Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Community Detection with Heterogeneous Block Covariance Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the heterogeneous block covariance model for clustering features from signed, continuous weighted data and proves that the variational objective's maximizer recovers the true community memberships up to label…

desk verdict Solid model-plus-algorithm paper, but the consistency theorem covers a global maximizer of a simplified objective, not the coordinate-ascent EM that is actually run; the gap is real and the paper's own experiments show it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03780 v1 pith:F44BC3UM submitted 2024-12-04 stat.ML cs.LGstat.CO

Xiang Li , Yunpeng Zhao , Qing Pan , Ning Hao This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.CO MSC 62H3062F12
keywords communitydetectionweightednetworkcovariancematrixvariationalEMalgorithmblockmodellabelconsistencygeneexpressiondatafeatureclustering
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

This paper introduces the heterogeneous block covariance model (HBCM), a generative model for clustering features (columns) of a data matrix when the signal lives in the covariance structure rather than in the means. The model lets pairs of features have signed, continuous covariances, and lets each feature have its own scale parameters, so features in one community can differ in how strongly they connect without losing community structure. The authors prove that the community memberships are identifiable up to label permutation, and that under mild growth conditions the maximizer of their variational objective recovers the true memberships with probability tending to one. They also supply a variational EM algorithm whose updates all have closed forms, and demonstrate on simulations and real gene-expression and stock-price data that it improves on spectral clustering baselines.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a variational expectation-maximization objective built on an augmented latent structure: the model writes each observation as $X_{ij} = \lambda_j \alpha_{i c_j} + \sigma_j \epsilon_{ij}$, where $\alpha_i$ is a $K$-dimensional random effect with community-level covariance $\Omega$. This second latent layer puts the complete-data likelihood in the exponential family, yielding closed-form E- and M-steps and reducing the posterior to factorized forms $q_1(c)=\prod_j q_{1j}(c_j)$ and $q_2(\alpha)=\prod_i N(\mu_i, V_i)$. The consistency proof works with the population version of the core objective, showing its unique maximizer is the true label/\$\alpha$ pair up to permutation, and then uses uniform convergence of the sample core objective plus a soft confusion matrix $R$ to transfer the separation to the estimated label distribution.

What would settle it

Take a small HBCM instance (e.g., $P = 12$ features, $K = 3$), enumerate all $3^{12}$ labelings to find the exact global maximizer of the estimated variational objective, and run Algorithm 1 from many random initializations; if the algorithm's output regularly has higher misclassification error than the global maximizer and does not converge to the true labels as $N$ grows to thousands, the practical claim of membership consistency would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that community detection on covariance-structured data can be carried out as likelihood-based inference under a model that separates community-level covariance (a $K\times K$ matrix $\Omega$) from per-feature heterogeneity (scales $\lambda_j$ and variance offsets $\sigma_j^2$). Theorems 1 and 2 are the load-bearing results: Theorem 1 characterizes all parameter systems giving the same covariance and shows membership is uniquely defined up to label permutation, and Theorem 2 states that, as $N$ and $P$ grow with $\log(P)/N = o(1)$ and under separation conditions on the canonical parameters, the maximizer of the variational objective satisfies $P( \min_{\tilde{I}^c \in \mathcal{E}_{I^c}} 1 - \operatorname{Tr}(R(\hat{q}^c, \tilde{I}^c)) \ge \epsilon \mid c^*) \to 0$ for every $\epsilon > 0$. In words, the optimal variational label distribution becomes a Dirac measure on the true memberships.

