and Behavioral Symptoms network as two examples. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:5.3.2.new} (See Section A.13 of the supplementary materials for results in other example networks). For the two subnetworks, the marginal likelihood is maximized when $K=2$ and $4$ respectively. Due to uncertainty in K, we present a range of values. The Hellinger Distance of inferred blocks assignments using our proposed method is smallest at these of optimal $K$ valued based on marginal likelihood.
% which demonstrates the usefulness of our proposed strategy in a real data setting.
Moreover, when comparing to inferred block assignments using spectral clustering and DC-SBM, the Hellinger Distance is smaller using our proposed method for all choices of $K$, which indicates the communities detected by our method are more consistent over time than the communities detected by the other two methods.
% That is, users tend to have more connections with people from the same inferred communities than people outside the inferred communities over time.
% of our model is consistent with the marginal likelihoods.
% It serves to prove the efficacy of the heuristic strategy mentioned in Section \ref{sec:slct_K} in real data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{HD_Spec_VCM_DCSBM58.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.HD_58}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=160pt,width=.9\linewidth]{llk_Alcohol.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.llk_58}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{HD_Spec_VCM_DCSBM60.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.HD_60}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=160pt,width=.9\linewidth]{llk_Beha.jpeg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub.llk_60}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The Hellinger distances of the block assignment between the first half and the second half of the 2019 data in (a) Alcohol and Substance Abuse suspected network and (c) Behavorial Symptoms Suspected network. The marginal likelihood over different K values in (b) Alcohol and Substance Abuse suspected network and (d) Behavorial Symptoms Suspected network.}
\label{fig:5.3.2.new}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[!Htp]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=14cm]{5.3.2.PNG}
% \caption{The Hellinger distances of the cluster assignment between the first half and the second half of the 2019 data in (a) Alcohol and Substance Abuse suspected network and (c) Behavorial Symptoms Suspected network. The marginal likelihood over different K values in (b) Alcohol and Substance Abuse suspected network and (d) Behavorial Symptoms Suspected network.}
% \label{fig:5.3.2.new}
%\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{section:discussion}
%1. Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed a new class of exchangeable interaction models that allow for node-level community structure. The framework models networks arising from the interaction process perspective and allows for networks that exhibit power-law degree distributions and network sparsity. We provide theoretical guarantees that the network sparsity can be retained in both the block-specific sub-networks and the entire network. We also prove that the misspecification rate of the inferred block assignments can be bounded, with the bound decreasing rapidly for high degree nodes. We implement the proposed B-VCM using a Gibbs sampling approach and demonstrate the efficacy of our algorithm through simulation. We end by applying our method to the TalkLife data to identify online user communities. We compare our results with inferred communities based on spectral clustering and degree-corrected stochastic block models, demonstrating more interpretable clustering results and consistency of the clusters over time.
% The contribution of our work is to account for the community structure when modeling the interaction process. Using TalkLife data as an example, our method can identify the underlying users' groups so that the platform will know to whom they can boost the visibility of the posts from certain users. Besides, our method provides the estimates of the power-law parameters for each of the group. The revelation of the network properties can help the platform make proper decisions on what kind of interventions to make. For example, a smaller power-law parameter indicates a looser connection between users. The platform will need extra efforts to ensure certain users within the community getting enough attention and social supports. Though we demonstrate our method using the TalkLife data, it can be well applied to any sparse interaction data sets \cite{sapiezynski2019interaction}.
%2. Drawback of this paper
% Note that the consistent conclusion only apply to high-degree nodes. We acknowledge it's the generic problem of our model, but it is generically hard to solve given that low degree nodes tend to have little information from the network structure.
%3. Future plan, hierarchical extension, and what?
