Dyadic Regression

Bryan S. Graham

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Dyadic Regression

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the limiting distribution of Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimates for dyadic regression, showing that dependence between dyads sharing an agent inflates variance and that a dyadic-robust variance estimator…

desk verdict Useful, honest survey of dyadic inference with a practical takeaway, but the central CLT lacks explicit regularity conditions and the novel technical content is modest. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09029 v1 pith:CM43Z7HM submitted 2019-08-23 econ.EM stat.AP

Bryan S. Graham This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.EMstat.AP

keywords dyadicregressiongravitymodelcompositelikelihooddependencenetworkdataU-statisticsPoissonpseudo-maximumcluster-robustinference

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Dyadic data—observations on pairs of units, such as trade flows between pairs of countries—violate the independence assumption behind standard regression inference, because two flows that share a country tend to move together. This paper derives the limit distribution of the composite Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator commonly used for gravity models of trade. It shows that the asymptotic variance is dominated by covariance between pairs of dyads sharing one country, and that a variance estimator which sums over triads (the dyadic-robust estimator) restores nominal 95% confidence-interval coverage, while i.i.d. and dyad-clustered standard errors undercover, sometimes severely. If the paper is right, empirical researchers who report standard errors that ignore shared-agent dependence are overstating precision, often by a factor of two.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the double projection of the composite score. First the score $S_N$ is projected onto the observed and latent vertex variables; then the resulting $U$-statistic is projected onto its Hájek projection, which is the sum over agents of the averaged ego/alter expected score. Conditional on the latent variables, dyads that do not share an index are independent, so this projected sum is a sum of i.i.d. terms and the remainders are higher-order $U$-statistics. A Hoeffding variance decomposition then separates the leading $O(1/N)$ term $4\Sigma_1$, which arises from pairs of dyads sharing exactly one agent, from the $O(1/N^2)$ remainder terms. This decomposition both justifies the limiting normal distribution and identifies which variance estimator captures the correct sampling uncertainty.