Load-bearing premise

The proof shows that the global maximizer of the variational objective recovers the true labels, but Algorithm 1 is a coordinate-ascent variational EM that is only guaranteed to reach a local optimum, so the consistency guarantee may not cover the labels the algorithm actually outputs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Signed, continuous edge weights can be clustered directly without thresholding or taking absolute values, so negatively correlated features can share a community.
  • For gene-expression studies, the model gives a principled replacement for ad-hoc correlation-network thresholds and WGCNA-style pipelines.
  • The algorithm is polynomial-time per iteration ($O(NP)$), so feature clustering scales to thousands of features.
  • The cross-validation procedure in Algorithm 2 provides an ARI-based rule for choosing the number of communities $K$.
  • Because the membership is scale invariant, standard preprocessing of columns does not change the recovered clustering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's theory covers the global maximizer of the variational objective; a natural test is whether the coordinate-ascent algorithm from random starts reliably reaches that maximizer, since local optima would break the link between Theorem 2 and Algorithm 1.
  • The same augmented-latent-variable trick could be applied to other profile-likelihood problems with intractable label sums, such as extensions of the latent block model to row and column clustering simultaneously.
  • If Theorem 2 extends to growing $K$, the model could be used for hierarchical community detection in large correlation networks such as genome-wide co-expression or financial sector graphs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the heterogeneous block covariance model (HBCM), a covariance-based model for clustering P features from an N × P data matrix. The population covariance is modeled as Σ_jj' = λ_j λ_j' ω_{c_j c_j'} for j≠j' and λ_j² ω_{c_j c_j} + σ_j² for j=j', which permits signed, continuous, and heterogeneous edge weights. The authors propose a variational EM algorithm built on a second layer of latent variables α_i and a mean-field factorization q(c,α)=q1(c)q2(α). The theoretical section proves identifiability of the membership up to permutation and a scale ambiguity between λ and Ω, and establishes consistency of the community memberships for the maximizer of a sample variational objective (Theorem 2). The paper also provides simulations comparing HBCM with spectral clustering, SBM, and DC-SBM, a cross-validation procedure for selecting the number of communities, and applications to mouse embryo single-cell RNA-seq data and stock price data.