There are numerous directions for future work. First, our proposed framework considered node-level community detection. Interaction processes may also exhibit clustering of different types of interactions (e.g., latent interaction topics). Second, given the size of modern interaction data, as discussed in Remark~\ref{rmk:scalable} there is a need to consider scalable implementations of the proposed algorithm or alternative algorithms that can handle hundreds of millions to billions of interactions~\cite{chiquet2019variational}. Third, our model assumes conditional independence of interactions given block assignments and node-level propensities. Recent work has considered community detection with dependent connectivity \cite{yuan2018community}. A natural question how to incorporate such dependency into the interaction exchangeable framework.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
\documentclass{standalone}
\usepackage{tikz,pgf}
\usetikzlibrary{topaths, calc, trees, positioning, arrows, shapes, shapes.multipart, shadows, matrix, decorations.pathreplacing, decorations.pathmorphing,backgrounds}
\begin{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}
% \node[inner sep=0pt] (fbpost) at (0,3.75)
% {\includegraphics[width=0.75in]{./Mario-Facebook-Wall.png}};
% \node[inner sep=0pt] (fbpost) at (0,1.75)
% {\includegraphics[width=0.75in]{./Macbeth-Facebook-Wall.png}};i
% \node (ell) at (0,0.5) {\LARGE $\vdots$};
%\node[inner sep=0pt] (fbpost) at (0.5,7.5){};
% \node[inner sep=0pt] (fbpost) at (2.5,7.5){};
%\node (ts) at (0.5,4.5) {Time};
\node (poster) at (0,4.5) {Poster};
\node (reactors) at (1.75,4.5) {Reactors};
%Interaction 1
%\node (t1) at (0.5,4) {$t_1$};
\node (p) at (0,4) {a};
\node (r1) at (1.75,4) {\{b, c, d\}};
%Interaction 2
% \node (t2) at (0.5,3.5) {$t_2$};
\node (p2) at (0,3.5) {e};
\node (r2) at (1.75,3.5) {\{d, f\}};
\node (p3) at (0,3) {g};
\node (r3) at (1.75,3) {\{f, h\}};
\node (poster) at (0,2.5) {Block};
\node (reactors) at (1.75,2.5) {Labels};
\node (p) at (0,2) {1};
\node (r1) at (1.75,2) {\{1, 1, 1\}};
%Interaction 2
% \node (t2) at (0.5,3.5) {$t_2$};
\node (p) at (0,1.5) {1};
\node (r1) at (1.75,1.5) {\{1, 2\}};
%Interaction 1
%\node (t1) at (0.5,4) {$t_1$};
\node (p) at (0,1) {2};
\node (r1) at (1.75,1) {\{2, 2\}};
\node[single arrow, rotate=0, rounded corners=3pt, fill=blue!30,
draw, align=center, xshift=3.5cm, yshift=2.75cm,
minimum height=1.75cm, minimum width=1.75cm]{};
\begin{scope}[inner sep=1mm,
poster/.style={circle,draw=brown!50,fill=brown!50,thick},
transition/.style={rectangle,draw=black!50,fill=black!20,thick},
reactor/.style={circle,draw=black!50,fill=black!50,thick}]
\node (a) [poster] at (5,4) {a};
\node (b) [poster] at (5.5,2.75) {b};
\node (c) [poster] at (6.5,3.0) {c};
\node (d) [poster] at (8,4) {d};
\node (e) [poster] at (8.5,3) {e};
\node (f) [reactor] at (7.5,2) {f};
\node (h) [reactor] at (5,1.75) {h};
\node (g) [reactor] at (6.25,1.25) {g};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[blend mode=multiply, fill opacity=0.8, on background layer]
\filldraw[fill=red!70,opacity=0.7] ($(a)+(-0.5,0)$)
to[out=270,in=180] ($(b) - (0,0.5)$)
to[out=0,in=230] ($(c) + (0.5,0)$)
to[out=50,in=270] ($(d) + (0.5,0)$)
to[out=90,in=0] ($(d)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=0] ($(c)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=0] ($(a) + (0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=90] ($(a)+(-0.5,0)$);
\filldraw[fill=blue!20,opacity=0.7] ($(d)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=0,in=90] ($(e)+(0.5,0)$)
to[out=270,in=0] ($(f)+(0,-0.5)$)
to[out=180, in=270] ($(f)+(-0.5,0)$)
to[out=90,in=270] ($(e)+(-0.5,0)$)
to[out=90,in=270] ($(d)+(-0.5,0.2)$)
to[out=90,in=180] ($(d)+(-0,0.5)$);
\filldraw[fill=yellow!20,opacity=0.7] ($(h)+(-0.5,0)$)
to[out=270,in=180] ($(g)-(0,0.5)$)
to[out=0,in=230] ($(g)+(0.5,0)$)
to[out=50, in=270] ($(f)+(0.5,0)$)
to[out=90,in=0] ($(f)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=0] ($(g)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=0] ($(h)+(0,0.5)$)
to[out=180,in=90] ($(h)-(0.5,0)$);
\end{scope}
%\node at (0.75,1.5) {$t_1$};
%\node at (4,1.75) {$t_2$};
%\node at (3,0.8) {$e_3$};
%\node at (0.1,0.7) {$e_4$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{document}
% $ biblatex auxiliary file $
% $ biblatex bbl format version 3.1 $
% Do not modify the above lines!
%
% This is an auxiliary file used by the 'biblatex' package.
% This file may safely be deleted. It will be recreated by
% biber as required.
