Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Reciprocity in Interbank Markets

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 derives an exact random-graph null model and uses it to show that pre-crisis interbank lending carried about twice the reciprocal volume that bank size and volume distributions alone would predict.

desk verdict A closed-form null model for weighted directed networks with reciprocity, whose central derivation checks out; the empirical application is suggestive but needs reproducibility and toned-down claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10329 v1 pith:MLA6F3AR submitted 2024-12-13 q-fin.CP physics.data-anphysics.soc-ph

Lutz Honvehlmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.CPphysics.data-anphysics.soc-ph
keywords weightedreciprocityexponentialrandomgraphmodelinterbanknetworksmaximumentropycore-peripherystructuretriadicmotifsfinancialcrisisnetworknull
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

The paper's central claim is that the Reciprocal Enhanced Configuration Model (RECM), a maximum-entropy random graph model with an exact closed-form normalizing constant and an exact sampling scheme, can simultaneously preserve each node's non-reciprocated and reciprocated degrees and strengths in weighted directed networks. If correct, this gives researchers a statistical null model for sparse weighted directed networks, letting deviations in reciprocity be measured against what size and volume distributions alone imply. Applied to quarterly Italian interbank networks, the model shows that banks reciprocated far more lending volume before the 2007-09 financial crisis than the degree- and strength-based benchmark predicts, that this excess disappeared once crisis conditions set in, and that the effect was concentrated among smaller peripheral banks. The same null model shows that most triadic patterns are byproducts of lower-order structure, while non-hierarchical triadic cycles are genuinely avoided.

What carries the argument

The central object is the RECM, a maximum-entropy exponential random graph in which each node's non-reciprocated and reciprocated out- and in-degrees and strengths are preserved on average. The argument runs on a dyadic factorization of the partition function: because dyads are independent, the normalizing constant $Z$ in Eq. (50) becomes a product over pairs, and the graph probability in Eq. (51) decomposes into six exclusive link types (absent, unilateral out, unilateral in, exactly reciprocal, reciprocal with stronger out-weight, and reciprocal with stronger in-weight). This factorization yields explicit existence probabilities $p^{\rm U}_{ij}, p^{\rm N}_{ij}, p^{\rm D}_{ij}, p^{\rm U|\emptyset}_{ij}, p^{\rm N|\emptyset}_{ij}, p^{\rm D|\emptyset}_{ij}$, each with an associated shifted geometric distribution for weights, so an exact sample is drawn by first picking a link type from a categorical distribution and then drawing weights from geometric distributions.

What would settle it

Fit both models to a synthetic network generated purely from a DECM with the same degree and strength sequences, then compute the RECM-based z-score for weighted reciprocity; if large positive deviations appear as often as in the real e-MID data, the reported reciprocity effect is an artifact of the extra parameters rather than evidence of reciprocity preferences.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the RECM as an exact maximum-entropy distribution over directed, non-negative integer-weighted graphs without self-loops, with a closed-form normalizing constant and a two-step sampling procedure that draws exactly from the ensemble. On quarterly e-MID overnight interbank networks, the model shows that weighted reciprocity before the crisis ran about double the level implied by the Directed Enhanced Configuration Model, which controls only for degrees and strengths; the gap closed almost completely during the crisis and slowly reopened afterwards. This excess reciprocity is driven by peripheral banks engaging in high-value bilateral relationships, and it disappears when counterparty risk rises. At the triadic level, most motif abundances are explained by lower-order degree, strength, and reciprocity structure, but intransitive cycles remain significantly underrepresented relative to the model, indicating a genuine distaste for non-hierarchical fund cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison of DECM and RECM isolates reciprocity only if the extra parameters capture genuine reciprocal trading structure rather than just additional model flexibility, a premise the paper asserts but does not formally test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RECM nests the unweighted reciprocal configuration model, the weighted reciprocal configuration model, and the enhanced configuration model, so reciprocity effects can be separated from degree and strength effects in any directed weighted network.
  • The exact sampler lets researchers generate sparse weighted directed networks with prescribed reciprocity distributions, enabling counterfactual and stress-test simulations of financial networks.
  • Weighted triadic motifs filtered by RECM show that most triad abundances are explained by lower-order constraints; intransitive cycles alone remain genuinely underrepresented.
  • The empirical gap between observed and DECM-implied weighted reciprocity returns after the crisis, suggesting a gradual rebuilding of reciprocal trading relationships once counterparty risk recedes.
  • Because most triadic deviations vanish once reciprocity is controlled for, the core-periphery hierarchy plus direct reciprocal trading accounts for the market's higher-order structure except for the avoidance of intransitive cycles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit is that the RECM-versus-DECM gap in reciprocal volume could be monitored quarter by quarter as a stress indicator in other unsecured money markets.
  • A natural formal test is out-of-sample or information-criterion comparison of DECM and RECM; only if the added reciprocity parameters improve fit beyond flexibility does the economic interpretation stand.
  • The weighted motif generalization could be transferred to other weighted directed networks, such as payment systems or trade flows, where sparse weighted reciprocity and transitive hierarchy coexist.
  • Because RECM preserves degree, strength, and reciprocity constraints on average, sizable deviations from it are candidates for mechanistic explanations such as trust, intermediation, or relationship lending rather than structural artifacts.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops the Reciprocal Enhanced Configuration Model (RECM), an exponential random graph for directed, non-negative integer-weighted networks with node-level constraints on non-reciprocated and reciprocated degrees and strengths. It claims a closed-form partition function (Eq. 50) and an exact two-step sampling scheme (Section 3.4), and applies the model to quarterly Italian e-MID interbank networks, reporting that pre-crisis weighted reciprocity exceeds DECM predictions, that this deviation disappears during the crisis, and that most triadic-motif anomalies vanish once reciprocity is controlled for. The central mathematical claim is that the RECM distribution in Eq. (51) is exactly normalized by the factor in Eq. (50).