What would settle it

Re-run the Section 4 Monte Carlo at $N=500$ and $N=1000$ with many replications, compute the empirical variance of $\sqrt{N}(\hat{\theta}-\theta_0)$, and compare it with the theoretical limit $4\Gamma_0^{-1}\Sigma_1(\Gamma_0^{-1})'$; if the dyadic-robust Wald intervals from equation (16) depart materially from 95% coverage, or the empirical variance disagrees with the formula, the variance decomposition would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that asymptotic inference for dyadic regressions is governed by covariance between any two dyads that share an agent. Under the $W$-exchangeability/graphon representation, the composite score can be decomposed so that the dominant variance term is $4\Sigma_1$, the variance of the ego/alter-averaged score contribution, and the estimator obeys $\sqrt{N}(\hat{\theta}-\theta_0) \xrightarrow{d} N(0, 4(\Gamma_0' \Sigma_1^{-1} \Gamma_0)^{-1})$. The variance calculation shows $V(\sqrt{N}S_N) = 4\Sigma_1 + O(N^{-1})$, with the leading term coming from the $N(N-1)(N-2)$ pairs of dyads sharing one country. The variance estimator of equation (16) includes both leading and higher-order terms and, in the paper's Monte Carlo experiment at $N=200$, yields confidence intervals with actual coverage close to 0.95, while intervals that ignore shared-agent dependence cover as low as 0.52. The practical consequence is that standard software output in gravity regressions is likely to overstate precision.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that unobserved exporter and importer effects are mean-independent of observed country attributes, $E[(A_i,B_i)'|W_i]=(1,1)'$; if they covary with GDP or WTO membership, the Poisson conditional mean is misspecified and the estimator no longer targets the structural gravity coefficients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Standard Poisson software with sandwich standard errors ignores the leading variance term, so reported confidence intervals will undercover the true parameter.
Clustering on dyads still ignores dependence across pairs of dyads that share one agent, so it also undercovers; in the paper's simulations these intervals cover as low as 52 percent.
The dyadic-robust variance estimator of equation (16) restores coverage close to 0.95 in the Monte Carlo experiment at $N=200$.
In the empirical gravity illustration, dyadic-robust standard errors are roughly twice those that ignore shared-agent dependence, implying many published confidence intervals are too narrow.
If the marginal likelihood is misspecified, the estimator remains consistent for the minimizer of the limiting composite log-likelihood, but that parameter is not necessarily the structural gravity coefficient.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same variance structure should apply to other dyadic estimators, such as logit, probit, or linear regressions, whenever their scores are sums of pair-specific terms; the correction is not specific to Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood.
Because the leading variance term comes from all triples of agents, the gap between naive and dyadic-robust standard errors grows with the number of shared-agent dyad pairs, which is on the order of $O(N^3)$; very large networks may need computational shortcuts.
If unobserved exporter and importer effects covary with observed attributes, the point estimates themselves are at risk; a sensitivity analysis that adds country controls or fixed effects would reveal how much of the estimated gravity effect is contaminated by latent resistance.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You can treat this as a competent survey chapter rather than a breakthrough. The practical message—use dyadic-robust standard errors a la Fafchamps-Gubert instead of i.i.d. or dyad-clustered ones—is clearly argued and supported by a small Monte Carlo showing severe undercoverage (0.52–0.79) for the naive methods and near-nominal coverage for the proposed estimator. The variance decomposition in (14) is laid out transparently, and the chapter does an honest job situating itself: it explicitly says Menzel (2017) and Davezies et al. (2019) independently derived substantially related limit theory, and that the variance estimator comes from Fafchamps & Gubert. So the original technical contribution is modest: an explicit derivation of the variance formula and a practical recommendation.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, equation (17) is stated as a general limit for the composite Poisson PML, but no non-degeneracy or moment conditions are given. If the latent heterogeneity terms are degenerate (sigma_A=0), Sigma_1=0 and the Hajek term vanishes; the estimator would converge at rate N, not sqrt(N), and the normal limit fails. Similarly, if V_ij is heavy-tailed, Sigma_1 may not exist. The Monte Carlo operates safely inside the regular regime (sigma_A=0.25 and lognormal innovations), so it tests the guideline only there. This is fixable with a theorem that states the required conditions, and the paper's own Further Reading points toward Menzel for degeneracy, but as written the theorem is over-generalized. Second, the derivations reference Graham (2017) and Graham (TBD) for formal regularity conditions and the equivalence of (16) to Fafchamps-Gubert; for a self-contained chapter, those proofs should be included or clearly delegated. Third, the unconditional exogeneity assumption E[(A_i,B_i)'|W_i]=(1,1)' is flagged but deferred; that's an honest scope limitation, not an oversight.

Who is this for? Empirical researchers in trade and network economics who want guidance on inference. It deserves a serious referee because the recommendation is important and the Monte Carlo is informative, but the referee should push for explicit regularity conditions and either proofs or clearer attribution. Engage with it: the practical advice is sound, and the gaps are patches, not holes.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This chapter (an invited review for an edited volume) studies estimation and inference for dyadic regression models, with the gravity model of trade as the running example. The data generating process is Y_ij = exp(R_ij'θ_0) A_i B_j V_ij with mean-one latent effects and idiosyncratic shocks. The paper derives, via a double projection/U-statistic decomposition of the score, the limiting distribution of the composite Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator under dyadic dependence: √N(θ̂-θ_0) → N(0, 4(Γ_0' Σ_1^{-1} Γ_0)^{-1}) (equation 17). It recommends the Fafchamps-Gubert variance estimator (equation 16), which includes higher-order variance terms, and reports a Monte Carlo experiment (N=200, 1,000 replications) showing that i.i.d. or dyad-clustered standard errors undercover while the dyadic-robust estimator achieves near-nominal coverage. The paper also contains an empirical illustration using the Santos Silva-Tenreyro gravity dataset.