%
\begingroup
\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{ver@biblatex.sty}
{\@latex@error
{Missing 'biblatex' package}
{The bibliography requires the 'biblatex' package.}
\aftergroup\endinput}
{}
\endgroup
\refsection{0}
\datalist[entry]{nty/global//global/global}
\entry{adamic2001search}{article}{}
\name{author}{4}{}{%
{{hash=eed5453adb70dcfc37e7cadd83dc3aa7}{%
family={Adamic},
familyi={A\bibinitperiod},
given={Lada\bibnamedelima A},
giveni={L\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim A\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=e484905a0e9eb4c8e4fc5c137e8bbcec}{%
family={Lukose},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Rajan\bibnamedelima M},
giveni={R\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim M\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=6335b3cb23f665d86a108c93cfc1cf04}{%
family={Puniyani},
familyi={P\bibinitperiod},
given={Amit\bibnamedelima R},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim R\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=a61365e36fd08190ec9d9aaa520f8199}{%
family={Huberman},
familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
given={Bernardo\bibnamedelima A},
giveni={B\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim A\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{APS}%
}
\strng{namehash}{ce83562b32e69478da828d60f273859e}
\strng{fullhash}{19ee6a3ec433d18bdd3ceee96a6a0238}
\strng{bibnamehash}{ce83562b32e69478da828d60f273859e}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{ce83562b32e69478da828d60f273859e}
\strng{authornamehash}{ce83562b32e69478da828d60f273859e}
\strng{authorfullhash}{19ee6a3ec433d18bdd3ceee96a6a0238}
\field{sortinit}{A}
\field{sortinithash}{a3dcedd53b04d1adfd5ac303ecd5e6fa}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Physical review E}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Search in power-law networks}
\field{volume}{64}
\field{year}{2001}
\field{pages}{046135}
\range{pages}{1}
\endentry
\entry{amini2013pseudo}{article}{}
\name{author}{4}{}{%
{{hash=ad6d1d439860c30f8840a8408a3a41c8}{%
family={Amini},
familyi={A\bibinitperiod},
given={Arash\bibnamedelima A},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim A\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=a78fd4e5bd0d66ad86f3356149fee79a}{%
family={Chen},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Aiyou},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=4cbb7e2b2b68aff0e8c8ad3f0cf5f335}{%
family={Bickel},
familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
given={Peter\bibnamedelima J},
giveni={P\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim J\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=466356443c13a28ed0b247c4ad39fc49}{%
family={Levina},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Elizaveta},
giveni={E\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{d4370b36021f1d272e9db109ad5352e5}
\strng{fullhash}{0c4ee022b7a74209f4f457ca0b915929}
\strng{bibnamehash}{d4370b36021f1d272e9db109ad5352e5}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{d4370b36021f1d272e9db109ad5352e5}
\strng{authornamehash}{d4370b36021f1d272e9db109ad5352e5}
\strng{authorfullhash}{0c4ee022b7a74209f4f457ca0b915929}
\field{sortinit}{A}
\field{sortinithash}{a3dcedd53b04d1adfd5ac303ecd5e6fa}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Pseudo-likelihood methods for community detection in large sparse networks}
\field{volume}{41}
\field{year}{2013}
\field{pages}{2097\bibrangedash 2122}
\range{pages}{26}
\endentry
\entry{chin2015stochastic}{inproceedings}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=c9a3cbc654df8958e6a57bc570becc58}{%
family={Chin},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Peter},
giveni={P\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=293b486a7e956afeac45290b400514a3}{%
family={Rao},
familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
given={Anup},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=8ad506863f61cad43fe4db578d9cdf42}{%
family={Vu},
familyi={V\bibinitperiod},
given={Van},
giveni={V\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{organization}{1}{%
{PMLR}%
}
\strng{namehash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\strng{fullhash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\strng{bibnamehash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\strng{authornamehash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\strng{authorfullhash}{65cdfee7bec32720eb0085e73ea6e8d2}
\field{sortinit}{C}
\field{sortinithash}{4c244ceae61406cdc0cc2ce1cb1ff703}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{booktitle}{Conference on Learning Theory}
\field{title}{Stochastic block model and community detection in sparse graphs: A spectral algorithm with optimal rate of recovery}
\field{year}{2015}
\field{pages}{391\bibrangedash 423}
\range{pages}{33}
\endentry
\entry{chiquet2019variational}{inproceedings}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=735ac5c67b56c59bd4992d5018439fdb}{%
family={Chiquet},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Julien},
giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=8638c5a745f0584f71bcb3f7f461e53e}{%
family={Robin},
familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
given={Stephane},
giveni={S\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=18e556f1617e4364ecf666fdd9c643ac}{%
family={Mariadassou},
familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
given={Mahendra},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{organization}{1}{%
{PMLR}%
}
\strng{namehash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\strng{fullhash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\strng{bibnamehash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\strng{authornamehash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\strng{authorfullhash}{5a7141cf0feabfdb75eb4c13d71faaab}
\field{sortinit}{C}
\field{sortinithash}{4c244ceae61406cdc0cc2ce1cb1ff703}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{booktitle}{International Conference on Machine Learning}
\field{title}{Variational inference for sparse network reconstruction from count data}
\field{year}{2019}
\field{pages}{1162\bibrangedash 1171}
\range{pages}{10}
\endentry
\entry{crane2021sts}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=ddd20f1f54494c0add46a5d72fcea6be}{%
family={Crane},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Harry},
giveni={H\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=896d31264e78ab320a193e10cb93e502}{%
family={Dempsey},
familyi={D\bibinitperiod},