Significance. If the consistency guarantee covered the implemented algorithm, the paper would be a useful contribution: it extends block-model ideas to weighted, signed, covariance-type data without dichotomization, accounts for per-feature heterogeneity, and provides detailed identifiability analysis and a computationally efficient variational EM scheme. The simulations are broad, the applications provide external validation through GICS sectors and MSigDB gene sets, and the theoretical development is largely self-contained. However, the central load-bearing issue is that Theorem 2 concerns a global maximizer of a simplified variational objective, while Algorithm 1 is a coordinate-ascent method on a different objective; the paper's own random-initialization experiments show that local optima with poor labels exist. This gap is real and currently prevents the paper from supporting the headline claim that the proposed algorithm gives provably consistent estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 2 and Algorithm 1] Theorem 2 establishes label consistency for the global maximizer (q̂c, q̂2, π̂, Ω̂) of the sample objective Ĵ over the constraint sets, but Algorithm 1 is a coordinate-ascent variational EM that alternately updates q1, q2, and Φ. Coordinate ascent on a nonconvex objective is only guaranteed to reach a local stationary point, and no result in the paper shows that the trajectory of Algorithm 1 approaches a global maximizer of Ĵ or attains a comparable objective value. Supplementary Section S.1.3 and Figure 7 provide direct empirical evidence that local optima with low ARI exist even when ten random starts are used and the highest objective value is selected. Since the abstract and Section 6 attribute consistency to the proposed algorithm, the theorem and the implemented method are currently different objects; this is the main load-bearing gap that must be closed or explicitly acknowledged.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (4) and §3.2 definition of Ĵ] The objective actually maximized by Algorithm 1, J(q1,q2,Φ) in Eq. (4), includes λ and σ² as parameters to be updated in the M-step, whereas the theoretical sample objective Ĵ fixes λ at the moment estimator λ̂_j and omits {σ²_j}. Thus even the exact global maximizer of Ĵ need not be a fixed point of the algorithm. The paper should either prove a quantitative relation between the two optimizations under the stated assumptions, or redefine the theoretical analysis so that it applies to the objective used by Algorithm 1.
  3. [§3.2, Proposition 5 assumptions] Proposition 5 assumes |α*_ik| ≤ B1 for a fixed constant B1, while the model generates α*_i ∼ N(0, Ω*). For fixed B1, max_{i,k} |α*_ik| diverges almost surely as N → ∞, so the assumed constraint is violated with probability tending to one under the paper's own data-generating process. Because Theorem 2's probability statement conditions only on c* and not on α*, the theorem as written does not cover the generative model. The authors should either state the result conditionally on a high-probability event and allow B1 to grow at an appropriate rate, or treat α* as fixed non-random and replace the Gaussian-tail argument for d_min with an assumption stated directly on the realized α*.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, definition of C_Ω] The constraint set C_Ω is written as a set of P × P matrices, but the model's Ω is K × K; the eigenvalue bounds should be stated for the K × K block matrix.
  2. [Supplement S.4, Proposition 7 proof] The proof contains the typo 'Jensen's ineqaulity'; it should read 'Jensen's inequality'.
  3. [References] The Tabu search reference is cited as 'Glover and Lagunas'; the correct author name is Laguna.
  4. [§3.2, Proposition 4] Proposition 4 says the objective 'is maximized by ω', but the maximization is over (q^c, μ); the symbol ω appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  5. [§5, mouse embryo analysis] The text says the cross-validation result is 'shown in the left panel of Figure 6', but the cross-validation plot appears as panel (a) of Figure 5; the figure reference should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the consistency proof is a self-contained derivation from the HBCM assumptions, and the gap between the global maximizer theorem and the local-optimum algorithm is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, label consistency of the variational objective's global maximizer, is derived in-paper: Proposition 4 characterizes the unique maximizer of the population core objective, Proposition 5 gives a well-separatedness lower bound, and Proposition 6 proves uniform convergence of the sample core objective to its population counterpart. Theorem 2 then combines these propositions; no equation in this chain is defined in terms of the target labels, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The moment estimator of lambda is proved consistent under model assumptions rather than assumed equal to the truth. Simulations use pre-specified parameters and external benchmarks (MSigDB gene sets, GICS sectors), so the empirical validation is not circular. The self-citations to Zhao (2017), Zhao et al. (2012), and Hao and Zhang (2014) are background or technical concentration bounds and are not load-bearing in the sense of importing the paper's own conclusions. The concern that Theorem 2 concerns a global maximizer while Algorithm 1 is coordinate ascent with possible local optima is a real gap between theory and implementation, but it is not a circularity: it does not reduce the claimed consistency result to its own inputs by construction. Under the review rules, this is scored as no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central statistical claims rest on the HBCM generative model, signal-separation conditions, and the variational approximation. The most fragile element is the unproven link between the local-optimum algorithm and the global-optimum theory.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rows of X are independent and identically distributed from N(0,Σ) with Σ as in equation (1).
    Section 2.1, model definition. This is the core generative model; if the data do not follow it, the theory does not apply.
  • domain assumption Community-level covariance Ω is positive definite, so within-community covariances dominate between-community ones.
    Section 2.1 and Lemma S.1; required for Σ to be a valid covariance matrix and for the clustering signal.
  • domain assumption Every community contains at least 3 features (Condition 1).
    Theorem 1, identifiability; allows distinguishing label permutations.
  • ad hoc to paper The posterior is approximated by the mean-field factorization q(c,α)=q1(c)q2(α).
    Section 2.2, variational approximation. This is an analytic approximation chosen for tractability and is not exact.
  • domain assumption For consistency, max_j σ_j*^2=O(1), min_j |λ_j*|≥γ1>0, and B3=min_{k<l}(ω*_kk+ω*_ll−2ω*_kl)>0.
    Propositions 5 and 6. These signal-separation conditions are needed to distinguish communities from noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The variational EM algorithm converges to the global maximizer of Ĵ over the constraint sets.
    Theorem 2 is proven for the global maximizer; the algorithm is only a local optimizer, so this is an unproven bridging assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • α_i, the K-dimensional row-level random effect latent variable
    purpose: To make the complete-data log-likelihood exponential-family so the variational EM M-steps have closed forms
    Section 2.2, second latent layer. This variable is a computational/modeling device without direct empirical support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Community Detection with Heterogeneous Block Covariance Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F44BC3UM

@misc{pith2026241203780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Community Detection with Heterogeneous Block Covariance Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F44BC3UM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03780}
}
read the original abstract

Community detection is the task of clustering objects based on their pairwise relationships. Most of the model-based community detection methods, such as the stochastic block model and its variants, are designed for networks with binary (yes/no) edges. In many practical scenarios, edges often possess continuous weights, spanning positive and negative values, which reflect varying levels of connectivity. To address this challenge, we introduce the heterogeneous block covariance model (HBCM) that defines a community structure within the covariance matrix, where edges have signed and continuous weights. Furthermore, it takes into account the heterogeneity of objects when forming connections with other objects within a community. A novel variational expectation-maximization algorithm is proposed to estimate the group membership. The HBCM provides provable consistent estimates of memberships, and its promising performance is observed in numerical simulations with different setups. The model is applied to a single-cell RNA-seq dataset of a mouse embryo and a stock price dataset. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Compare the clustering performance of HBCM and spectral clustering under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral clustering is misled by the individual signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Cross-validation method for selecting the number of communities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Cross-validation method for selecting the number of communities in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmaps of the absolute correlation matrix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of spectral clustering, HBCM, and HBCM with random initials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CPU runtimes (in seconds) of HBCM as N and P vary. S.2 Analysis of stock price data We analyze the stock price data described in Liu et al. (2012) and Tan et al. (2015). This dataset, available in the R package HUGE, contains daily closing prices for stocks in the S&P …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We use K = 10 for both HBCM and spectral clustering. For WGCNA, we select the tuning parameters to likely partition the data into 10 groups. (a) ARI against the true labels (b) ARI between HBCM and Spectral 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 N Adjust…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heatmaps of the absolute correlation matrix corresponding to WGCNA ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbe, E. (2017). Community detection and stochastic block models: recent developments. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(1):6446--6531

