Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 38 references

Variational Consensus Monte Carlo for Bayesian Mixture

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Variational aggregation of local MCMC posteriors approximates the global posterior for over-fitted Bayesian mixtures even when clusters are absent from some silos.

desk verdict The paper extends variational CMC to over-fitted mixtures with new cross-silo matching, but the accuracy claim over pooled MCMC rests on details that need checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.19643 v1 pith:H63SZLIL submitted 2026-06-17 stat.ML cs.LG

Julie Fendler , Francesca L. Crowe , Tom Marshall , Sylvia Richardson , Paul D.W. Kirk This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords BayesianmixturemodelsfederatedlearningconsensusMonteCarlovariationalinferenceover-fittedmixturesclustermatchingelectronichealthrecordsmulti-morbidity
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 develops a method for Bayesian mixture inference when data stay in separate silos due to privacy constraints. Independent MCMC runs produce local posteriors that are then variationally aggregated, with new cluster-matching steps to handle mixtures where not every cluster appears in every silo and where the number of clusters is unknown. Simulations demonstrate that this recovers small clusters more accurately than standard MCMC on the full pooled data when the local datasets reflect the overall clustering structure. The approach is illustrated on electronic health records for identifying multi-morbidity patterns.

What carries the argument

Variational consensus Monte Carlo aggregation of local posteriors, extended by cluster-matching algorithms that align components across silos with incomplete cluster presence.

What would settle it

Apply the method and pooled MCMC to simulated data containing known small clusters that appear in only some silos, then compare the estimated posterior probabilities or cluster assignments for those small clusters against ground truth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Local posterior distributions obtained from independent MCMC runs on each silo can be variationally aggregated to accurately approximate the global posterior over the full pooled data for over-fitted Bayesian mixture models that infer the number of clusters and all parameters without requiring conjugacy, using novel cluster-matching algorithms suitable for settings in which not every cluster appears in each local dataset; when the composition of local datasets reflects the underlying clustering structure, this recovers small clusters with greater accuracy than standard MCMC applied to the pooled data.

Load-bearing premise

Local posteriors computed separately in each silo can be variationally combined into an accurate approximation of the single global posterior even for non-conjugate over-fitted mixtures and uneven cluster distribution across silos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inference proceeds without ever pooling or sharing the raw data across silos.
  • The framework applies to over-fitted mixtures that determine the number of clusters from the data.
  • Multiple aggregation strategies are provided and can be selected according to specific federated constraints.
  • Small clusters are recovered more accurately than pooled MCMC when silo compositions mirror the global structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same aggregation logic could be tested on other model classes where local MCMC is feasible but full pooling is not.
  • Accuracy is expected to degrade when clusters are randomly rather than structurally distributed across silos, providing a clear comparison point.
  • The approach suggests a route to federated clustering analyses in regulated domains such as finance or genomics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a variational extension of Consensus Monte Carlo for Bayesian mixture models in federated settings where data cannot be pooled. It extends the approach of Rabinovich et al. (2015) to over-fitted mixtures that infer the number of clusters without requiring conjugacy, introduces novel cluster-matching algorithms to handle cases where clusters are absent from some local datasets, provides multiple inference strategies for the aggregation step, and includes guidelines for their use. A simulation study is used to validate the framework and compare against federated alternatives, with the key result that the method recovers small clusters more accurately than standard MCMC on pooled data when local dataset composition reflects the underlying structure; the approach is illustrated on large-scale electronic health record data for multi-morbidity patterns.

