Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Rapidly Varying Completely Random Measures for Modeling Extremely Sparse Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new family of completely random measures reaches the rapid-variation regime α=1 and yields almost extremely sparse graphs.

desk verdict A genuinely new tractable CRM with index of variation 1, worth reviewing, but two quantitative statements on the page need correcting first. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13206 v1 pith:XA7CV3E4 submitted 2025-05-19 math.ST stat.MLstat.TH

Valentin Kilian , Benjamin Guedj , François Caron This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.MLstat.TH MSC 60G5760G5505C8062F15
keywords completelyrandommeasuresrapidvariationindexofsparsenetworksgeneralizedgammaprocessstablesize-biasedrepresentationBayesiannonparametrics
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 introduces a new family of completely random measures (CRMs), the mixed Stable and mixed Generalized Gamma CRMs, whose index of variation can reach $\alpha=1$, the rapid-variation regime. Its central object is a closed-form Laplace exponent, $\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(t;\alpha,\tau) = (t^\alpha-t^\tau)/((\alpha-\tau)\log t)$, obtained by averaging stable Laplace exponents over the stability index. In the CRM-based sparse graph construction, the paper proves that with $\alpha=1$, $\tau=0$, the number of edges satisfies $N_t^{(e)} \sim (W/4C)\, N_t \log N_t$, so the graph is almost extremely sparse: edges outnumber nodes but stay far below $N_t^{1+\epsilon}$. The degree distribution among nodes of degree at least two converges to $1/(j(j-1))$, a power-law tail with exponent 2. This matters because large real networks show nearly linear edge growth, which requires the previously missing $\alpha=1$ case; the paper also gives simulation and posterior inference algorithms based on the mixture structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the Laplace exponent of the mixed Stable CRM, $\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(t;\alpha,\tau)=\frac{1}{\alpha-\tau}\int_\tau^\alpha t^s\,ds=\frac{t^\alpha-t^\tau}{(\alpha-\tau)\log t}$, with $\alpha\in(0,1]$ and $\tau\in[0,\alpha)$. Because the integral of $t^s$ against $s$ produces a logarithm, the exponent is rapidly varying at $t\to\infty$ when $\alpha=1$; the full model tilts and scales this base, giving $\psi_{\mathrm{mGG}}(t)=\eta(\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(\beta+ct;\alpha,\tau)-\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(\beta;\alpha,\tau))$. A size-biased representation expresses each weight through an inverse Laplace exponent and a latent $S_j\in(\tau,\alpha)$, enabling exact simulation and the MCMC scheme. The graph asymptotics flow from the tail behaviour of the Lévy intensity, $\rho_{\mathrm{mGG}}(w)\sim \eta c^\alpha \rho_{\mathrm{mSt}}(w)$, which produces the slowly varying logarithm corrections used in the sparsity theorems.