    2017

  2. [2]

    A., Chen, A., Bickel, P

    Amini, A. A., Chen, A., Bickel, P. J., Levina, E., et al. (2013). Pseudo-likelihood methods for community detection in large sparse networks. The Annals of Statistics , 41(4):2097--2122

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Barrat, A., Barthelemy, M., Pastor-Satorras, R., and Vespignani, A. (2004). The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 101(11):3747--3752

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Bickel, P. J. and Chen, A. (2009). A nonparametric view of network models and N ewman- G irvan and other modularities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 106:21068--21073

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J

    Blei, D. M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J. D. (2017). Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American statistical Association , 112(518):859--877

    2017

  6. [6]

    and Brunet-Saumard, C

    Bouveyron, C. and Brunet-Saumard, C. (2014). Model-based clustering of high-dimensional data: A review. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 71:52--78

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Bunea, F., Giraud, C., Luo, X., Royer, M., and Verzelen, N. (2020). Model assisted variable clustering: minimax-optimal recovery and algorithms. The Annals of Statistics , 48(1):111--137

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    and Gallopin, M

    Devijver, E. and Gallopin, M. (2018). Block-diagonal covariance selection for high-dimensional gaussian graphical models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113(521):306--314

    work page 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    S., Marcotte, E

    Dhillon, I. S., Marcotte, E. M., and Roshan, U. (2003). Diametrical clustering for identifying anti-correlated gene clusters. Bioinformatics , 19(13):1612--1619

    2003

  2. [10]

    Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports , 486(3-5):75 -- 174

    2010

  3. [11]

    and Raftery, A

    Fraley, C. and Raftery, A. E. (2002). Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American statistical Association , 97(458):611--631

    2002

  4. [12]

    Gan, G., Ma, C., and Wu, J. (2020). Data clustering: theory, algorithms, and applications . SIAM

    2020

  5. [13]

    Ghosh, M. (2021). Exponential tail bounds for chisquared random variables. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice , 15(2):35

    2021

  6. [14]

    Glover, F. W. and Lagunas, M. (1997). Tabu search . Kluwer Academic

    1997

  7. [15]

    and Nadif, M

    Govaert, G. and Nadif, M. (2008). Block clustering with bernoulli mixture models: Comparison of different approaches. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 52(6):3233--3245

    2008

  8. [16]

    and Zhang, H

    Hao, N. and Zhang, H. H. (2014). Interaction screening for ultrahigh-dimensional data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 109(507):1285--1301

    2014

  9. [17]

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning , pages 61 -- 73. Springer New York Inc., New York, 2 edition

    2009

  10. [18]

    and Yang, L

    Huang, J. and Yang, L. (2010). Correlation matrix with block structure and efficient sampling methods. Journal of Computational Finance , 14(1):81

    2010

  11. [19]

    a llquist, U., Moliner, A., Zajac, P., Fan, J.-B., L \

    Islam, S., Kj \"a llquist, U., Moliner, A., Zajac, P., Fan, J.-B., L \"o nnerberg, P., and Linnarsson, S. (2011). Characterization of the single-cell transcriptional landscape by highly multiplex rna-seq. Genome research , 21(7):1160--1167

    2011

  12. [20]

    Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means. Pattern recognition letters , 31(8):651--666

    2010

  13. [21]

    and Loh, P.-L

    Jog, V. and Loh, P.-L. (2015). Information-theoretic bounds for exact recovery in weighted stochastic block models using the renyi divergence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.06418