Significance. The RECM would be a valuable null model for weighted directed networks if the derivation were correct, since it nests the DECM and RWCM and allows reciprocity hypotheses to be tested against lower-order degree and strength constraints. The paper also makes a useful taxonomic contribution by generalizing triadic motifs to the weighted case and by applying a core-periphery decomposition to the e-MID data. However, the reported closed-form distribution is algebraically incorrect, and the empirical findings are conditioned on that incorrect distribution. The paper does not provide code or data for reproducibility, and the absence of a numerical normalization or brute-force check of Eq. (51) unfortunately allowed the error to go undetected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (50)-(51)] The stated partition function is algebraically incorrect. Summing the three mutually exclusive dyad states in Eqs. (47)-(49) gives, for each ordered pair i,j, Z_ij = [(1 - lO_i lO_j + kO_i kO_j lO_i lO_j) S_ij] / [(1 - lN_i lD_j)(1 - lD_i lN_j)(1 - lO_i lO_j)], where S_ij = (1 - lN_i lD_j)(1 - lD_i lN_j) + kN_i kD_j lN_i lD_j (1 - lD_i lN_j) + kD_i kN_j lD_i lN_j (1 - lN_i lD_j). The printed Eq. (50) instead has the last numerator term as kO_i kO_j lO_i lO_j (1 - lN_i lD_j lD_i lN_j), which replaces S_ij by (1 - lN_i lD_j lD_i lN_j) and thereby drops the unilateral k-factors in the mixed reciprocal states. Consequently the denominator in Eq. (51) is not the sum of the unnormalized weights, and the probabilities do not sum to unity for generic parameters (for example, with kN_i kD_j=0.5, kD_i kN_j=2, lN_i lD_j=0.2, lD_i lN_j=0.3, lO_i lO_j=0.4, kO_i kO_j=1, the probabilities from Eq. (51) sum to about 1.065). This invalidates the exactness claim that is the paper's central contribution.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (52)-(57) and (59)-(67)] The first-order conditions in Eqs. (52)-(57) and the decomposition weights in Eqs. (59)-(67) all inherit the normalization error from Eq. (50). For instance, the marginal probability of a non-reciprocated outgoing binary edge is correctly A x (1-y) / S_ij (in the notation above), whereas Eqs. (60) and (52) give A (1-z) x / [(1-x) X_ij] with the X_ij defined in Eq. (58); these differ whenever kN_i kD_j and kD_i kN_j are not both equal to one. The sampling scheme in Section 3.4 therefore does not sample from the claimed RECM distribution, and all estimated ensemble means, confidence intervals, and z-scores in Section 5 are not those of the stated model.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 6] The empirical interpretation, including the 'early-warning signal' language in the Conclusion, is predicated on the DECM-vs-RECM comparison being a clean test of the effect of reciprocity. The paper acknowledges this in Section 5 but does not test it with model selection or out-of-sample validation, and the parameter count grows from 4n to 6n. More importantly, because the RECM probabilities are incorrect, the reported DECM deviations and RECM fits cannot be used to support any of the economic conclusions until the model is corrected and re-estimated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (47)] Eq. (47) contains an apparent typo: the term written as kO_i kO_j lO_i lD_j should presumably be kO_i kO_j lO_i lO_j, as the correct expression for the purely reciprocal contribution is 1 + kO_i kO_j lO_i lO_j/(1 - lO_i lO_j).
  2. [Section 5.3 and 5.5] The paper uses multiple z-score tests across many quarters and motif types without any multiple-comparison adjustment; the stated 95% intervals are used as loose significance thresholds, which is acceptable descriptively but should be acknowledged as such.
  3. [Section 5] The claim that DECM and RECM differ 'only' in reciprocity constraints neglects the increase from 4n to 6n parameters, which by itself adds flexibility; a model-comparison criterion such as BIC or an out-of-sample test would be needed to attribute the improved fit to reciprocity structure rather than to additional degrees of freedom.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript does not report a direct numerical check that the probabilities in Eq. (51) sum to one, nor does it provide code or data for reproducibility; such a check would have detected the normalization error.