What would settle it

Compute the tail integral $\bar\rho_{\mathrm{mGG}}(x)=\int_x^\infty \rho_{\mathrm{mGG}}(w;1,0,\beta,c,\eta)\,dw$ numerically for small $x$, for example $x=10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3}$, and compare it with $x^{-1}$ times a slowly varying function. The paper's Proposition 3.1 implies $\bar\rho(x)\sim x^{-1}\log^{-2}(1/x)$; if the numerical tail instead behaves as $x^{-2}\log^{-2}(1/x)$, or if $\bar\rho(x)\,x\,\log^2(1/x)$ does not tend to a finite positive constant, then the constants $C$ and $W$ in Corollary 4.2 do not have their stated values and the extreme-sparsity conclusion loses its proof. A Monte Carlo check would simulate growing graphs and test whether $N_t^{(e)}/(N_t\log N_t)$ stabilises at $W/4C$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that one can build a completely random measure with rapid variation — index of variation $\alpha\in(0,1]$ — by mixing the Lévy intensities of stable or generalized gamma processes over their stability parameter. Although the mixture intensity has no closed form, its Laplace exponent does: $\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(t;\alpha,\tau)=(t^\alpha-t^\tau)/((\alpha-\tau)\log t)$, and the full mixed Generalized Gamma CRM has $\psi_{\mathrm{mGG}}(t;\alpha,\tau,\beta,c,\eta)=\eta(\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(\beta+ct;\alpha,\tau)-\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(\beta;\alpha,\tau))$. With $\alpha=1$, $\tau=0$, the exponent $\psi_{\mathrm{mSt}}(t;1,0)=(t-1)/\log t$ is rapidly varying, so the associated sparse graph sequence is extremely sparse in the sense $N_t^{(e)}/N_t \to \infty$ yet $N_t^{(e)}/N_t^{1+\epsilon} \to 0$; explicitly $N_t^{(e)} \sim (W/4C)\, N_t \log N_t$. Among nodes of degree at least 2, the asymptotic degree distribution is $1/(j(j-1))$. The construction includes stable and generalized gamma CRMs as limiting cases, and its size-biased representation makes simulation and MCMC inference practical.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the precise rate at which the jumps of the mixed Generalized Gamma CRM thin out near zero: the tail must decay like $x^{-1}$ divided by a slowly varying function. The displayed verification in the supplementary material contains an extra factor of $x^{-1}$ in the slowly varying part, which would change the tail to $x^{-2}$ and break the constants in the edge-count formula; the sparsity results also require the tilting parameter $\beta$ to be positive so that the total sociability mass has finite mean.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rapid-variation CRM fills a gap in Bayesian nonparametric models: clustering and feature-allocation processes built on it should grow nearly linearly, $K_n \sim n/\log n$.
  • In the graph setting, the almost-extremely-sparse regime $N_t^{(e)} \sim (W/4C)\, N_t \log N_t$ matches the near-linear edge growth observed in real large networks, which standard $\alpha<1$ CRMs cannot produce.
  • The asymptotic degree distribution among nodes of degree at least two is $1/(j(j-1))$, giving a power law with exponent 2.
  • The size-biased sampler has truncation error $R_n \sim \eta/\log n$, and the Riemann-sum total-mass sampler converges at rate $1/n$, making simulation feasible.
  • The posterior MCMC algorithm recovers sociability parameters and model parameters on synthetic and real subgraphs, and the predictive degree distributions fit the three real-world datasets tested.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to apply the same mixing recipe to other CRM families, such as the stable beta process; the paper's asymptotic conditions suggest the resulting CRM should also be rapidly varying.
  • In edge-exchangeable graph models, the same CRM would give multigraphs whose edge count grows almost linearly in node count, extending the paper's results beyond the exchangeable-vertex setting.
  • The universal $1/(j(j-1))$ tail among nodes of degree at least two could serve as a model-checking diagnostic: subsamples of increasing size should show $N_{t,j}/\tilde N_{t,2}$ stabilizing at $1/(j(j-1))$.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new family of completely random measures (CRMs), the mixed stable and mixed generalized gamma CRMs, constructed by mixing the Lévy intensity of stable/generalized gamma processes over the stability index. The main theoretical contributions are a closed-form Laplace exponent ψ_mSt(t) = (t^α − t^τ)/((α−τ) log t), identification of the index of variation α ∈ (0,1] (including the rapid-variation case α = 1), asymptotic forms of the Lévy intensity, moment formulas, a size-biased series representation, and a Riemann-sum approximation of the total mass. The paper then applies the model in the Caron–Fox random graph framework with α = 1, τ = 0, β > 0, claiming almost extremely sparse graphs with N_t^{(e)} ~ (W/(4C)) N_t log N_t and an asymptotic degree distribution P(degree = j | degree ≥ 2) → 1/(j(j−1)). The paper also presents MCMC posterior inference and experiments on synthetic and three real-world networks. The central claims depend on importing asymptotic results from Caron et al. (2023), with the required tail condition verified in the supplementary material as Lemma S1, and on explicit constants in Proposition 4.1.