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    and Newman, M

    Karrer, B. and Newman, M. E. J. (2011). Stochastic blockmodels and community structure in networks. Physical Review E , 83:016107

    2011

  15. [23]

    and Rousseeuw, P

    Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis . John Wiley & Sons

    2009

  16. [24]

    and Horvath, S

    Langfelder, P. and Horvath, S. (2008). Wgcna: an r package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC bioinformatics , 9(1):559

    2008

  17. [25]

    Liu, H., Han, F., Yuan, M., Lafferty, J., and Wasserman, L. (2012). The nonparanormal skeptic. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1415--1422

    2012

  18. [26]

    Lloyd, S. (1982). Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 28(2):129--137

    1982

  19. [27]

    K., and Zhou, J

    Luo, F., Yang, Y., Zhong, J., Gao, H., Khan, L., Thompson, D. K., and Zhou, J. (2007). Constructing gene co-expression networks and predicting functions of unknown genes by random matrix theory. BMC bioinformatics , 8(1):299

    2007

  20. [28]

    MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of 5-th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability/University of California Press

    1967

  21. [29]

    S., Berchuck, A., and Murphy, S

    Matsumura, N., Huang, Z., Mori, S., Baba, T., Fujii, S., Konishi, I., Iversen, E. S., Berchuck, A., and Murphy, S. K. (2011). Epigenetic suppression of the tgf-beta pathway revealed by transcriptome profiling in ovarian cancer. Genome research , 21(1):74--82

    2011

  22. [30]

    Neal, R. M. and Hinton, G. E. (1998). A view of the em algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In Learning in graphical models , pages 355--368. Springer

    1998

  23. [31]

    Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Detecting community structure in networks. Eur. Phys. J. B , 38:321--330

    2004

  24. [32]

    Y., Jordan, M

    Ng, A. Y., Jordan, M. I., and Weiss, Y. (2002). On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 849--856

    2002

  25. [33]

    Palowitch, J., Bhamidi, S., and Nobel, A. B. (2017). Significance-based community detection in weighted networks. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(1):6899--6946

    2017

  26. [34]

    and Shen, X

    Pan, W. and Shen, X. (2007). Penalized model-based clustering with application to variable selection. Journal of machine learning research , 8(5)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 66(336):846--850

    1971

  28. [36]

    Saelens, W., Cannoodt, R., and Saeys, Y. (2018). A comprehensive evaluation of module detection methods for gene expression data. Nature communications , 9(1):1090

    2018

  29. [37]

    Sun, S., Zhu, Y., and Xu, J. (2014). Adaptive variable clustering in gaussian graphical models. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 931--939. PMLR

    2014

  30. [38]

    M., Witten, D., and Shojaie, A

    Tan, K. M., Witten, D., and Shojaie, A. (2015). The cluster graphical lasso for improved estimation of gaussian graphical models. Computational statistics & data analysis , 85:23--36

    2015

  31. [39]

    Von Luxburg, U. et al. (2010). Clustering stability: an overview. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 2(3):235--274

    2010

  32. [40]

    Wang, J., Liu, B., and Guo, J. (2021). Efficient split likelihood-based method for community detection of large-scale networks. Stat , 10(1):e349

    2021

  33. [41]

    and Zhu, J

    Wang, S. and Zhu, J. (2008). Variable selection for model-based high-dimensional clustering and its application to microarray data. Biometrics , 64(2):440--448

    2008

  34. [42]

    Xu, M., Jog, V., and Loh, P.-L. (2020). Optimal rates for community estimation in the weighted stochastic block model. The Annals of Statistics , 48(1):183--204

    2020

  35. [43]

    and Wunsch, D

    Xu, R. and Wunsch, D. (2005). Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Transactions on neural networks , 16(3):645--678

    2005

  36. [44]

    Yang, L. (2020). Clustering Models with Applications in Gene Expression Profiles . PhD thesis, George Washington University

    2020

  37. [45]

    and Li, J

    Zeng, T. and Li, J. (2010). Maximization of negative correlations in time-course gene expression data for enhancing understanding of molecular pathways. Nucleic acids research , 38(1):e1--e1

    2010

  38. [46]

    Zhao, Y. (2017). A survey on theoretical advances of community detection in networks. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , 9(5)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Zhao, Y., Levina, E., and Zhu, J. (2012). Consistency of community detection in networks under degree-corrected stochastic block models. Annals of Statistics . arxiv.org/1110.3854

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.