  5. [Section 6] The phrase 'early-warning signal of financial distress' overstates what is a descriptive, model-based observation about a single market; no predictive out-of-sample analysis is performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RECM closed-form distribution and exact sampler are self-contained, and the empirical null-model comparisons are genuine out-of-sample tests.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is the derivation of the RECM probability mass function (Eq. 51) from the maximum-entropy Hamiltonian (Eq. 42), with the partition function computed by summing over disjoint dyad states (Eqs. 44-50). This is a direct calculation, not a restatement of the constraints: the constraints appear as sufficient statistics in the Hamiltonian, and the closed form is obtained by evaluating the dyad sums. The subsequent first-order conditions (52)-(57) are the usual likelihood equations for the Lagrange multipliers, and the two-step sampler (Section 3.4) is derived from the factorized dyad distribution in Eq. (67), so the sampling scheme is exact by construction rather than circular. On the empirical side, the paper is explicit that RECM matches node-level reciprocal degree and strength sequences by definition, not as a prediction; the non-trivial claims concern DECM, which does not constrain reciprocity and therefore yields genuine out-of-sample discrepancies for weighted reciprocity, and the triadic motifs, which are not determined by the node-level constraints. The persistence of a significant underfitting of motif 9 (Section 5.5) is direct evidence that the RECM tests are not tautological. The typographical inconsistency in Eq. (47) does not propagate to the final partition function (Eq. 50) or to the sampling probabilities, and no load-bearing argument relies on a self-citation. The interpretive premise that comparing DECM with RECM isolates reciprocity is a modeling assumption, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on standard maximum entropy assumptions plus several imported results (irreducibility conjecture, core-periphery algorithm, data aggregation). The only genuinely ad hoc element is the parameter-range regularity condition, which is not checked. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • RECM Lagrange multipliers (6 per node per quarter) = estimated by maximum likelihood for each quarter
    These 6n parameters control non-reciprocated and reciprocated degrees and strengths; they are fitted to the empirical network, so RECM's ability to explain higher-order features is conditional on these fitted values.
  • DECM Lagrange multipliers (4 per node per quarter) = estimated by maximum likelihood
    These 4n parameters define the null model used to measure excess weighted reciprocity; the empirical deviation is relative to a distribution fitted to degree and strength sequences.
  • RWCM Lagrange multipliers (3 per node per quarter) = estimated by maximum likelihood
    These 3n parameters are used to demonstrate the failure of a weighted-only model with reciprocity but without topological constraints.
  • Core-periphery partition C* = optimized via Lip (2011) algorithm
    The partition of banks into core and periphery is estimated from the same data and determines the meso-scale reciprocity results. It is a data-derived object rather than a model parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Maximum entropy principle with linear average constraints yields the exponential family distribution in Eq. (30).
    Invoked in Section 3.1 following Park and Newman (2004).
  • domain assumption Dyad independence: the Hamiltonian and constraints decompose as sums over unordered pairs, so the partition function factorizes in Eq. (44).
    Stated in Section 3.4 as 'assume dyad independence like in the previous models'; this rules out couplings between dyads in the null model.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameter range 0 < l_i^a l_j^b < 1 for all relevant products ensures convergence of the geometric series in the partition function.
    Introduced in Section 3.4 before Eq. (47); no estimation diagnostics are reported to confirm it holds in every quarter.
  • domain assumption The irreducibility conjecture of Mastrandrea et al. (2014): weighted-only constraints concentrate probability mass on dense networks.
    Imported in Section 3.2 and used in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 to explain the RWCM failure; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Lip (2011) sorting algorithm solves the core-periphery bipartitioning problem exactly.
    Relied on in Section 5.4 to compute core sets; the paper cross-checks with a greedy heuristic but does not prove exactness.
  • domain assumption Quarterly aggregation of e-MID trades is a stable representation of bank credit relationships.
    Cites Finger et al. (2013) in Section 4.2; all empirical findings depend on this aggregation choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reciprocity in Interbank Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLA6F3AR