given={Walter},
giveni={W\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{fullhash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{bibnamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authornamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authorfullhash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\field{extraname}{1}
\field{sortinit}{C}
\field{sortinithash}{4c244ceae61406cdc0cc2ce1cb1ff703}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Statistical Science}
\field{number}{1}
\field{title}{{A Statistical Framework for Modern Network Science}}
\field{volume}{36}
\field{year}{2021}
\field{pages}{51\bibrangedash 67}
\range{pages}{17}
\verb{doi}
\verb 10.1214/19-STS759
\endverb
\verb{urlraw}
\verb https://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS759
\endverb
\verb{url}
\verb https://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS759
\endverb
\endentry
\entry{crane2016edge}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=ddd20f1f54494c0add46a5d72fcea6be}{%
family={Crane},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Harry},
giveni={H\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=896d31264e78ab320a193e10cb93e502}{%
family={Dempsey},
familyi={D\bibinitperiod},
given={Walter},
giveni={W\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\strng{namehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{fullhash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{bibnamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authornamehash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\strng{authorfullhash}{bfe8d95962f2b44772f49d5541d663b6}
\field{extraname}{2}
\field{sortinit}{C}
\field{sortinithash}{4c244ceae61406cdc0cc2ce1cb1ff703}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04571}
\field{title}{Edge exchangeable models for network data}
\field{year}{2016}
\endentry
\entry{dempsey2021hierarchical}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=896d31264e78ab320a193e10cb93e502}{%
family={Dempsey},
familyi={D\bibinitperiod},
given={Walter},
giveni={W\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=5608ff454802c19dfdf7cdf08affacf5}{%
family={Oselio},
familyi={O\bibinitperiod},
given={Brandon},
giveni={B\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=e61b5dd212d9f2e648ef29b24377f4f7}{%
family={Hero},
familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
given={Alfred},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Taylor \& Francis}%
}
\strng{namehash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\strng{fullhash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\strng{bibnamehash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\strng{authornamehash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\strng{authorfullhash}{91b5a6186a1b3ec5d0d07fa11a23f1bc}
\field{sortinit}{D}
\field{sortinithash}{c438b3d5d027251ba63f5ed538d98af5}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Journal of the American Statistical Association}
\field{title}{Hierarchical network models for exchangeable structured interaction processes}
\field{year}{2021}
\field{pages}{1\bibrangedash 18}
\range{pages}{18}
\endentry
\entry{West1995}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=a7c38d98866f4801ae472c2801c9f371}{%
family={Escobar},
familyi={E\bibinitperiod},
given={M.},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=5112d0294362c4012eb8aefe452fcc72}{%
family={West},
familyi={W\bibinitperiod},
given={M.},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\strng{namehash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\strng{fullhash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\strng{bibnamehash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\strng{authornamehash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\strng{authorfullhash}{c612187013dde87af0d1808b13d70c3a}
\field{sortinit}{E}
\field{sortinithash}{c554bd1a0b76ea92b9f105fe36d9c7b0}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Journal of the American Statistical Association}
\field{title}{Bayesian density estimation and inference using mixtures}
\field{volume}{90}
\field{year}{1995}
\field{pages}{577\bibrangedash 588}
\range{pages}{12}
\endentry
\entry{funke2019stochastic}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=8e20f6b1e37c01dca5a822dc44ecee98}{%
family={Funke},
familyi={F\bibinitperiod},
given={Thorben},
giveni={T\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=5a0fec84a4a6f20e9b37316b42e73929}{%
family={Becker},
familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
given={Till},
giveni={T\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA}%
}
\strng{namehash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\strng{fullhash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\strng{bibnamehash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\strng{authornamehash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\strng{authorfullhash}{6d3a3c72c15090b9eebb809dae7a9811}
\field{sortinit}{F}
\field{sortinithash}{fb0c0faa89eb6abae8213bf60e6799ea}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{PloS one}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Stochastic block models: A comparison of variants and inference methods}
\field{volume}{14}
\field{year}{2019}
\field{pages}{e0215296}
\range{pages}{-1}
\endentry
\entry{gao2015rate}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=5823eb7ad4b83d3652dce6fb7c0ca992}{%
family={Gao},
familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
given={Chao},
giveni={C\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=618dfc15ed46244945f322553c021677}{%
family={Lu},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Yu},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=704f72a77f355cb813154f2f2aec3a6b}{%
family={Zhou},
familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
given={Harrison\bibnamedelima H},
giveni={H\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim H\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\strng{fullhash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\strng{bibnamehash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\strng{authornamehash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\strng{authorfullhash}{f221c3608a588197ef8d2a2cf01c28cd}
\field{sortinit}{G}
\field{sortinithash}{62eb2aa29549e4fdbd3cb154ec5711cb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{6}
\field{title}{Rate-optimal graphon estimation}
\field{volume}{43}
\field{year}{2015}
\field{pages}{2624\bibrangedash 2652}
\range{pages}{29}
