pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.23852 · v3 · submitted 2024-10-31 · 💰 econ.EM

Bagging the Network

Ming Li , Zhentao Shi , Yapeng Zheng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 18:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.EM
keywords network formationfixed effectshomophilyincidental parametersjackknife baggingmethod of momentsdyadic dataasymptotic efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

A joint method-of-moments estimator refined by one-step correction and split-network jackknife bagging produces asymptotically normal, unbiased homophily estimates that attain the Cramér-Rao bound in dyadic networks with fixed effects.

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

The paper establishes a unified framework for estimating parameters in dyadic network formation models that include individual fixed effects. It covers both transferable-utility and nontransferable-utility link formation under general link functions. Standard differencing and profile-likelihood approaches break down under nontransferable utility because bilateral consent renders the fixed effects non-additive and the log-likelihood non-concave. The new procedure starts with a joint method-of-moments estimator, applies a Le Cam one-step refinement, and then uses split-network jackknife bagging to eliminate incidental-parameter bias. The resulting estimator for homophily is asymptotically normal and unbiased, attains the efficiency bound, and extends to average partial effects while remaining robust to link-function misspecification.

Core claim

The paper claims that combining a joint method-of-moments initial estimator, a Le Cam one-step refinement, and a split-network jackknife bagging step removes incidental parameter bias without inflating variance, delivering an asymptotically normal and unbiased homophily estimator that attains the Cramér-Rao lower bound for both transferable-utility and nontransferable-utility network models even when the log-likelihood is non-concave in the fixed effects.

What carries the argument

The split-network jackknife bagging step that removes incidental parameter bias after a joint method-of-moments estimator and Le Cam one-step refinement.

If this is right

  • The procedure applies to both transferable-utility and nontransferable-utility specifications under general link functions.
  • It extends directly to estimation and inference for average partial effects.
  • The estimator remains consistent and asymptotically efficient under link-function misspecification.
  • Simulations confirm the asymptotic normality, unbiasedness, and efficiency claims hold in finite samples for both design types.
  • Empirical applications to Thai village networks and the Nyakatoke risk-sharing network illustrate distinct homophily patterns under the two regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same bias-correction sequence could be applied to other panel or network models that feature high-dimensional incidental parameters where profiling fails.
  • Analysts studying social or economic networks could obtain more reliable measures of homophily when consent requirements differ across contexts.
  • The method opens the possibility of comparing its finite-sample performance against analytical bias corrections on the same networks.
  • Larger-scale networks could be analyzed by combining the initial moments estimator with scalable optimization routines before bagging.

Load-bearing premise

The split-network jackknife bagging step removes incidental parameter bias without inflating the variance of the estimator.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo experiment with known true parameters in which the bagged estimator either retains finite-sample bias after the jackknife step or exhibits variance strictly larger than the Cramér-Rao lower bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.23852 by Ming Li, Yapeng Zheng, Zhentao Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart of the estimation procedure To summarize, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Histograms of αb − α0 for different n 5.2 Extended Estimation Results: APEs, Link Function Misspeci￾fication, and Sparser Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Histogram of αb for the Nyakatoke network information such as caste, family size, and wealth. The survey covers 89.14% of the 16,476 households across 75 villages. Village sizes vary, with an average of 220 households. This yields a total of N = P75 r=1 nr 2  = 1, 238, 970 links in the full sample. For the dependent variable, we follow Chandrasekhar and Jackson (2025) and consider two types of links: an “… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of t-statistics for the information network 0 5 10 15 20 25 t-stat 0 5 10 15 20 Count Same caste Median: 13.1865 0 2 4 6 t-stat 0 5 10 15 Count Same electricity Median: 1.5125 0 2 4 t-stat 0 5 10 Count Same latrine Median: 1.4706 2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 t-stat 0 5 10 15 Count Same ownrent Median: 1.6968 4 2 0 2 t-stat 0 5 10 Count Bed number difference Median: -0.9097 4 2 0 2 t-stat 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of t-statistics for the favor network 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of αbi 7 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a bagging estimator for the homophily coefficients in a dyadic network formation model. The estimator is asymptotically efficient, a property implied by Le Cam (1969)’s result on the one-step approximation to the ML estimator, and it is unbiased owing to the use of bagging in the split-network jackknife procedure. We also estimate the high-dimensiona… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a unified estimation and inference framework for dyadic network formation with individual fixed effects, covering both transferable-utility (TU) and nontransferable-utility (NTU) links under general link functions. Under NTU, bilateral consent makes the fixed effects non-additive and the log-likelihood non-concave in the high-dimensional fixed effects, so differencing and profile-likelihood methods fail. We combine a joint method-of-moments initial estimator, a Le Cam one-step refinement, and a split-network jackknife bagging step that removes the incidental parameter bias without inflating variance. The resulting homophily estimator is asymptotically normal, unbiased, and attains the Cram\'er--Rao lower bound without requiring the log-likelihood to be concave in the fixed effects; we extend the theory to average partial effects and establish robustness to link-function misspecification. Simulations under both TU and NTU designs confirm these predictions. Applied to Thai village networks (TU), kinship and wealth differences both increase linking; in the Nyakatoke risk-sharing network (NTU), wealth differences have no significant effect, mirroring the two regimes' distinct logics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a unified framework for estimating homophily parameters in dyadic network formation models with individual fixed effects, applicable to both transferable utility (TU) and nontransferable utility (NTU) link functions. The approach combines a method-of-moments initial estimator, a Le Cam one-step update, and a split-network jackknife bagging procedure to correct for incidental parameter bias. The central claim is that the resulting estimator is asymptotically normal, unbiased, attains the Cramér-Rao lower bound, and does not require concavity of the log-likelihood in the fixed effects. Extensions to average partial effects and robustness to misspecification are provided, with supporting simulations and two empirical applications.