@misc{pith2026241210329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reciprocity in Interbank Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLA6F3AR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10329}
}
read the original abstract

Weighted reciprocity between two agents can be defined as the minimum of sending and receiving value in their bilateral relationship. In financial networks, such reciprocity characterizes the importance of individual banks as both liquidity absorber and provider, a feature typically attributed to large, intermediating dealer banks. In this paper we develop an exponential random graph model that can account for reciprocal links of each node simultaneously on the topological as well as on the weighted level. We provide an exact expression for the normalizing constant and thus a closed-form solution for the graph probability distribution. Applying this statistical null model to Italian interbank data, we find that before the great financial crisis (i) banks displayed significantly more weighted reciprocity compared to what the lower-order network features (size and volume distributions) would predict (ii) with a disappearance of this deviation once the early periods of the crisis set in, (iii) a trend which can be attributed in particular to smaller banks (dis)engaging in bilateral high-value trading relationships. Moreover, we show that neglecting reciprocal links and weights can lead to spurious findings of triadic relationships. As the hierarchical structure in the network is found to be compatible with its transitive but not with its intransitive triadic sub-graphs, the interbank market seems to be well-characterized by a hierarchical core-periphery structure enhanced by non-hierarchical reciprocal trading relationships.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10329 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Counterparty Risk - TED Spread (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). Due to international repercussions, it is even less trivial to find a definitive end date of the financial crisis. We will therefore stick to the previous criterion and define it as the day at which the TED spread is back at 57 basis points, which is May 19th, 2009 (and at the same time coincides with the last quarter of the crisis-induced r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interbank Network (2008Q3 - 2008Q4 - 2009Q1). Node positions are the same across time, node size reflects degree, i.e. total number of trading partners and node color reflects strength, i.e. total volume (blue = low, red = high). We immediately recognize the incompleteness of the networks as well as the large heterogeneity of banks. In particular, the core periphery structure stands out. Banks apparently do not have… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 0-Paths. Total Nodes. Empirical time series (black dots) are shown alongside ensemble means and 95% intervals of DECM (blue) that preserves only un+weighted degrees, RWCM (pink) that preserves only weighted reciprocity, and RECM (red) that preserves un+weighted reciprocity on the node-level. Starting with 111 banks in the first quarter of 2005 and ending with 90 banks in the fourth quarter of 2011, the decline in th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 1-Paths. Upper panel: Total Links. Lower panel: Total Volume. Empirical time series (black dots) are shown alongside ensemble means and 95% intervals of DECM (blue) that preserves only un+weighted de￾grees, RWCM (pink) that preserves only weighted reciprocity, and RECM…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2-Paths. Upper panel: Unweighted Reciprocity. Lower panel: Weighted Reciprocity. Empirical time series (black dots) are shown alongside ensemble means and 95% intervals of DECM (blue) that preserves only un+weighted degrees, RWCM (pink) that preserves only weighted rec…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Core-Periphery Decomposition. Upper panel: Core size. Lower panel: Error score. Empirical time series (black dots) are shown alongside ensemble means and 95% intervals of DECM (blue) that preserves only un+weighted degrees, RWCM (pink) that preserves only weighted reci…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Core-Periphery Decomposition (z-scores) - Total Links (left) and Total Volume (right). Upper left panel: Core-Core. Upper right panel: Core-Periphery. Lower left panel: Periphery-Core. Lower right panel: Periphery-Periphery. DECM-filtered empirical series are shown in …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Core-Periphery Decomposition (z-scores): Total Reciprocity - Unweighted (left) and Weighted (right). Upper left panel: Core-Core. Upper right panel: Core-Periphery. Lower left panel: Periphery-Core. Lower right panel: Periphery-Periphery. DECM-filtered empirical series…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 13 Isomorphism classes of connected Triadic Motifs. Source: Squartini et al. (2013b) and Milo et al. (2002) Figure (9) illustrates the thirteen possible types (up to relabeling of nodes) of such connected triplets. In the previous sections on reciprocity and core perip…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Abundance z-score - Motif 2&8. Left panel: Unweighted. Right panel: Weighted. DECM￾filtered (RECM-filtered) empirical series are shown in blue (red). Looking at this finding from a different perspective, if one takes a look at the bottom of the figure, one finds motif…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Abundance z-score - Motif 3&7. Left panel: Unweighted. Right panel: Weighted. DECM￾filtered (RECM-filtered) empirical series are shown in blue (red). In particular, the time-varying nature of the DECM deviations for motifs 8 and 7 reflect similar dynamics which are re…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Abundance z-score - Motif 9. Left panel: Unweighted. Right panel: Weighted. DECM-filtered (RECM-filtered) empirical series are shown in blue (red). This requirement, however, appears to be too strict from a theoretical perspective for a hierarchical network such as an…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Abundance z-score - Motif 10&12. Left panel: Unweighted. Right panel: Weighted. DECM￾filtered (RECM-filtered) empirical series are shown in blue (red). Adding to this topologically cyclical motif 9 (X Ð Y Ð Z Ð X) one reciprocal connection somewhere along the cycle, e…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Abundance z-score - Transitive Motifs. Left panel: Unweighted. Right panel: Weighted. DECM￾filtered (RECM-filtered) empirical series are shown in blue (red). 48 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akerlof, G. A. (1982). Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 97(4):543--569