Significance. If the technical issues described below are corrected, this is a valuable contribution. The proposed CRM class fills a genuine gap: existing tractable CRMs have index of variation α < 1, and the mSt/mGG construction provides the first tractable example with α = 1 while retaining explicit Laplace exponents, moments, and simulation algorithms. The resulting graph model produces a simple family of almost extremely sparse networks with near-linear edge growth and a power-law degree distribution with exponent 2, and the paper backs this with reproducible code (GitHub), MCMC diagnostics (including multivariate Gelman–Rubin), and posterior predictive checks on real networks. These strengths are tangible: the Laplace-exponent formula and the Riemann-sum approximation of the total mass are clean, parameter-free derivations, and the real-data experiments are carefully presented. However, the quantitative sparsity claims, which are the paper's headline results, currently rest on a misstated verification of the Caron et al. (2023) tail condition and an inconsistent constant in Proposition 4.1; both are repairable but must be fixed before the results are reliable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplementary Material, Section S1.2, Lemma S1] Lemma S1 states that the tail Lévy intensity satisfies \bar ρ_mGG(x) ~ x^{-1} \tilde ℓ(1/x) with \tilde ℓ(1/x) = ηc/(1−τ) x^{-1}/log^2(1/x). With the factor x^{-1} inside \tilde ℓ, the function \tilde ℓ is not slowly varying and the displayed product behaves as ηc/(1−τ) x^{-2}/log^2(1/x). This contradicts the direct tail integration of the Proposition 3.1 behavior ρ_mGG(w) ~ ηc w^{-2}/log^2(1/w), which gives \bar ρ_mGG(x) ~ ηc x^{-1}/log^2(1/x). The correct slowly varying function should be \tilde ℓ(1/x) = ηc/(1−τ) / log^2(1/x) (without the extra x^{-1}). Because Lemma S1 is the verification of the condition of Caron et al. (2023, Proposition 11) on which Proposition 4.1, Corollary 4.2, and Proposition 4.3 all depend, the quantitative sparsity results are not supported as printed. The surrounding text also contains notational confusions between x and w (e.g., 'ρmGG(w; 1,τ,β,c,η ) =w−2L(1/x)' with L(1/x) evaluated at x→0 but depending on w), which should be cleaned up in the revision.
  2. [Section 4.2, Proposition 4.1, Eq. (20)] Proposition 4.1 states N_t^{(e)} ~ t^2/(2W), but the direct Poisson-process calculation of the expected number of edges gives E[N_t^{(e)}] = (1/2)t^2 ∫∫(1−e^{-2ww'}) ρ(dw)ρ(dw') = (1/2)t^2 W, where W is defined in the proposition. Moreover, combining N_t ~ t^2 C/log t with Corollary 4.2 gives N_t^{(e)} ~ (W/(4C)) × (t^2 C/log t) × 2 log t = W t^2/2, i.e., N_t^{(e)} ~ W t^2/2. Therefore the displayed asymptotic in Eq. (20) has an inverted W; it should read N_t^{(e)} ~ W t^2/2. This is not just a typographical nuisance because it makes Proposition 4.1 inconsistent with Corollary 4.2; the constant needs to be corrected so the quantitative sparsity statement is coherent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Proposition 4.1] The formula for C is typeset ambiguously: 'C = 2(ηc)^2 β^{-1}-1+logβ/(logβ)^2' should be displayed as C = 2(ηc)^2 (β^{-1} − 1 + log β)/(log β)^2, matching the closed form obtained from the mean in Proposition 3.2.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 2] In the Flickr row, the number of edges is given as '155,55,041', which is malformed; this should be a standard thousands-separated number such as 15,555,041 (the value should be checked against the original data source).
  3. [Supplementary Material, Figure S10 caption] The caption states 'parameters α = 0, τ = 1', which violates the model constraints 0 ≤ τ < α ≤ 1; this is presumably a typo for α = 1, τ = 0 and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 5, Figure 3 caption and text] The comparison model is described as the 'Generalized Gamma CRM (■) with parameters τ = 1 and σ = 0.5' in the caption, while the text says 'here with α = 0.5'; the notation should be unified to avoid confusion about which parameter is the stability index.
  5. [Supplementary Material, Section S1.1.5, Eq. (S30)] The proof of Proposition 3.5 would be clearer if the Riemann-sum limit were stated for the shifted argument, i.e., (1/n) Σ_{i=1}^n ((ct+β)^{s_i} − β^{s_i}) → ψ_mSt(β+ct) − ψ_mSt(β), rather than the current (S30) which displays only (1/n) Σ t^{s_i}; the step to the Laplace transform of the total mass is then immediate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the graph sparsity results are theorems from the model's Lévy intensity via an independent published result, not fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The Laplace exponent and index-of-variation claims are direct consequences of the construction: ψ_mSt is defined by integrating the stable Laplace exponents t^s over s∈(τ,α), so the asymptotic ψ_mSt(t) ∼ t^α/((α−τ) log t) follows from elementary integration and Karamata's theorem rather than from the conclusions it is used to derive. The network sparsity and degree-distribution statements are imported from Caron et al. (2023, Proposition 11 and Theorem 2), an externally published theorem with explicit hypotheses; the paper then checks the required tail-intensity condition and computes the constants W, C and m from the model parameters. No parameter is fitted to make Corollary 4.2 or Proposition 4.3 come out, and the asymptotic laws are not used as inputs in their own proof. Although F. Caron is a co-author of both papers, the cited proposition is an independent refereed theorem with stated assumptions that do not include the present paper's target results, so under the review rules it counts as real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The apparent typographical and constant inconsistencies noted in Lemma S1 and in the comparison of Proposition 4.1 with Corollary 4.2 are correctness risks—the printed form of eℓ(1/x) in Lemma S1 is not slowly varying, and the two displayed edge-rate constants differ by a factor—but these are errors or misstatements, not circular reductions. The central derivation remains self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The mGG CRM is a new stochastic process family, not an ad hoc fitted entity. The only fitted quantities are the model's own interpretable parameters β, c, η, estimated in the experiments; the theoretical claims hold for all allowed parameter values.