Significance. If the theoretical results hold, this represents a notable contribution to the econometrics of networks by enabling efficient estimation in NTU settings where profile likelihood and differencing methods are inapplicable due to non-concavity and non-additivity. The ability to attain the efficiency bound without variance inflation from the bagging step would be particularly valuable. The simulations under both TU and NTU designs and the applications to Thai village (TU) and Nyakatoke (NTU) networks provide concrete evidence of practical utility. The paper's strength lies in its unified treatment and the explicit handling of the incidental parameters problem in a graph setting.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3] §3.3 (split-network jackknife bagging): The claim that the bagging step removes incidental parameter bias without inflating variance is central to the efficiency result. In NTU models, where fixed effects enter non-additively, each network split must still identify the full high-dimensional fixed effects vector. The manuscript should provide a detailed argument showing that cross-split dependence does not introduce residual bias or prevent attainment of the CRLB, as standard split-panel jackknife results do not directly apply to dyadic data with shared node effects.
  2. [Theorem 1] Theorem 1 (asymptotic normality and efficiency): The proof of asymptotic normality, unbiasedness, and CRLB attainment relies on the combination of MOM, Le Cam one-step, and bagging. It would strengthen the paper to include an explicit verification or regularity conditions under which the one-step refinement preserves efficiency when the initial estimator is consistent but the likelihood is non-concave.
  3. [Section 5] Section 5 (simulations): The simulation designs confirm the predictions, but to support the NTU claims, additional results on the finite-sample bias and variance under non-concave likelihoods would be helpful to demonstrate that the bagging does not inflate variance in practice.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is dense with technical terms; a slight expansion on the key innovation of the split-network jackknife could improve accessibility.
  2. [Notation] Ensure consistent use of notation for the fixed effects across TU and NTU sections to avoid confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive assessment of the paper's contribution to network econometrics. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.3] §3.3 (split-network jackknife bagging): The claim that the bagging step removes incidental parameter bias without inflating variance is central to the efficiency result. In NTU models, where fixed effects enter non-additively, each network split must still identify the full high-dimensional fixed effects vector. The manuscript should provide a detailed argument showing that cross-split dependence does not introduce residual bias or prevent attainment of the CRLB, as standard split-panel jackknife results do not directly apply to dyadic data with shared node effects.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit treatment of cross-split dependence is useful for the NTU case. The current proof exploits the joint MOM initialization and the fact that each split retains the full node set (hence identifies the entire fixed-effects vector), with dependence across splits controlled by the dyadic structure and the Le Cam refinement. In the revision we will expand Section 3.3 and add an appendix subsection that derives the joint asymptotic distribution of the split estimators, explicitly verifying that the averaging step eliminates the O(1/N) bias term without inflating the leading variance or preventing CRLB attainment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theorem 1] Theorem 1 (asymptotic normality and efficiency): The proof of asymptotic normality, unbiasedness, and CRLB attainment relies on the combination of MOM, Le Cam one-step, and bagging. It would strengthen the paper to include an explicit verification or regularity conditions under which the one-step refinement preserves efficiency when the initial estimator is consistent but the likelihood is non-concave.

    Authors: We will add a supporting lemma that states the precise regularity conditions. The argument relies on local asymptotic normality of the score around the true parameter (which holds under standard smoothness and moment conditions on the link function) together with root-N consistency of the initial joint MOM estimator; the Le Cam one-step then inherits the efficient influence function even when the global likelihood is non-concave. The revision will make these conditions explicit and verify that they are satisfied by the maintained assumptions on the network formation model. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Section 5] Section 5 (simulations): The simulation designs confirm the predictions, but to support the NTU claims, additional results on the finite-sample bias and variance under non-concave likelihoods would be helpful to demonstrate that the bagging does not inflate variance in practice.