\endentry
\entry{gao2018community}{article}{}
\name{author}{4}{}{%
{{hash=5823eb7ad4b83d3652dce6fb7c0ca992}{%
family={Gao},
familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
given={Chao},
giveni={C\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=3f6f9e8b12bcfb666a7b68347a82a1b9}{%
family={Ma},
familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
given={Zongming},
giveni={Z\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=1a003519b1c0194ef8a22b07fc877bdd}{%
family={Zhang},
familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
given={Anderson\bibnamedelima Y},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=704f72a77f355cb813154f2f2aec3a6b}{%
family={Zhou},
familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
given={Harrison\bibnamedelima H},
giveni={H\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim H\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{5ac09611426d3b8802b63ce6a119734a}
\strng{fullhash}{ab9fdd21355be83b9134127898495218}
\strng{bibnamehash}{5ac09611426d3b8802b63ce6a119734a}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{5ac09611426d3b8802b63ce6a119734a}
\strng{authornamehash}{5ac09611426d3b8802b63ce6a119734a}
\strng{authorfullhash}{ab9fdd21355be83b9134127898495218}
\field{sortinit}{G}
\field{sortinithash}{62eb2aa29549e4fdbd3cb154ec5711cb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{5}
\field{title}{Community detection in degree-corrected block models}
\field{volume}{46}
\field{year}{2018}
\field{pages}{2153\bibrangedash 2185}
\range{pages}{33}
\endentry
\entry{grimmer2010bayesian}{article}{}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}{%
family={Grimmer},
familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
given={Justin},
giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Cambridge University Press}%
}
\strng{namehash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\strng{fullhash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\strng{bibnamehash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\strng{authornamehash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\strng{authorfullhash}{81e3df64dcc8ffabf2106dfc23b934e0}
\field{sortinit}{G}
\field{sortinithash}{62eb2aa29549e4fdbd3cb154ec5711cb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Political Analysis}
\field{number}{1}
\field{title}{A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases}
\field{volume}{18}
\field{year}{2010}
\field{pages}{1\bibrangedash 35}
\range{pages}{35}
\endentry
\entry{grun2011topicmodels}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=be8e8db7aefb5e406129f69278dc01c8}{%
family={Gr{ü}n},
familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
given={Bettina},
giveni={B\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=bec8dd1340457a82c21b54971e4c9417}{%
family={Hornik},
familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
given={Kurt},
giveni={K\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\strng{namehash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\strng{fullhash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\strng{bibnamehash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\strng{authornamehash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\strng{authorfullhash}{9cee796fa4301e2f7558fe37c8ae0ddd}
\field{sortinit}{G}
\field{sortinithash}{62eb2aa29549e4fdbd3cb154ec5711cb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Journal of statistical software}
\field{number}{1}
\field{title}{topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models}
\field{volume}{40}
\field{year}{2011}
\field{pages}{1\bibrangedash 30}
\range{pages}{30}
\endentry
\entry{holland1983stochastic}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=f77d8823946c674172702e2a9422f960}{%
family={Holland},
familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
given={Paul\bibnamedelima W},
giveni={P\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim W\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=366a6f6fd90063590430fc87699ad172}{%
family={Laskey},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Kathryn\bibnamedelima Blackmond},
giveni={K\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim B\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=68cccf1e7640862e35f66adb8b8df15e}{%
family={Leinhardt},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Samuel},
giveni={S\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Elsevier}%
}
\strng{namehash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\strng{fullhash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\strng{bibnamehash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\strng{authornamehash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\strng{authorfullhash}{2589c0d43c44e4c1eb0c89a68a5510a3}
\field{sortinit}{H}
\field{sortinithash}{6db6145dae8dc9e1271a8d556090b50a}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Social networks}
\field{number}{2}
\field{title}{Stochastic blockmodels: First steps}
\field{volume}{5}
\field{year}{1983}
\field{pages}{109\bibrangedash 137}
\range{pages}{29}
\endentry
\entry{jasra2005markov}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=fd2c45b545dcce044e994f763abfcd70}{%
family={Jasra},
familyi={J\bibinitperiod},
given={Ajay},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=0f4bc87069683fd054a8105cf1f294ad}{%
family={Holmes},
familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
given={Chris\bibnamedelima C},
giveni={C\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim C\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=33e846ab0306c7404f2a11794fb9438a}{%
family={Stephens},
familyi={S\bibinitperiod},
given={David\bibnamedelima A},
giveni={D\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim A\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{JSTOR}%
}
\strng{namehash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\strng{fullhash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\strng{bibnamehash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\strng{authornamehash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\strng{authorfullhash}{f231145230159c4c0d2502a775892db8}
\field{sortinit}{J}
\field{sortinithash}{c45040a764d616897e7f5b30174d7b92}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Statistical Science}
\field{title}{Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and the label switching problem in Bayesian mixture modeling}
\field{year}{2005}
\field{pages}{50\bibrangedash 67}
\range{pages}{18}
\endentry