    1982

  2. [2]

    O., and Faloutsos, C

    Akoglu, L., Vaz de Melo, P. O., and Faloutsos, C. (2012). Quantifying reciprocity in large weighted communication networks. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 85--96. Springer

    2012

  3. [3]

    Albert, R., Jeong, H., and Barab \'a si, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. nature , 406(6794):378--382

    2000

  4. [4]

    Allen, F., Covi, G., Gu, X., Kowalewski, O., and Montagna, M. (2022). Trust and the interbank market puzzle. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP17263

    2022

  5. [5]

    and Gale, D

    Allen, F. and Gale, D. (2000). Financial contagion. Journal of Political Economy , 108(1):1--33

    2000

  6. [6]

    Allen, L., Peristiani, S., and Saunders, A. (1989). Bank size, collateral, and net purchase behavior in the federal funds market: empirical evidence. Journal of Business , pages 501--515

    1989

  7. [7]

    Angelini, P., Nobili, A., and Picillo, C. (2011). The interbank market after august 2007: what has changed, and why? Journal of Money, Credit and Banking , 43(5):923--958

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Ballester, C., Zenou, Y., and Calv \'o -Armengol, A. (2010). Delinquent networks. Journal of the European Economic Association , 8(1):34--61

    work page 2010

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Financial stability report N o

    Bank of Italy (2010). Financial stability report N o. 1. December 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    and Albert, R

    Barab \'a si, A.-L. and Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science , 286(5439):509--512

    1999

  3. [11]

    and Durr \'e , A

    Beaupain, R. and Durr \'e , A. (2011). Inferring trading dynamics for an O T C market: The case of the euro area overnight money market. Quantitative Finance , 11(9):1285--1295

    2011

  4. [12]

    Bech, M. L. and Atalay, E. (2010). The topology of the federal funds market. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 389(22):5223--5246

    2010

  5. [13]

    Bender, E. A. and Canfield, E. R. (1978). The asymptotic number of labeled graphs with given degree sequences. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A , 24(3):296--307

    1978

  6. [14]

    and Klymko, C

    Benzi, M. and Klymko, C. (2015). On the limiting behavior of parameter-dependent network centrality measures. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 36(2):686--706