free parameters (3)
  • β (exponential tilting parameter) = Estimated via MCMC; true values in synthetic experiment: β=1
    Model parameter in mGG CRM; estimated from data in the experiments. Not used to fit the asymptotic sparsity claims, which hold for any β>0.
  • c (scale parameter) = Estimated via MCMC; true values in synthetic experiment: c=2
    Model parameter in mGG CRM; estimated from data in the experiments. Not used to fit the asymptotic claims.
  • η (rate parameter) = Estimated via MCMC; true values in synthetic experiment: η=130
    Model parameter in mGG CRM; estimated from data in the experiments, and rescaled by (1−p)/p when predicting the full graphs from a p-sample.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kingman's representation theorem for completely random measures and the Poisson point process construction
    Used throughout Section 2 to define the CRM, its Laplace exponent and Lévy intensity.
  • domain assumption The Caron-Fox graph construction maps a CRM to a random graph with Bernoulli edges of probability 1−exp(−2W_i W_j)
    Section 4.1: all graph results depend on this specific graph construction.
  • domain assumption Caron et al. (2023, Proposition 11, Theorem 2, Corollary 1) apply to the mGG CRM once the tail Lévy intensity condition is verified
    Section 4.2: the sparsity and degree-distribution theorems are imported from this prior result.
  • standard math Karamata's theorem and Tauberian theorems for regularly varying functions
    Used in the proofs of Proposition 3.1 and Lemma S1 to obtain the asymptotic behaviour of the Laplace exponent and Lévy intensity.
  • domain assumption β>0 in the graph model to ensure finite mean m = ∫ w ρ(w) dw
    Section 4: the graph model requires β>0 so that the edge count constant W is finite; all asymptotic claims in Section 4 use this.
  • domain assumption The size-biased representation of Perman, Pitman and Yor is exact for the mGG CRM
    Proposition 3.3 and the simulation experiments rely on this representation to sample weights correctly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapidly Varying Completely Random Measures for Modeling Extremely Sparse Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XA7CV3E4