\entry{karrer2011stochastic}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=8b4f260513035df036170e50abb8a1a2}{%
family={Karrer},
familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
given={Brian},
giveni={B\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=214f45e2823b5430ca6f11c0fb3b6552}{%
family={Newman},
familyi={N\bibinitperiod},
given={Mark\bibnamedelima EJ},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim E\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{APS}%
}
\strng{namehash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\strng{fullhash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\strng{bibnamehash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\strng{authornamehash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\strng{authorfullhash}{834d4dee3550ce989cfaf6d0a7410ba4}
\field{sortinit}{K}
\field{sortinithash}{d3edc18d54b9438a72c24c925bfb38f4}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Physical review E}
\field{number}{1}
\field{title}{Stochastic blockmodels and community structure in networks}
\field{volume}{83}
\field{year}{2011}
\field{pages}{016107}
\range{pages}{1}
\endentry
\entry{morup2012bayesian}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=d591c7b144c34a11e6ff539e0cae200f}{%
family={M{ø}rup},
familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
given={Morten},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=ec23a094c4bf5d4bde14f8b1c1bb68d5}{%
family={Schmidt},
familyi={S\bibinitperiod},
given={Mikkel\bibnamedelima N},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim N\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA journals-info~…}%
}
\strng{namehash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\strng{fullhash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\strng{bibnamehash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\strng{authornamehash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\strng{authorfullhash}{da1bb669dcf976ff9e57ffd5b84cccf4}
\field{sortinit}{M}
\field{sortinithash}{2e5c2f51f7fa2d957f3206819bf86dc3}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Neural computation}
\field{number}{9}
\field{title}{Bayesian community detection}
\field{volume}{24}
\field{year}{2012}
\field{pages}{2434\bibrangedash 2456}
\range{pages}{23}
\endentry
\entry{ng2002spectral}{inproceedings}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=49e889356ff39df159461bc2895c7e16}{%
family={Ng},
familyi={N\bibinitperiod},
given={Andrew\bibnamedelima Y},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=8a36116840c7ee55901618c95fd08a58}{%
family={Jordan},
familyi={J\bibinitperiod},
given={Michael\bibnamedelima I},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim I\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=214a71ab353c5570ed4acb95cf84f539}{%
family={Weiss},
familyi={W\bibinitperiod},
given={Yair},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\strng{namehash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\strng{fullhash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\strng{bibnamehash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\strng{authornamehash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\strng{authorfullhash}{5d86632afad2d9be5f647a2a8bf003e2}
\field{sortinit}{N}
\field{sortinithash}{98cf339a479c0454fe09153a08675a15}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{booktitle}{Advances in neural information processing systems}
\field{title}{On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm}
\field{year}{2002}
\field{pages}{849\bibrangedash 856}
\range{pages}{8}
\endentry
\entry{van2018bayesian}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=326a5d39eda17192a01572f922c04b1b}{%
family={Pas},
familyi={P\bibinitperiod},
given={SL},
giveni={S\bibinitperiod},
prefix={van\bibnamedelima der},
prefixi={v\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim d\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=0984d86b08fab85dbb38d35420327ee1}{%
family={Vaart},
familyi={V\bibinitperiod},
given={AW38078661407},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod},
prefix={van\bibnamedelima der},
prefixi={v\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim d\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{International Society for Bayesian Analysis}%
}
\strng{namehash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\strng{fullhash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\strng{bibnamehash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\strng{authornamehash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\strng{authorfullhash}{5c173115755034511c0f3513aa2d9f6b}
\field{sortinit}{P}
\field{sortinithash}{bb5b15f2db90f7aef79bb9e83defefcb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Bayesian Analysis}
\field{number}{3}
\field{title}{Bayesian community detection}
\field{volume}{13}
\field{year}{2018}
\field{pages}{767\bibrangedash 796}
\range{pages}{30}
\endentry
\entry{pitman2002combinatorial}{report}{}
\true{moreauthor}
\true{morelabelname}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=081ad72db47fd3469ec24c44f405d377}{%
family={Pitman},
familyi={P\bibinitperiod},
given={Jim},
giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{institution}{1}{%
{Technical Report 621, Dept. Statistics, UC Berkeley, 2002. Lecture notes for~…}%
}
\strng{namehash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\strng{fullhash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\strng{bibnamehash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\strng{authornamehash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\strng{authorfullhash}{e03642f0a627e8cd18a2530e79692a81}
\field{sortinit}{P}
\field{sortinithash}{bb5b15f2db90f7aef79bb9e83defefcb}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{title}{Combinatorial stochastic processes}
\field{type}{techreport}
\field{year}{2002}
\endentry
\entry{qiao2018adapting}{article}{}
\name{author}{5}{}{%
{{hash=5f1da72539f210b904ec9a792c78705d}{%
family={Qiao},
familyi={Q\bibinitperiod},
given={Maoying},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=94658a16389c695058255d9358d09cdd}{%
family={Yu},
familyi={Y\bibinitperiod},
given={Jun},
giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=c66b7d65efb7791e1e29d827c9581ec6}{%
family={Bian},
familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
given={Wei},
giveni={W\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=f495cdda14989886bcfdb65c02b7a19d}{%
family={Li},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Qiang},