    2015

  7. [15]

    Bianconi, G. (2009). Entropy of network ensembles. Physical Review E , 79(3):036114

    2009

  8. [16]

    and Serrano, M

    Bogu \ n \'a , M. and Serrano, M. \'A . (2005). Generalized percolation in random directed networks. Physical Review E , 72(1):016106

    2005

  9. [17]

    Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American journal of sociology , 92(5):1170--1182

    1987

  10. [18]

    Borgatti, S. P. and Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social networks , 21(4):375--395

    2000

  11. [19]

    Boss, M., Elsinger, H., Summer, M., and Thurner 4, S. (2004). Network topology of the interbank market. Quantitative Finance , 4(6):677--684

    2004

  12. [20]

    P., Fitzgerald, W

    Boyd, J. P., Fitzgerald, W. J., and Beck, R. J. (2006). Computing core/periphery structures and permutation tests for social relations data. Social Networks , 28(2):165--178

    2006

  13. [21]

    and Fecht, F

    Br \"a uning, F. and Fecht, F. (2017). Relationship lending in the interbank market and the price of liquidity. Review of Finance , 21(1):33--75

    2017

  14. [22]

    Brunetti, C., Di Filippo, M., and Harris, J. H. (2011). Effects of central bank intervention on the interbank market during the subprime crisis. The Review of Financial Studies , 24(6):2053--2083

    2011

  15. [23]

    Brusco, M. (2011). An exact algorithm for a core/periphery bipartitioning problem. Social Networks , 33(1):12--19

    2011

  16. [24]

    Cappelletti, G., De Socio, A., Guazzarotti, G., and Mallucci, E. (2011). The impact of the financial crisis on inter-bank funding: evidence from italian balance sheet data. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper , (95)

    2011

  17. [25]

    F., Gomes, F

    Cocco, J. F., Gomes, F. J., and Martins, N. C. (2009). Lending relationships in the interbank market. Journal of Financial Intermediation , 18(1):24--48

    2009

  18. [26]

    L., Allaire, N., Benzaquen, M., and Challet, D

    Coz, V. L., Allaire, N., Benzaquen, M., and Challet, D. (2024). Stylized facts in money markets: an empirical analysis of the eurozone data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16021

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    and Von Peter, G

    Craig, B. and Von Peter, G. (2014). Interbank tiering and money center banks. Journal of Financial Intermediation , 23(3):322--347

    2014

  20. [28]

    De Masi, G., Iori, G., and Caldarelli, G. (2006). Fitness model for the italian interbank money market. Physical Review E , 74(6):066112

    2006

  21. [29]

    N., Mendes, J

    Dorogovtsev, S. N., Mendes, J. F. F., and Samukhin, A. N. (2001). Giant strongly connected component of directed networks. Physical Review E , 64(2):025101

    2001

  22. [30]

    and R \'e nyi, A

    Erd o s, P. and R \'e nyi, A. (1959). On random graphs i. Publicationes Mathematicae (Debrecen) , 6:290--297

    1959

  23. [31]

    and Falk, A

    Fehr, E. and Falk, A. (1999). Wage rigidity in a competitive incomplete contract market. Journal of Political Economy , 107(1):106--134

    1999

  24. [32]

    Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., and Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? an experimental investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 108(2):437--459

    1993

  25. [33]

    Finger, K., Fricke, D., and Lux, T. (2013). Network analysis of the e- M I D overnight money market: the informational value of different aggregation levels for intrinsic dynamic processes. Computational Management Science , 10(2):187--211

    2013

  26. [34]

    Fricke, D., Finger, K., Lux, T., et al. (2013). On assortative and disassortative mixing in scale-free networks: The case of interbank credit networks. Technical report, Kiel Working Paper

    2013

  27. [35]

    and Lux, T

    Fricke, D. and Lux, T. (2015a). Core--periphery structure in the overnight money market: evidence from the e-mid trading platform. Computational Economics , 45(3):359--395

    2015

  28. [36]

    and Lux, T

    Fricke, D. and Lux, T. (2015b). On the distribution of links in the interbank network: evidence from the e-mid overnight money market. Empirical Economics , 49(4):1463--1495

    2015

  29. [37]