Significance. If the results hold, the chapter fills a practical gap: it gives empirical researchers a transparent derivation of why dyadic clustering matters and a concrete variance estimator that restores nominal coverage in the gravity-model setting that dominates applied trade work. The variance decomposition in equations (11)–(14) is a useful and largely self-contained accounting of the three sources of variation (Hájek projection, U-statistic remainder, and dyad-level projection error). The Monte Carlo, though limited to a single DGP, directly supports the central coverage claim, and the chapter is explicit that the i.i.d. and dyad-clustered alternatives are dominated by the dyadic-robust estimator in that experiment. The treatment is a review chapter rather than a new theoretical contribution, but it consolidates and makes accessible results that are currently scattered in the literature.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, equation (17)] The limiting distribution in (17) is stated without the regularity conditions needed for its proof. The derivation requires that the Hájek term U_1N dominates after multiplying by √N, which in turn requires Σ_1 to be nonsingular and the score s_ij to have a finite second moment. The DGP in equation (1) only assumes A_i, B_i, and V_ij are mean-one random variables; no moment or non-degeneracy condition is stated. If the latent heterogeneity is absent (e.g., σ_A = 0 in the Monte Carlo parameterization), then ¯s = 0, Σ_1 = 0, U_1N = 0, and the estimator converges at a rate faster than √N, so (17) degenerates. This is precisely the graphon-degeneracy case that Menzel (2017) shows changes rates and limits, and the paper mentions such degeneracy only in Section 5, not as an exclusion condition in the theorem. Similarly, if V_ij is heavy-tailed enough that E[V_ij²] is infinite, Σ_2 and Σ_3 are not finite and the CLT can fail. The Monte Carlo uses σ_A = 0.25 and lognormal idiosyncratic noise with scale 1, comfortably inside the regular regime, so Table 1 does not probe these boundaries. The chapter should either state explicit sufficient conditions for (17) or clearly delimit the parameter region in which the recommended inference is justified.
[Section 1, footnote 2 and equation (2)] The unconditional exogeneity condition E[(A_i, B_i)' | W_i] = (1,1)' is load-bearing for the interpretation of θ_0 as the structural gravity parameter. If latent exporter/importer effects covary with observed attributes, the conditional mean in equation (2) is misspecified and θ̂ converges to a projection parameter, not to the structural elasticity of interest. The paper explicitly defers this concern, but the deferral is not merely cosmetic: the Monte Carlo DGP satisfies the condition by construction, so the coverage results in Table 1 do not speak to the misspecified case. The chapter should at least state that all results are conditional on correct specification of the marginal mean (or on interpreting θ_0 as the pseudo-true value), and note the consequences for the empirical illustration if the condition fails.
[Section 3, variance estimation and limit distribution] The argument that √N S_N = √N U_1N + o_p(1) is presented as a consequence of the variance formula (14), but the variance calculation alone does not establish convergence in probability of the remainder terms; one also needs the mean of the remainder to vanish and a bound on its variance that allows Chebyshev. The paper does not state the required moment conditions for V_N and U_2N, and the equivalence of (16) to the Fafchamps-Gubert estimator is deferred to Graham (TBD). For a self-contained chapter, either the proof should be sketched in the appendix with the needed conditions, or the chapter should explicitly state that the formal regularity conditions are given in the cited companion papers.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1, equation (1)] The phrase 'mean one random variables' should be 'mean-one random variables' throughout; also, the independence assumption on {(V_ij, V_ji)} is stated once but not formally indexed over all unordered pairs, which could confuse readers about the role of the direction-specific shocks.