giveni={Q\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=f15b34a2bc944a9f055fd6e2e3a7c460}{%
family={Tao},
familyi={T\bibinitperiod},
given={Dacheng},
giveni={D\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{IEEE}%
}
\strng{namehash}{c0d7e85ab8a0e54cb40f750c56d010f8}
\strng{fullhash}{149634ca15bbc131538bc9cd0706706d}
\strng{bibnamehash}{c0d7e85ab8a0e54cb40f750c56d010f8}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{c0d7e85ab8a0e54cb40f750c56d010f8}
\strng{authornamehash}{c0d7e85ab8a0e54cb40f750c56d010f8}
\strng{authorfullhash}{149634ca15bbc131538bc9cd0706706d}
\field{sortinit}{Q}
\field{sortinithash}{c54e16deb53fc904a621fa8fd8703b5a}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{IEEE transactions on cybernetics}
\field{number}{2}
\field{title}{Adapting stochastic block models to power-law degree distributions}
\field{volume}{49}
\field{year}{2018}
\field{pages}{626\bibrangedash 637}
\range{pages}{12}
\endentry
\entry{rohe2011spectral}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=fd98eb455883291fe989a897cdc50304}{%
family={Rohe},
familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
given={Karl},
giveni={K\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=225d0c64bc582e380c1334293c4db1a3}{%
family={Chatterjee},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Sourav},
giveni={S\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=43d22dc81cc0e5bb1d24d5eeb65ecbae}{%
family={Yu},
familyi={Y\bibinitperiod},
given={Bin},
giveni={B\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\strng{fullhash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\strng{bibnamehash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\strng{authornamehash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\strng{authorfullhash}{515d17ee0503e0ff3e0914d5ceab44d5}
\field{sortinit}{R}
\field{sortinithash}{b9c68a358aea118dfa887b6e902414a7}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Spectral clustering and the high-dimensional stochastic blockmodel}
\field{volume}{39}
\field{year}{2011}
\field{pages}{1878\bibrangedash 1915}
\range{pages}{38}
\endentry
\entry{strauss1990pseudolikelihood}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=4d5566c6a48860f54604f805e3f1c686}{%
family={Strauss},
familyi={S\bibinitperiod},
given={David},
giveni={D\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=a075c72732f631d92e6a17033ecf777e}{%
family={Ikeda},
familyi={I\bibinitperiod},
given={Michael},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Taylor \& Francis}%
}
\strng{namehash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\strng{fullhash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\strng{bibnamehash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\strng{authornamehash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\strng{authorfullhash}{6e56cbf8c92a020cb5e574fbf946558e}
\field{sortinit}{S}
\field{sortinithash}{c319cff79d99c853d775f88277d4e45f}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Journal of the American statistical association}
\field{number}{409}
\field{title}{Pseudolikelihood estimation for social networks}
\field{volume}{85}
\field{year}{1990}
\field{pages}{204\bibrangedash 212}
\range{pages}{9}
\endentry
\entry{taddy2012estimation}{inproceedings}{}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}{%
family={Taddy},
familyi={T\bibinitperiod},
given={Matt},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{organization}{1}{%
{PMLR}%
}
\strng{namehash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\strng{fullhash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\strng{bibnamehash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\strng{authornamehash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\strng{authorfullhash}{16e5ccc34f2ccb8bb3c2e92bb0f64013}
\field{sortinit}{T}
\field{sortinithash}{51f9faf24c60c62ca764a77f78cf5666}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{booktitle}{Artificial Intelligence and Statistics}
\field{title}{On estimation and selection for topic models}
\field{year}{2012}
\field{pages}{1184\bibrangedash 1193}
\range{pages}{10}
\endentry
\entry{teh2007collapsed}{report}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=f234786862390800ab5d976efb8142e5}{%
family={Teh},
familyi={T\bibinitperiod},
given={Yee\bibnamedelima W},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim W\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=c6e083f47bda3beece2d206379d5135b}{%
family={Newman},
familyi={N\bibinitperiod},
given={David},
giveni={D\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=53d2880ad8047b61cdae2c6b2803e763}{%
family={Welling},
familyi={W\bibinitperiod},
given={Max},
giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{institution}{2}{%
{CALIFORNIA UNIV IRVINE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION}%
{COMPUTER SCIENCE}%
}
\strng{namehash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\strng{fullhash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\strng{bibnamehash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\strng{authornamehash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\strng{authorfullhash}{d43a9e0f64fae80880ab0fd51c7e0be3}
\field{sortinit}{T}
\field{sortinithash}{51f9faf24c60c62ca764a77f78cf5666}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{title}{A collapsed variational Bayesian inference algorithm for latent Dirichlet allocation}
\field{type}{techreport}
\field{year}{2007}
\endentry
\entry{teh2006bayesian}{article}{}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}{%
family={Teh},
familyi={T\bibinitperiod},
given={Yee\bibnamedelima Whye},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim W\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{TRA2/06}%
}
\strng{namehash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\strng{fullhash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\strng{bibnamehash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\strng{authornamehash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\strng{authorfullhash}{a71fae003da84f44e31d26e868859945}
\field{sortinit}{T}
\field{sortinithash}{51f9faf24c60c62ca764a77f78cf5666}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{title}{A Bayesian interpretation of interpolated Kneser-Ney}
\field{year}{2006}
\endentry
\entry{van2019scalable}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=b34dc6720a01a6af0fc3293c7f7e82f3}{%
family={Van\bibnamedelima Lierde},
familyi={V\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim L\bibinitperiod},
given={Hadrien},