    Gabrielli, A., Mastrandrea, R., Caldarelli, G., and Cimini, G. (2019). Grand canonical ensemble of weighted networks. Physical Review E , 99(3):030301

    2019

  30. [38]

    and Loffredo, M

    Garlaschelli, D. and Loffredo, M. I. (2004). Patterns of link reciprocity in directed networks. Physical Review letters , 93(26):268701

    2004

  31. [39]

    and Loffredo, M

    Garlaschelli, D. and Loffredo, M. I. (2006). Multispecies grand-canonical models for networks with reciprocity. Physical Review E , 73(1):015101

    2006

  32. [40]

    and Loffredo, M

    Garlaschelli, D. and Loffredo, M. I. (2009). Generalized bose-fermi statistics and structural correlations in weighted networks. Physical Review letters , 102(3):038701

    2009

  33. [41]

    Gilbert, E. N. (1959). Random graphs. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 30(4):1141--1144

    1959

  34. [42]

    N., Miccich \`e , S., and Tumminello, M

    Hatzopoulos, V., Iori, G., Mantegna, R. N., Miccich \`e , S., and Tumminello, M. (2015). Quantifying preferential trading in the e- M I D interbank market. Quantitative Finance , 15(4):693--710

    2015

  35. [43]

    Ho, T. S. and Saunders, A. (1985). A micro model of the federal funds market. The Journal of Finance , 40(3):977--988

    1985

  36. [44]

    Holland, P. W. and Leinhardt, S. (1970). A method for detecting structure in sociometric data. American Journal of Sociology , 76(3):492--513

    1970

  37. [45]

    Holland, P. W. and Leinhardt, S. (1971). Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Comparative group studies , 2(2):107--124

    1971

  38. [46]

    Holland, P. W. and Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 76(373):33--50

    1981

  39. [47]

    and Saram \"a ki, J

    Holme, P. and Saram \"a ki, J. (2012). Temporal networks. Physics reports , 519(3):97--125

    2012

  40. [48]

    A collection of fortran codes for large scale scientific computation, 2002

    HSL (2002). A collection of fortran codes for large scale scientific computation, 2002

    2002

  41. [49]

    and Van Lelyveld, I

    In't Veld, D. and Van Lelyveld, I. (2014). Finding the core: Network structure in interbank markets. Journal of Banking & Finance , 49:27--40

    2014

  42. [50]

    V., Gabbi, G., and Caldarelli, G

    Iori, G., De Masi, G., Precup, O. V., Gabbi, G., and Caldarelli, G. (2008). A network analysis of the italian overnight money market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 32(1):259--278

    2008

  43. [51]

    N., Marotta, L., Micciche, S., Porter, J., and Tumminello, M

    Iori, G., Mantegna, R. N., Marotta, L., Micciche, S., Porter, J., and Tumminello, M. (2015). Networked relationships in the e- M I D interbank market: A trading model with memory. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 50:98--116

    2015

  44. [52]

    Jaynes, E. T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review , 106(4):620

    1957

  45. [53]

    and Schnabl, P

    Kacperczyk, M. and Schnabl, P. (2010). When safe proved risky: Commercial paper during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 24(1):29--50

    2010

  46. [54]

    Karlan, D., Mobius, M., Rosenblat, T., and Szeidl, A. (2009). Trust and social collateral. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 124(3):1307--1361

    2009

  47. [55]

    Kermack, W. O. and McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the royal society of london. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character , 115(772):700--721

    1927

  48. [56]

    Kernighan, B. W. and Lin, S. (1970). An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. The Bell System Technical Journal , 49(2):291--307

    1970

  49. [57]

    Kovanen, L., Saramaki, J., and Kaski, K. (2010). Reciprocity of mobile phone calls. arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.0763

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M., Rosenblat, T., and Do, Q.-A

    Leider, S., M \"o bius, M. M., Rosenblat, T., and Do, Q.-A. (2009). Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 124(4):1815--1851

    2009

  51. [59]

    Lip, S. Z. (2011). A fast algorithm for the discrete core/periphery bipartitioning problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1102.5511

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Lux, T. (2020). On the distribution of links in financial networks: structural heterogeneity and functional form. Empirical Economics , 58(3):1019--1053

    2020

  53. [61]