[Section 3, equation (14)] The displayed variance decomposition in (14) omits the intermediate simplification step that shows the coefficient on Σ_2-2Σ_1; a reader may wonder why the term 2Σ_1 appears with opposite signs in the two O(N^{-2}) terms. Adding one line of algebra would help.
[Table 1] The table reports coverage for three coefficients but the notes do not define which coefficient each row corresponds to; the text says θ_1 and then θ_3 in the Monte Carlo description, but the parameter values are listed as 'θ_1 = −1, θ_1 = −1/2 and θ_3 = 1/2', which appears to be a typo (likely θ_2 = −1/2). Please correct and clarify.
[Section 5] The Further Reading section mentions 'the limit theory sketched hear' — should read 'here'. Also, the reference to Graham (TBD) is repeated several times; if the accompanying handbook chapter is not yet available, it would be helpful to indicate the working paper or preprint status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymptotic variance and limit distribution are derived in-text from the stated DGP, and the Monte Carlo coverage check is an independent simulation of the proposed standard errors.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Section 3) is a direct U-statistic/Hájek projection calculation: it decomposes the score into U1N + U2N + VN, computes variances (11)-(14), and obtains the limit distribution (17) by a CLT on the i.i.d. Hájek projection. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled a prediction; the Monte Carlo table simulates coverage probabilities of Wald intervals from (18) and (16) under the same model class assumed by the theory, which tests the inferential procedure rather than repackaging an input. The self-references (e.g., 'see Graham (2017) for a formal argument in a related setting', 'Graham (TBD) provides a comprehensive discussion of variance estimation') are background or deferred details, not premises that force the main result. The equation (16) estimator is constructed in the paper and its coverage is verified by simulation, so the citation to Graham (TBD) for numerical equivalence with Fafchamps-Gubert is not load-bearing. The paper's acknowledged incompleteness—footnote 2 defers the unconfoundedness condition E[(Ai,Bi)'|Wi]=(1,1)', and Section 5 notes that graphon degeneracy changes rates and limit distributions—is a scope/correctness caveat, not circularity: those conditions are not definitionally built into the claimed theorem. Accordingly there are no circular steps to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the exchangeability framework and the exogeneity of unit-level latent terms. These are standard in the network econometrics literature, but they are strong and only partially checked. No new entities or free parameters are introduced beyond the modeling choices.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The observed network is a random induced subgraph of an infinite W-exchangeable random graph (Section 1, Equation (4)).
This is the modeling assumption that justifies the Aldous-Hoover representation and the dependence structure. It is natural when agents are sampled from a homogeneous population, but it rules out richer forms of dependence.
domain assumption The conditional density of Y12|W1,W2 belongs to the parametric family f(Y12|W1,W2; θ) for some θ0 (Section 2).
The entire estimation strategy is composite likelihood; if the marginal density is misspecified, θ0 is a pseudo-true value and the inference is about a projection, not the structural parameter.
domain assumption E[(Ai, Bi)' | Wi] = (1,1)', so that the regression function is E[Yij|Wi,Wj] = exp(Rij' θ0) (Section 1, footnote 2).
This exogeneity assumption is needed for consistency of the Poisson PML for the structural gravity parameters. The paper explicitly defers examining this condition.
standard math Regularity conditions hold: the Hessian converges in probability to an invertible Γ0, and a CLT applies to the Hájek projection U1N (Section 3).
These are standard regularity conditions, but they are assumed, not proven, in the text.
domain assumption Covariate space is discrete with finitely many types, approximating continuous attributes (Section 1).
The W-exchangeability framework requires a finite type space; the paper treats this as a multinomial approximation to continuous covariates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dyadic Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CM43Z7HM