Significance. If the variational aggregation and cluster-matching steps accurately recover the global posterior, including for rare components, the work would be significant for privacy-preserving Bayesian inference on mixture models, particularly in health applications. The extension to over-fitted non-conjugate mixtures and the handling of partial cluster overlap across silos address practical federated constraints. The simulation study and real-data illustration provide concrete evidence of utility, though the strength of the accuracy claims depends on the robustness of the reported comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation study] Simulation study section: the central claim that the method recovers small clusters with greater accuracy than pooled MCMC when local data composition reflects clustering structure is not accompanied by details on error bars, exact cluster-matching algorithms employed, data exclusion rules, or quantitative metrics and baselines used in the comparisons; without these, the reported performance gain cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Cluster-matching algorithms] Section on cluster-matching algorithms (extending Rabinovich et al.): the variational aggregation for over-fitted mixtures requires simultaneous resolution of label switching and missing clusters across silos without closed-form local posteriors; the manuscript does not specify the optimization procedure or provide evidence that systematic mismatches in matching do not distort aggregated weights for rare components, which is load-bearing for the accuracy claim over pooled MCMC.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The reference to Rabinovich, Angelino and Jordan (2015) in the abstract and introduction should be expanded with full bibliographic details in the reference list.
  2. Notation for the variational objective and cluster alignment parameters could be clarified with an explicit table or diagram to aid reproducibility of the aggregation step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation study] Simulation study section: the central claim that the method recovers small clusters with greater accuracy than pooled MCMC when local data composition reflects clustering structure is not accompanied by details on error bars, exact cluster-matching algorithms employed, data exclusion rules, or quantitative metrics and baselines used in the comparisons; without these, the reported performance gain cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the simulation study section would benefit from greater detail to allow full evaluation of the performance claims. In the revised manuscript, we will include error bars for all metrics, provide the exact specifications and pseudocode for the cluster-matching algorithms, clarify any data exclusion rules, and expand on the quantitative metrics and baselines with additional tables or text. This will make the comparisons more transparent and reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Cluster-matching algorithms] Section on cluster-matching algorithms (extending Rabinovich et al.): the variational aggregation for over-fitted mixtures requires simultaneous resolution of label switching and missing clusters across silos without closed-form local posteriors; the manuscript does not specify the optimization procedure or provide evidence that systematic mismatches in matching do not distort aggregated weights for rare components, which is load-bearing for the accuracy claim over pooled MCMC.

    Authors: The cluster-matching algorithms are detailed in the manuscript as extensions to handle missing clusters and label switching in the variational framework. To address the concern about the optimization procedure, we will add a more explicit description of the variational optimization steps, including the objective function and the algorithm used for solving it. Furthermore, we will include supplementary analysis or additional simulation results to demonstrate that any potential mismatches do not systematically bias the weights of rare components, thereby supporting the accuracy claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper extends the variational CMC aggregation from the cited Rabinovich et al. (2015) work by adding new cluster-matching algorithms and strategies for over-fitted non-conjugate mixtures in federated settings. The central performance claims are supported by simulation comparisons to pooled MCMC and real EHR data, without any load-bearing steps that reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. Local MCMC posteriors and variational aggregation are treated as independent inputs, and the reported accuracy gains for small clusters are externally validated rather than tautological.

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

Abstract provides insufficient technical detail to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no equations or modeling choices are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Consensus Monte Carlo for Bayesian Mixture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H63SZLIL

