The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for the comparison of maximum pseudo-likelihood and maximum likelihood estimation of exponential family random graph models
Open accessAbstract
The statistical modeling of social network data is difficult due to the complex dependence structure of the tie variables. Statistical exponential families of distributions provide a flexible way to model such dependence. They enable the statistical characteristics of the network to be encapsulated within an exponential family random graph (ERG) model. For a long time, however, likelihood-based estimation was only feasible for ERG models assuming dyad independence. For more realistic and complex models inference has been based on the pseudo-likelihood. Recent advances in computational methods have made likelihood-based inference practical, and comparison of the different estimators possible. In this paper, we present methodology to enable estimators of ERG model parameters to be compared. We use this methodology to compare the bias, standard errors, coverage rates and efficiency of maximum likelihood and maximum pseudo-likelihood estimators. We also propose an improved pseudo-likelihood estimation method aimed at reducing bias. The comparison is performed using simulated social network data based on two versions of an empirically realistic network model, the first representing Lazega’s law firm data and the second a modified version with increased transitivity. The framework considers estimation of both the natural and the mean-value parameters. The results clearly show the superiority of the likelihood-based estimators over those based on pseudo-likelihood, with the bias-reduced pseudo-likelihood out-performing the general pseudo-likelihood. The use of the mean value parameterization provides insight into the differences between the estimators and when these differences will matter in practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Agresti, A. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471249688 · Cited by 6,746
A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression
Heinze, G., & Schemper, M. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1047 · Cited by 2,711
Cited by
A Survey of Statistical Network Models
Goldenberg, A., Zheng, A. X., Fienberg, S. E., & Airoldi, E. M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000005 · Cited by 819
Navigating the Range of Statistical Tools for Inferential Network Analysis
Cranmer, S. J., Leifeld, P., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2017) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12263 · Cited by 214
Metadata
- Authors
- van Duijn, M. A. J., Gile, K. J., & Handcock, M. S.
- Venue
- Social Networks
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52-62
- ISSN
- 0378-8733 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124612503
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for the comparison of maximum pseudo-likelihood and maximum likelihood estimation of exponential family random graph models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.10.003
- The paper
- van Duijn, M. A. J., Gile, K. J., & Handcock, M. S. (2009). A framework for the comparison of maximum pseudo-likelihood and maximum likelihood estimation of exponential family random graph models. Social Networks. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.10.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.