@misc{pith2026190809029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dyadic Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CM43Z7HM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09029}
}

read the original abstract

Dyadic data, where outcomes reflecting pairwise interaction among sampled units are of primary interest, arise frequently in social science research. Regression analyses with such data feature prominently in many research literatures (e.g., gravity models of trade). The dependence structure associated with dyadic data raises special estimation and, especially, inference issues. This chapter reviews currently available methods for (parametric) dyadic regression analysis and presents guidelines for empirical researchers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Aldous, D. J. (1981). Representations for partially exchan geable arrays of random variables. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 11(4), 581 –

work page 1981
[9]

Chamberlain, G. (1987). Asymptotic eﬃciency in estimation with conditional moment re- strictions. Journal of Econometrics , 34(3), 305 –

work page 1987
[20]

& Rey, H

Portes, R. & Rey, H. (2005). The determinants of cross-borde r equity ﬂows. Journal of International Economics , 65(2), 269 –

work page 2005
[37]

J., Koskas, M., Schbath, S., & Robin, S

Picard, F., Daudin, J. J., Koskas, M., Schbath, S., & Robin, S . (2008). Assessing the exceptionality of network motifs. Journal of Computational Biology , 15(1), 1 –

work page 2008
[45]

Hoover, D. N. (1979). Relations on probability spaces and arrays of random variab les. Tech- nical report, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ. 19 Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood esti mates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematica l Statistics and Probability, 1, 221 –

work page 1979
[61]

Eagleson, G. K. & Weber, N. C. (1978). Limit theorems for weak ly exchangeable arrays. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical S ociety, 84(1), 123 –

work page 1978
[66]

S., Niu, F., & Powell, J

Graham, B. S., Niu, F., & Powell, J. L. (2019). Kernel density estimation for undirected dyadic data . Technical report, University of California - Berkeley. Head, K. & Mayer, T. (2014). Handbook of International Economics , volume 4, chapter Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook, (pp. 131 – 191). North-Holland: Amsterdam. Hoeﬀding, W. (1948...

work page 2019
[70]

Tabord-Meehan, M. (2018). Inference with dyadic data: Asym ptotic behavior of the dyadic- robust t-statistic. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics . Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an Internationa l Eco- nomic Policy . New York: Twentieth Century Fund. van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge: ...

work page 2018

Show all 30 references

[74]

Shalizi, C. R. (2016). Lecture 1: Conditionally-independent dyad models . Lecture note, Carnegie Mellon University. Snijders, T. A. B. & Borgatti, S. P. (1999). Non-parametric s tandard errors and tests for network statistics. Connections, 22(2), 61 –

2016
[114]

& Tenreyro, S

Santos Silva, J. & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics , 88(4), 641 –

2006
[130]

& Gubert, F

Fafchamps, M. & Gubert, F. (2007). The formation of risk shar ing networks. Journal of Development Economics , 83(2), 326 –

2007
[200]

Cameron, A. C. & Miller, D. L. (2014). Robust inference for dyadic data . Technical report, University of California - Davis. Cattaneo, M., Crump, R., & Jansson, M. (2014). Small bandwid th asymptotics for density- weighted average derivatives. Econometric Theory, 30(1), 176 –

2014
[227]

Bickel, P. J. & Chen, A. (2009). A nonparametric view of netwo rk models and newman- girvan and other modularities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(50), 21068 – 21073. Bickel, P. J., Chen, A., & Levina, E. (2011). The method of mom ents and degree distrib...

2009
[233]

Kolaczyk, E. D. (2009). Statistical Analysis of Network Data . New York: Springer. Lindsey, B. G. (1988). Composite likelihood. Contemporary Mathematics, 80, 221 –

2009
[239]

Menzel, K. (2017). Bootstrap with clustering in two or more dimensions . Technical Report 1703.03043v2, arXiv. Oneal, J. R. & Russett, B. (1999). The kantian peace: the paci ﬁc beneﬁts of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. World Politics, 52(1), 1 –

2017 arXiv
[296]

Rose, A. K. (2004). Do we really know that the wto increases tr ade? American Economic Review, 94(1), 98 –

2004
[299]

& Janson, S

Diaconis, P. & Janson, S. (2008). Graph limits and exchangea ble random graphs. Rendiconti di Matematica, 28(1), 33 –

2008
[325]

Holland, P. W. & Leinhardt, S. (1976). Local structure in soc ial networks. Sociological Methodology, 7, 1 –

1976
[334]

Chandrasekhar, A. (2015). Econometrics of network formati on. In Y. Bramoullé, A. Galeotti, & B. Rogers (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on the Economics of Networks . Oxford University Press. Cox, D. R. & Reid, N. (2004). A note on pseudolikelihood const ructed from marginal densities...