@misc{pith2026260619643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Consensus Monte Carlo for Bayesian Mixture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H63SZLIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.19643}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by the privacy, sensitivity and sharing limitations of health data, we present a comprehensive pipeline for inference of Bayesian mixture models within a federated learning setting, i.e. when data cannot be fully shared or pooled across compute nodes. We adopt a Consensus Monte Carlo (CMC) approach, in which an MCMC algorithm is run independently within each data silo to estimate local posterior distributions, which are then aggregated to approximate the posterior over the full data. The variational CMC approach of Rabinovich, Angelino and Jordan (2015) [1] frames the aggregation step as a variational inference problem, but their application to mixtures assumes the number of clusters and key mixture parameters to be known. Our main methodological contributions are: (i) an extension of variational CMC to over-fitted Bayesian mixture models that infer the number of clusters and all model parameters, without requiring conjugacy; (ii) novel cluster-matching algorithms suitable for cross-silo settings in which not every cluster appears in each local dataset; (iii) a number of inference strategies for the aggregation step, matched to different federated learning constraints; and (iv) guidelines for choosing among these in practice. A comprehensive simulation study validates the framework and allows us to compare to state-of-the-art federated learning alternatives. Notably, we show that when the composition of local datasets reflects the underlying clustering structure in the data, our approach can recover small clusters with greater accuracy than standard MCMC applied to the pooled data. We illustrate the framework on large-scale electronic health record data, identifying multi-morbidity patterns in a British geriatric population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the Ball matching procedure : step 1 is the identification of the clusters coor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MCA coordinates on the first and second axes of the observations in a simulated dataset in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the estimated number of clusters in the full data for the three matching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaled difference between the proportion of individuals presenting each disease in each cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the estimated global number of clusters over 100 datasets for local clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference between the number of estimated clusters and the true number of clusters in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the adjusted Rand index (ARI) between the estimated and the true local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Proportion of individuals presenting each disease in each cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Maxim Rabinovich, Elaine Angelino, and Michael I. Jordan. Variational consensus monte carlo, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aur´ elien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, Rafael G

    Peter Kairouz, H. Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aur´ elien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, Rafael G. L. D’Oliveira, Hubert Eichner, Salim El Rouayheb, David Evans, Josh Gardner, Zachary Garrett, Adri` a Gasc´ on, Badih Ghazi, Phillip B. Gibbons, Marco Gruteser, Zaid Harchaou...

    2021

  3. [3]

    Federated learning in a medical context: A systematic literature review.ACM Trans

    Bjarne Pfitzner, Nico Steckhan, and Bert Arnrich. Federated learning in a medical context: A systematic literature review.ACM Trans. Internet Technol., 21(2), June 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Judith Rousseau and Kerrie Mengersen. Asymptotic behaviour of the posterior distribution in overfitted mixture models.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Method- ology), 73:689 – 710, 11 2011

    2011

  5. [5]

    Overfitting bayesian mixture models with an unknown number of components.PLOS ONE, 10(7):1–27, 07 2015

    Zo´ e van Havre, Nicole White, Judith Rousseau, and Kerrie Mengersen. Overfitting bayesian mixture models with an unknown number of components.PLOS ONE, 10(7):1–27, 07 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Scott, Alexander W

    Steven L. Scott, Alexander W. Blocker, Fernando V. Bonassi, Hugh A. Chipman, Edward I. George, and Robert E. McCulloch. Bayes and big data: The consensus monte carlo algorithm. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 11:78–88, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Bayesian nonparametric clustering for large data sets.Stat

    Daiane Aparecida Zuanetti, Peter M¨ uller, Yitan Zhu, Shengjie Yang, and Yuan Ji. Bayesian nonparametric clustering for large data sets.Stat. Comput., 29:pp. 203–215, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Scalable bayesian nonparametric clustering and classification.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 29(1):pp

    Yang Ni, Peter M¨ uller, Maurice Diesendruck, Sinead Williamson, Yitan Zhu, and Yuan Ji. Scalable bayesian nonparametric clustering and classification.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 29(1):pp. 53–65, 2020

    2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A distributed inference algorithm for dirichlet process mixture models with exponential family components.Neurocomputing, 653:131119, 2025

    Reda Khoufache, Mustapha Lebbah, Hanene Azzag, Etienne Goffinet, and Djamel Bouchaffra. A distributed inference algorithm for dirichlet process mixture models with exponential family components.Neurocomputing, 653:131119, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Crowe, Tom Marshall, Sylvia Richardson, and Paul D

    Jackie Rao, Francesca L. Crowe, Tom Marshall, Sylvia Richardson, and Paul D. W. Kirk. Feder- ated variational inference for bayesian mixture models, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On Information and Sufficiency.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1):79 – 86, 1951

    1951

  4. [12]

    Efficient projections onto the l1-ball for learning in high dimensions

    John Duchi, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Yoram Singer, and Tushar Chandra. Efficient projections onto the l1-ball for learning in high dimensions. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’08, page 272–279, New York, NY, USA, 2008. Association for C...