@misc{pith2026250513206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapidly Varying Completely Random Measures for Modeling Extremely Sparse Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XA7CV3E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13206}
}
abstract

Completely random measures (CRMs) are fundamental to Bayesian nonparametric models, with applications in clustering, feature allocation, and network analysis. A key quantity of interest is the Laplace exponent, whose asymptotic behavior determines how the random structures scale. When the Laplace exponent grows nearly linearly - known as rapid variation - the induced models exhibit approximately linear growth in the number of clusters, features, or edges with sample size or network nodes. This regime is especially relevant for modeling sparse networks, yet existing CRM constructions lack tractability under rapid variation. We address this by introducing a new class of CRMs with index of variation $\alpha\in(0,1]$, defined as mixtures of stable or generalized gamma processes. These models offer interpretable parameters, include well-known CRMs as limiting cases, and retain analytical tractability through a tractable Laplace exponent and simple size-biased representation. We analyze the asymptotic properties of this CRM class and apply it to the Caron-Fox framework for sparse graphs. The resulting models produce networks with near-linear edge growth, aligning with empirical evidence from large-scale networks. Additionally, we present efficient algorithms for simulation and posterior inference, demonstrating practical advantages through experiments on real-world sparse network datasets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ayed, F., Lee, J., and Caron, F. (2019). Beyond the Chinese Restaurant and Pitman-Yor processes: Statistical Models with Double Power-law Behavior . In International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 97, pages 395--404

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Ayed, F., Lee, J., and Caron, F. (2024). The Normal-Generalised Gamma-Pareto Process : A Novel Pure-Jump L \'e vy Process with Flexible Tail and Jump-Activity Properties . Bayesian Analysis , 19(1):123--152

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    and Albert, R

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

    1999

  4. [4]

    Betancourt, B., Zanella, G., Miller, J., Wallach, H., Zaidi, A., and Steorts, R. (2016). Flexible models for microclustering with application to entity resolution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 29

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Betancourt, B., Zanella, G., and Steorts, R. C. (2022). Random Partition Models for Microclustering Tasks . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 117(539):1215--1227

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    T., Cohn, H., and Holden, N

    Borgs, C., Chayes, J. T., Cohn, H., and Holden, N. (2018). Sparse exchangeable graphs and their limits via graphon processes. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(210):1--71

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Brix, A. (1999). Generalized gamma measures and shot-noise Cox processes. Advances in Applied Probability , pages 929--953

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    I., and Pitman, J

    Broderick, T., Jordan, M. I., and Pitman, J. (2012). Beta processes, stick-breaking and power laws. Bayesian analysis , 7(2):439--476

    work page 2012

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Cai, D., Campbell, T., and Broderick, T. (2016). Edge-exchangeable graphs and sparsity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 29

    2016

  2. [10]

    B., Lijoi, A., Pr \"u nster, I., Rodr \'i guez, A., et al

    Camerlenghi, F., Dunson, D. B., Lijoi, A., Pr \"u nster, I., Rodr \'i guez, A., et al. (2019). Latent nested nonparametric priors (with discussion). Bayesian Analysis , 14(4):1303--1356

    2019

  3. [11]

    and Fox, E

    Caron, F. and Fox, E. (2017). Sparse graphs using exchangeable random measures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 79:1295--1366

    2017

  4. [12]

    Caron, F., Panero, F., and Rousseau, J. (2023). On sparsity, power-law, and clustering properties of graphex processes. Advances in Applied Probability , 55(4):1211--1253

    2023

  5. [13]

    and Tankov, P

    Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (2004). Financial Modelling with Jump Processes , volume 2. CRC press

    2004

  6. [14]

    and Dempsey, W

    Crane, H. and Dempsey, W. (2018). Edge exchangeable models for interaction networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113:1311--1326

    2018

  7. [15]

    Devroye, L. (2009). Random variate generation for exponentially and polynomially tilted stable distributions. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation , 19(4):1--20

    2009

  8. [16]