    Mastrandrea, R., Squartini, T., Fagiolo, G., and Garlaschelli, D. (2014). Enhanced reconstruction of weighted networks from strengths and degrees. New Journal of Physics , 16(4):043022

    2014

  54. [62]

    and Roberts, J

    Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1988). Economic theories of the firm: past, present, and future. Canadian Journal of Economics , pages 444--458

    1988

  55. [63]

    Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., and Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science , 298(5594):824--827

    2002

  56. [64]

    and Reed, B

    Molloy, M. and Reed, B. (1995). A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random structures & algorithms , 6(2-3):161--180

    1995

  57. [65]

    Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Nervous and Mental Disease, Washington, D.C

    1934

  58. [66]

    Moreno, J. L. and Jennings, H. H. (1938). Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry , pages 342--374

    1938

  59. [67]

    Newman, M. (2018). Networks . Oxford university press

    2018

  60. [68]

    Newman, M. E. et al. (2003). Random graphs as models of networks. Handbook of graphs and networks , 1:35--68

    2003

  61. [69]

    E., Strogatz, S

    Newman, M. E., Strogatz, S. H., and Watts, D. J. (2001). Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Physical review E , 64(2):026118

    2001

  62. [70]

    Onnela, J.-P., Saram \"a ki, J., Kert \'e sz, J., and Kaski, K. (2005). Intensity and coherence of motifs in weighted complex networks. Physical Review E , 71(6):065103

    2005

  63. [71]

    and Newman, M

    Park, J. and Newman, M. E. (2004). Statistical mechanics of networks. Physical Review E , 70(6):066117

    2004

  64. [72]

    Raddant, M. (2014). Structure in the italian overnight loan market. Journal of International Money and Finance , 41:197--213

    2014

  65. [73]

    Schwarz, K. (2019). Mind the gap: Disentangling credit and liquidity in risk spreads. Review of Finance , 23(3):557--597

    2019

  66. [74]

    \'A ., Bogu \ n \'a , M., and Vespignani, A

    Serrano, M. \'A ., Bogu \ n \'a , M., and Vespignani, A. (2007a). Patterns of dominant flows in the world trade web. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination , 2(2):111--124

    2007

  67. [75]

    \'A ., Maguitman, A., Bogu \ n \'a , M., Fortunato, S., and Vespignani, A

    Serrano, M. \'A ., Maguitman, A., Bogu \ n \'a , M., Fortunato, S., and Vespignani, A. (2007b). Decoding the structure of the www: A comparative analysis of web crawls. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) , 1(2):10--es

    2007

  68. [76]

    Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics. The American Economic Review , 83(2):156--161

    1993

  69. [77]

    and Rapoport, A

    Solomonoff, R. and Rapoport, A. (1951). Connectivity of random nets. The bulletin of mathematical biophysics , 13:107--117

    1951

  70. [78]

    and Garlaschelli, D

    Squartini, T. and Garlaschelli, D. (2011). Analytical maximum-likelihood method to detect patterns in real networks. New Journal of Physics , 13(8):083001

    2011

  71. [79]

    Squartini, T., Mastrandrea, R., and Garlaschelli, D. (2015). Unbiased sampling of network ensembles. New Journal of Physics , 17(2):023052

    2015

  72. [80]

    Squartini, T., Picciolo, F., Ruzzenenti, F., and Garlaschelli, D. (2013a). Reciprocity of weighted networks. Scientific reports , 3(1):1--9

    2013

  73. [81]

    Squartini, T., Van Lelyveld, I., and Garlaschelli, D. (2013b). Early-warning signals of topological collapse in interbank networks. Scientific reports , 3(1):1--9

    2013

  74. [82]

    Stern, G. H. and Feldman, R. J. (2004). Too big to fail: The hazards of bank bailouts . Rowman & Littlefield

    2004

  75. [83]

    Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: the supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. The Economic Journal , 94(376):772--787

    1984

  76. [84]

    Watts, D. J. and Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature , 393(6684):440--442

    1998

  77. [85]

    and Sengupta, S

    Yanchenko, E. and Sengupta, S. (2022). Core-periphery structure in networks: a statistical exposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04455

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Zlati \'c , V., Bo z i c evi \'c , M., S tefan c i \'c , H., and Domazet, M. (2006). Wikipedias: Collaborative web-based encyclopedias as complex networks. Physical Review E , 74(1):016115

    2006

Pith tools

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