    2008

  5. [13]

    Mckay, Richard Beckman, and William Conover

    M. Mckay, Richard Beckman, and William Conover. A comparison of three methods for selecting vales of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code.Technometrics, 21:239–245, 05 1979. 25

    1979

  6. [14]

    Remarks on a multivariate transformation.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(3):470–472, 1952

    Murray Rosenblatt. Remarks on a multivariate transformation.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(3):470–472, 1952

    1952

  7. [15]

    Construction of uniform designs on arbitrary domains by inverse rosenblatt transformation

    Mei Zhang, Aijun Zhang, and Yongdao Zhou. Construction of uniform designs on arbitrary domains by inverse rosenblatt transformation. In Jianqing Fan and Jianxin Pan, editors,Con- temporary Experimental Design, Multivariate Analysis and Data Mining: Festschrift in Honour of Pro...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Dealing with label switching in mixture models.Journal of the Royal Statis- tical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 62(4):795–809, 01 2002

    Matthew Stephens. Dealing with label switching in mixture models.Journal of the Royal Statis- tical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 62(4):795–809, 01 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    On posterior contraction of parameters and inter- pretability in bayesian mixture modeling.Bernoulli, 27(4):2159–2188, 2021

    XuanLong Nguyen Aritra Guha, Nhat Ho. On posterior contraction of parameters and inter- pretability in bayesian mixture modeling.Bernoulli, 27(4):2159–2188, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Convergence of latent mixing measures in finite and infinite mixture models

    XuanLong Nguyen. Convergence of latent mixing measures in finite and infinite mixture models. The Annals of Statistics, 41(1):370–400, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    On strong identifiability and convergence rates of parameter estimation in finite mixtures.Electron

    Nhat Ho and XuanLong Nguyen. On strong identifiability and convergence rates of parameter estimation in finite mixtures.Electron. J. Statist., 1(10):271–307, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Comparing partitions.Journal of Classification, 2:193–218, 12 1985

    L Hubert and P Arabie. Comparing partitions.Journal of Classification, 2:193–218, 12 1985

    1985

  13. [21]

    Federated k-means clustering

    Swier Garst and Marcel Reinders. Federated k-means clustering. In Apostolos Antonacopoulos, Subhasis Chaudhuri, Rama Chellappa, Cheng-Lin Liu, Saumik Bhattacharya, and Umapada Pal, editors,Pattern Recognition, pages 107–122, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland

    2025

  14. [22]

    Comparing clusterings by the variation of information

    Marina Meil˘ a. Comparing clusterings by the variation of information. In Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf and Manfred K. Warmuth, editors,Learning Theory and Kernel Machines, pages 173–187, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2003

  15. [23]

    Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D

    David M. Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Variational inference: A review for statis- ticians.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Hastie, Lamiae Azizi, Michail Papathomas, and Sylvia Richardson

    Silvia Liverani, David I. Hastie, Lamiae Azizi, Michail Papathomas, and Sylvia Richardson. Pre- mium: An r package for profile regression mixture models using dirichlet processes.Journal of Statistical Software, 64(7):1––30, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Feasibility study and methodology to create a quality- evaluated database of primary care data.Inform Prim Care, 12(3):171–7, 2004

    A Bourke, H Dattani, and Robinson M. Feasibility study and methodology to create a quality- evaluated database of primary care data.Inform Prim Care, 12(3):171–7, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Lewis, Rita Schinnar, Warren B

    James D. Lewis, Rita Schinnar, Warren B. Bilker, Xingmei Wang, and Brian L. Strom. Validation studies of the health improvement network (thin) database for pharmacoepidemiology research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 16(4):393–401, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    McGurk, Chang Lu, Antonio de Marvao, Wenjia Bai, Brian P

    Natalie Bergan, Ishika Prachee, Lara Curran, Kathryn A. McGurk, Chang Lu, Antonio de Marvao, Wenjia Bai, Brian P. Halliday, John Gregson, Declan P. O’Regan, James S. Ware, and Upasana Tayal. Systematic review, meta-analysis, and population study to determine the biologic sex r...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Maxineanu, S