2015
[350]

Ferguson, T. S. (2005). U-statistics. University of Califo rnia - Los Angeles. Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., & Trognon, A. (1984). Pseudo ma ximum likelihood methods: applications to poisson models. Econometrica, 52(3), 701 –

2005
[442]

Davezies, L., d’Haultfoeuille, X., & Guyonvarch, Y. (2019) . Empirical process results for exchangeable arrayes. Technical report, CREST-ENSAE. 18 de Finetti, B. (1931). Funzione caratteristica di un fenome no aleatorio. Atti della R. Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Serie

2019
[501]

M., Samii, C., & Assenova, V

17 Aronow, P. M., Samii, C., & Assenova, V. A. (2017). Cluster-r obust variance estimation for dyadic data. Political Analysis, 23(4), 564 –

2017
[577]

& Taglioni, D

Baldwin, R. & Taglioni, D. (2007). Trade eﬀects of the euro: a comparison of estimators. Journal of Economic Integration , 22(4), 780 –

2007
[598]

L., Marlowe, F

Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature, 481(7382), 497 –

2012
[658]

& Tenreyro, S

Santos Silva, J. & Tenreyro, S. (2010). Currency unions in pr ospect and retrospect. Annual Review of Economics , 2, 51 –

2010
[720]

Graham, B. S. (2017). An econometric model of network format ion with degree heterogeneity. Econometrica, 85(4), 1033 –

2017
[737]

& Towsner, H

Crane, H. & Towsner, H. (2018). Relatively exchangeable str uctures. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 83(2), 416 –

2018
[818]

& Varin, C

Bellio, R. & Varin, C. (2005). A pairwise likelihood approac h to generalized linear models with crossed random eﬀects. Statistical Modelling , 5(3), 217 –

2005
[1063]

Graham, B. S. (TBD). Handbook of Econometrics , volume 7, chapter The econometric analysis of networks. North-Holland: Amsterdam. Graham, B. S., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2014). Complement arity and aggregate implications of assortative matching: a nonparametric ana lysis. ...

2014
[2301]

& Veraverbeke, N

Callaert, H. & Veraverbeke, N. (1981). The order of the norma l approximation for a studen- tized u-statistic. Annals of Statistics , 9(1), 194 –

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aldous, D. J. (1981). Representations for partially exchan geable arrays of random variables. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 11(4), 581 –

work page 1981

[2] [9]

Chamberlain, G. (1987). Asymptotic eﬃciency in estimation with conditional moment re- strictions. Journal of Econometrics , 34(3), 305 –

work page 1987

[3] [20]

& Rey, H

Portes, R. & Rey, H. (2005). The determinants of cross-borde r equity ﬂows. Journal of International Economics , 65(2), 269 –

work page 2005

[4] [37]

J., Koskas, M., Schbath, S., & Robin, S

Picard, F., Daudin, J. J., Koskas, M., Schbath, S., & Robin, S . (2008). Assessing the exceptionality of network motifs. Journal of Computational Biology , 15(1), 1 –

work page 2008

[5] [45]

Hoover, D. N. (1979). Relations on probability spaces and arrays of random variab les. Tech- nical report, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ. 19 Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood esti mates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematica l Statistics and Probability, 1, 221 –

work page 1979

[6] [61]

Eagleson, G. K. & Weber, N. C. (1978). Limit theorems for weak ly exchangeable arrays. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical S ociety, 84(1), 123 –

work page 1978

[7] [66]

S., Niu, F., & Powell, J

Graham, B. S., Niu, F., & Powell, J. L. (2019). Kernel density estimation for undirected dyadic data . Technical report, University of California - Berkeley. Head, K. & Mayer, T. (2014). Handbook of International Economics , volume 4, chapter Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook, (pp. 131 – 191). North-Holland: Amsterdam. Hoeﬀding, W. (1948...

work page 2019

[8] [70]

Tabord-Meehan, M. (2018). Inference with dyadic data: Asym ptotic behavior of the dyadic- robust t-statistic. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics . Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an Internationa l Eco- nomic Policy . New York: Twentieth Century Fund. van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge: ...

work page 2018