    Di Benedetto, G., Caron, F., and Teh, Y. W. (2021). Nonexchangeable random partition models for microclustering. The Annals of Statistics , 49(4):1931--1957

    2021

  9. [17]

    Favaro, S., Lijoi, A., and Pr \"u nster, I. (2013). Conditional formulae for Gibbs-type exchangeable random partitions. The Annals of Applied Probability , 23(5):1721--1754

    2013

  10. [18]

    and Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences . Statistical Science , 7(4):457--472

    1992

  11. [19]

    Gnedin, A., Hansen, B., and Pitman, J. (2007). Notes on the occupancy problem with infinitely many boxes: General asymptotics and power laws. Probab. Surv , 4(146-171):88

    2007

  12. [20]

    and Leisen, F

    Griffin, J. and Leisen, F. (2018). Modelling and Computation Using NCoRM Mixtures for Density Regression . Bayesian Analysis , 13(3):897--916

    2018

  13. [21]

    Griffin, J. E. and Leisen, F. (2017). Compound random measures and their use in Bayesian non-parametrics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 79(2):525--545

    2017

  14. [22]

    Hjort, N. (1990). Nonparametric Bayes estimators based on beta processes in models for life history data. The Annals of Statistics , 18(3):1259--1294

    1990

  15. [23]

    Hofert, M. (2011). Sampling exponentially tilted stable distributions. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) , 22(1):3

    2011

  16. [24]

    Hougaard, P. (1986). Survival models for heterogeneous populations derived from stable distributions. Biometrika , 73(2):387--396

    1986

  17. [25]

    James, L. F. (2002). Poisson process partition calculus with applications to exchangeable models and Bayesian nonparametrics. arXiv preprint math/0205093

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    F., Lijoi, A., and Pr \"u nster, I

    James, L. F., Lijoi, A., and Pr \"u nster, I. (2009). Posterior analysis for normalized random measures with independent increments. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 36(1):76--97

    2009

  19. [27]

    Janson, S. (2018). On Edge Exchangeable Random Graphs . Journal of Statistical Physics , 173(3):448--484

    2018

  20. [28]

    Kingman, J. (1967). Completely random measures. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 21(1):59--78

    1967

  21. [29]

    Kingman, J. (1993). Poisson Processes , volume 3. Oxford University Press, USA

    1993

  22. [30]

    Kunegis, J. (2013). KONECT -- The Koblenz Network Collection . In Proc. Int . Conf . on World Wide Web Companion , pages 1343--1350

    2013

  23. [31]

    Lee, J., Miscouridou, X., and Caron, F. (2023). A unified construction for series representations and finite approximations of completely random measures. Bernoulli. Official Journal of the Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability , 29(3):2142--2166

    2023

  24. [32]

    H., and Pr \"u nster, I

    Lijoi, A., Mena, R. H., and Pr \"u nster, I. (2007). Controlling the reinforcement in Bayesian non-parametric mixture models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 69(4):715--740

    2007

  25. [33]

    u nster, I. (2010). Models beyond the Dirichlet process. In Hjort, N. L., Holmes, C., M \

    Lijoi, A. and Pr \"u nster, I. (2010). Models beyond the Dirichlet process. In Hjort, N. L., Holmes, C., M \"u ller, P., and Walker, S. G., editors, Bayesian Nonparametrics . Cambridge University Press

    2010

  26. [34]

    P., Druschel, P., and Bhattacharjee, B

    Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., and Bhattacharjee, B. (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement , pages 29--42, San Diego California USA. ACM

    2007

  27. [35]

    Naik, C., Caron, F., and Rousseau, J. (2021). Sparse networks with core-periphery structure. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 15(1):1814--1868

    2021

  28. [36]

    E., Pr \"u nster, I., and Walker, S

    Nieto-Barajas , L. E., Pr \"u nster, I., and Walker, S. G. (2004). Normalized random measures driven by increasing additive processes. The Annals of Statistics , 32(6):2343--2360

    2004

  29. [37]