    I. Maxineanu, S. Roop, S.and Morris, S. McManus, E. Roberts, and J. Strang. Drug use and dependence. InMorris, S., Hill, S., Brugha, T., McManus, S. (Eds.), Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey: Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. NHS England, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Health survey for england, 2024: Adults’ health-related behaviours and health status

    NHS England. Health survey for england, 2024: Adults’ health-related behaviours and health status. Official statistics, NHS England, jan 2026. Accredited official statistics. Geographic coverage: England

    2024

  22. [30]

    Increased risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based cohort study.PLOS ONE, 10(8):1–11, 08 2015

    Chi Ching Chang, Chi Sheng Chiou, Hsiu Li Lin, Li Hsuan Wang, Yu Sheng Chang, and Hsiu-Chen Lin. Increased risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based cohort study.PLOS ONE, 10(8):1–11, 08 2015. 26

    2015

  23. [31]

    Wilton, Sara J

    Katelynn M. Wilton, Sara J. Achenbach, John M. Davis III, Elena Myasoedova, Eric L. Matteson, and Cynthia S. Crowson. Erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular risk in men with rheumatoid arthritis: A population- based cohort study.The Journal of Rheumatology, 48(11):1641–1647, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Prospective evaluation of sexual dysfunction in men with chronic pancreatitis: A pilot study.Pancreas., 53(2):e187–e192, 2024

    I Shah, K Anderson, R Bocchino, SD Freedman, R Carrasquillo, and SG Sheth. Prospective evaluation of sexual dysfunction in men with chronic pancreatitis: A pilot study.Pancreas., 53(2):e187–e192, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    H Ludwig, S Van Belle, P Barrett-Lee, G Birgeg˚ ard, C Bokemeyer, P Gasc´ on, P Kosmidis, M Krzakowski, J Nortier, P Olmi, M Schneider, and D Schrijvers. The european cancer anaemia survey (ecas): a large, multinational, prospective survey defining the prevalence, incidence, a...

    2004

  26. [34]

    Effect of intensive vs standard blood pressure control on probable dementia: A randomized clinical trial.JAMA, 321(6):553–561, 02 2019

    The SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group. Effect of intensive vs standard blood pressure control on probable dementia: A randomized clinical trial.JAMA, 321(6):553–561, 02 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Nathan, Joan A

    Steven D. Nathan, Joan A. Barbera, Sean P. Gaine, Sergio Harari, Fernando J. Martinez, Horst Olschewski, Karen M. Olsson, Andrew J. Peacock, Joanna Pepke-Zaba, Steeve Provencher, Nor- bert Weissmann, and Werner Seeger. Pulmonary hypertension in chronic lung disease and hypoxia...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the lancet standing commission.The Lancet, 404:578–608, 2024

    Gill Livingston, Jonathan Huntley, Kathy Y Liu, Sergi G Costafreda, Geir Selbæk, Suvarna Alladi, David Ames, Sube Banerjee, Alistair Burns, Carol Brayne, Nick C Fox, Cleusa P Ferri, Laura N Gitlin, Robert Howard, Helen C Kales, Mika Kivim¨ aki, Eric B Larson, Noeline Nakasujja...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Associ- ation between hypertension and impaired lung function among adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS ONE, 21(4):1–49, 04 2026

    Dilakshi Lekamge, Anuradhani Kasturiratne, Malay Kanti Mridha, and John Chambers. Associ- ation between hypertension and impaired lung function among adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS ONE, 21(4):1–49, 04 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Consensus monte carlo for random subsets using shared anchors.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 29(4):703–714, 2020

    Yang Ni, Yuan Ji, and Peter M¨ uller. Consensus monte carlo for random subsets using shared anchors.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 29(4):703–714, 2020. A Comparison of the cluster matchings - removing the impact of the local partition estimation A compariso...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.