giveni={H\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=aa772efc33356549075cc22794c465b7}{%
family={Chow},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Tommy\bibnamedelima WS},
giveni={T\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim W\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=c2465aadc98c418b040e810d4f8c1b79}{%
family={Chen},
familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
given={Guanrong},
giveni={G\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{IEEE}%
}
\strng{namehash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\strng{fullhash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\strng{bibnamehash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\strng{authornamehash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\strng{authorfullhash}{9be53112ff67ef0d749f9584b31440b5}
\field{sortinit}{V}
\field{sortinithash}{02432525618c08e2b03cac47c19764af}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Scalable spectral clustering for overlapping community detection in large-scale networks}
\field{volume}{32}
\field{year}{2019}
\field{pages}{754\bibrangedash 767}
\range{pages}{14}
\endentry
\entry{vuong1989likelihood}{article}{}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}{%
family={Vuong},
familyi={V\bibinitperiod},
given={Quang\bibnamedelima H},
giveni={Q\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim H\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{JSTOR}%
}
\strng{namehash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\strng{fullhash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\strng{bibnamehash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\strng{authornamehash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\strng{authorfullhash}{305f1789a2eeb8c1185e1227321b4973}
\field{sortinit}{V}
\field{sortinithash}{02432525618c08e2b03cac47c19764af}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society}
\field{title}{Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses}
\field{year}{1989}
\field{pages}{307\bibrangedash 333}
\range{pages}{27}
\endentry
\entry{wang2017likelihood}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=7555eed89a44606c89471c79148e2267}{%
family={Wang},
familyi={W\bibinitperiod},
given={YX\bibnamedelima Rachel},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim R\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=4cbb7e2b2b68aff0e8c8ad3f0cf5f335}{%
family={Bickel},
familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
given={Peter\bibnamedelima J},
giveni={P\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim J\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\strng{fullhash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\strng{bibnamehash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\strng{authornamehash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\strng{authorfullhash}{b46c7859a0bcb306255e39eb9860b5f6}
\field{sortinit}{W}
\field{sortinithash}{1af34bd8c148ffb32de1494636b49713}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{2}
\field{title}{Likelihood-based model selection for stochastic block models}
\field{volume}{45}
\field{year}{2017}
\field{pages}{500\bibrangedash 528}
\range{pages}{29}
\endentry
\entry{yan2016bayesian}{inproceedings}{}
\name{author}{1}{}{%
{{hash=8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}{%
family={Yan},
familyi={Y\bibinitperiod},
given={Xiaoran},
giveni={X\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{organization}{1}{%
{IEEE}%
}
\strng{namehash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\strng{fullhash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\strng{bibnamehash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\strng{authornamehash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\strng{authorfullhash}{8e9b27951a25a36f2dbe39d9a8be2895}
\field{sortinit}{Y}
\field{sortinithash}{6ae2ff5458ff901249c2745238c951b7}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{booktitle}{2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM)}
\field{title}{Bayesian model selection of stochastic block models}
\field{year}{2016}
\field{pages}{323\bibrangedash 328}
\range{pages}{6}
\endentry
\entry{yuan2018community}{article}{}
\name{author}{2}{}{%
{{hash=08ec7e75cf7dfc8759f9367ed6e8e10d}{%
family={Yuan},
familyi={Y\bibinitperiod},
given={Yubai},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=1f7e5960a9a79c4512a4ea4927d60a04}{%
family={Qu},
familyi={Q\bibinitperiod},
given={Annie},
giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\strng{namehash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\strng{fullhash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\strng{bibnamehash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\strng{authornamehash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\strng{authorfullhash}{c14f087da1419430c4a723c7ef9ef16f}
\field{sortinit}{Y}
\field{sortinithash}{6ae2ff5458ff901249c2745238c951b7}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06406}
\field{title}{Community Detection with Dependent Connectivity}
\field{year}{2018}
\endentry
\entry{zhao2012consistency}{article}{}
\name{author}{3}{}{%
{{hash=ba12aab9270078d044f9b72f3a448f0d}{%
family={Zhao},
familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
given={Yunpeng},
giveni={Y\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=466356443c13a28ed0b247c4ad39fc49}{%
family={Levina},
familyi={L\bibinitperiod},
given={Elizaveta},
giveni={E\bibinitperiod}}}%
{{hash=885c2d20b53bf31151fa702f9fadcfe5}{%
family={Zhu},
familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
given={Ji},
giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
}
\list{publisher}{1}{%
{Institute of Mathematical Statistics}%
}
\strng{namehash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\strng{fullhash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\strng{bibnamehash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\strng{authorbibnamehash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\strng{authornamehash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\strng{authorfullhash}{a6c9b1e7655078574a2a805ab9aaee41}
\field{sortinit}{Z}
\field{sortinithash}{8f7b480688e809b50b6f6577b16f3db5}
\field{labelnamesource}{author}
\field{labeltitlesource}{title}
\field{journaltitle}{The Annals of Statistics}
\field{number}{4}
\field{title}{Consistency of community detection in networks under degree-corrected stochastic block models}
\field{volume}{40}
\field{year}{2012}
\field{pages}{2266\bibrangedash 2292}
\range{pages}{27}
\endentry
\enddatalist
\endrefsection
\endinput