    Perman, M., Pitman, J., and Yor, M. (1992). Size-biased sampling of Poisson point processes and excursions. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 92(1):21--39

    1992

  30. [38]

    Pitman, J. (2003). Poisson-kingman partitions. In Goldstein, D. R., editor, Statistics and Science: A Festschrift for Terry Speed , volume Volume 40 of Lecture Notes -- Monograph Series , pages 1--34. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Beachwood, OH

    2003

  31. [39]

    Regazzini, E., Lijoi, A., and Pr \"u nster, I. (2003). Distributional results for means of normalized random measures with independent increments. The Annals of Statistics , 31(2):560--585

    2003

  32. [40]

    Rossi, R. A. and Ahmed, N. K. (2015). The Network Data Repository with Interactive Graph Analytics and Visualization . In AAAI

    2015

  33. [41]

    A., Gleich, D

    Rossi, R. A., Gleich, D. F., Gebremedhin, A. H., and Patwary, M. M. A. (2014). Fast maximum clique algorithms for large graphs. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web , WWW '14 Companion , pages 365--366, New York, NY, USA. Association for Comput...

    2014

  34. [42]

    and Gorur, D

    Teh, Y. and Gorur, D. (2009). Indian buffet processes with power-law behavior. Advances in Neural Information Processing systems , 22

    2009

  35. [43]

    and Jordan, M

    Thibaux, R. and Jordan, M. I. (2007). Hierarchical beta processes and the Indian buffet process. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics ( AISTATS '07) , pages 564--571

    2007

  36. [44]

    Todeschini, A., Miscouridou, X., and Caron, F. (2020). Exchangeable random measures for sparse and modular graphs with overlapping communities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 82(2):487--520

    2020

  37. [45]

    Van Der Hofstad, R. (2024). Random Graphs and Complex Networks , volume 2. Cambridge University Press, 1 edition

    2024

  38. [46]

    and Knudson, C

    Vats, D. and Knudson, C. (2021). Revisiting the Gelman -- Rubin Diagnostic . Statistical Science , 36(4):518--529

    2021

  39. [47]

    and Roy, D

    Veitch, V. and Roy, D. M. (2015). The Class of Random Graphs Arising from Exchangeable Random Measures . arXiv:1512.03099

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    and Roy, D

    Veitch, V. and Roy, D. M. (2019). Sampling and estimation for (sparse) exchangeable graphs. The Annals of Statistics , 47(6):3274 -- 3299

    2019

  41. [49]

    and Liu, H

    Zafarani, R. and Liu, H. (2014). Users Joining Multiple Sites : Distributions and Patterns . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , 8(1):635--638

    2014

  42. [50]

    Betancourt, M. (2018). A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo . arXiv:1701.02434

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    H., Goldie, C

    Bingham, N. H., Goldie, C. M., and Teugels, J. L. (1987). Regular Variation , volume 27. Cambridge university press

    1987

  44. [52]

    H., How, J

    Campbell, T., Huggins, J. H., How, J. P., and Broderick, T. (2019). Truncated random measures. Bernoulli. Official Journal of the Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability , 25(2):1256--1288

    2019

  45. [53]

    M., Gonnet, G

    Corless, R. M., Gonnet, G. H., Hare, D. E. G., Jeffrey, D. J., and Knuth, D. E. (1996). On the LambertW function. Advances in Computational Mathematics , 5(1):329--359

    1996

  46. [54]

    Feller, W. (1971). An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , volume 2. John Wiley & Sons

    1971

  47. [55]

    and Boyd, J

    Iacono, R. and Boyd, J. P. (2017). New approximations to the principal real-valued branch of the Lambert W-function . Advances in Computational Mathematics , 43(6):1403--1436

    2017

  48. [56]

    L \'o czi, L. (2022). Guaranteed- and high-precision evaluation of the Lambert W . Applied Mathematics and Computation , 433:127406

    2022

  49. [57]

    Neal, R. M. (2011). MCMC Using Hamiltonian Dynamics , pages 113--162. Chapman and Hall/CRC , New York, 1 edition

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.