    Authors: We will augment the simulation section with a new set of Monte Carlo experiments that explicitly target NTU designs with non-concave likelihoods (e.g., by varying the link function to induce non-concavity while preserving identification). These will report finite-sample bias, variance, and efficiency ratios relative to the CRLB across network sizes, directly confirming that the bagging step does not inflate variance relative to the infeasible oracle estimator. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Standard MOM consistency plus jackknife bias correction on novel split; no reduction of target estimator to fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The derivation combines a joint MOM initial estimator, Le Cam one-step refinement, and split-network jackknife bagging to remove incidental-parameter bias. The abstract states the resulting homophily estimator attains asymptotic normality, unbiasedness, and the CRLB without concavity, but presents these as consequences of the proposed steps rather than definitions or renamings. No quoted equations equate the final estimator to a fitted parameter or self-cited uniqueness theorem. The central claim therefore retains independent content beyond the inputs, consistent with the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on regularity conditions that make the joint MOM estimator consistent and the jackknife bagging unbiased for incidental parameters; these are standard domain assumptions in network econometrics but are not enumerated in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dyadic network formation with individual fixed effects under general link functions
    Core modeling setup stated in the abstract
  • domain assumption Split-network jackknife removes incidental-parameter bias without variance inflation
    Load-bearing step for the NTU case

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1391 out tokens · 35956 ms · 2026-05-23T18:59:13.651696+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Penalized Likelihood for Dyadic Network Formation Models with Degree Heterogeneity

    econ.EM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Penalized likelihood resolves non-existence of MLE and incidental-parameter bias in network models with degree heterogeneity while allowing sparse networks and providing asymptotic guarantees.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ozdaglar, and A

    Acemoglu, D., A. Ozdaglar, and A. Tahbaz-Salehi (2015): Systemic risk and stability in financial networks, American Economic Review, 105, 564--608

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    (1985): Advanced econometrics, Harvard university press

    Amemiya, T. (1985): Advanced econometrics, Harvard university press

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    (2022): Identification and estimation of a partially linear regression model using network data, Econometrica, 90, 347--365

    Auerbach, E. (2022): Identification and estimation of a partially linear regression model using network data, Econometrica, 90, 347--365

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Banerjee, A., A. G. Chandrasekhar, E. Duflo, and M. O. Jackson (2013): The diffusion of microfinance, Science, 341, 1236498

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Patacchini, and E

    Battaglini, M., E. Patacchini, and E. Rainone (2022): Endogenous social interactions with unobserved networks, The Review of Economic Studies, 89, 1694--1747

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Blitzstein, J. and P. Diaconis (2011): A sequential importance sampling algorithm for generating random graphs with prescribed degrees, Internet Mathematics, 6, 489--522

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Boucher, V. and I. Mourifi \'e (2017): My friend far, far away: a random field approach to exponential random graph models, The Econometrics Journal, 20, S14--S46

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Lugosi, and P

    Boucheron, S., G. Lugosi, and P. Massart (2013): Concentration inequalities: a nonasymptotic theory of independence, Oxford University Press

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    (1996): Bagging predictors, Machine learning, 24, 123--140

    Breiman, L. (1996): Bagging predictors, Machine learning, 24, 123--140

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    Candelaria, L. E. (2024): A semiparametric network formation model with unobserved linear heterogeneity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05403

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Chandrasekhar, A. G. and M. O. Jackson (2023): A network formation model based on subgraphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07658

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Charbonneau, K. B. (2017): Multiple fixed effects in binary response panel data models, The Econometrics Journal, 20, S1--S13

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Diaconis, and A

    Chatterjee, S., P. Diaconis, and A. Sly (2011): Random graphs with a given degree sequence, The Annals of Applied Probability, 1400--1435

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Fern \'a ndez-Val, and M

    Chen, M., I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and M. Weidner (2021): Nonlinear factor models for network and panel data, Journal of Econometrics, 220, 296--324

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    (2007): Large sample sieve estimation of semi-nonparametric models, in Handbook of Econometrics, Elsevier B.V., vol

    Chen, X. (2007): Large sample sieve estimation of semi-nonparametric models, in Handbook of Econometrics, Elsevier B.V., vol. 6B

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Chernozhukov, S

    Chen, X., V. Chernozhukov, S. Lee, and W. K. Newey (2014): Local identification of nonparametric and semiparametric models, Econometrica, 82, 785--809

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Richards-Shubik, and E

    de Paula , \'A ., S. Richards-Shubik, and E. Tamer (2018): Identifying preferences in networks with bounded degree, Econometrica, 86, 263--288

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    de Paula, \'A ureo (2020): Strategic network formation, in The Econometric Analysis of Network Data, Elsevier, 41--61

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    (2004): Risk-sharing and endogenous group formation, in Insurance against Poverty, ed

    De Weerdt, J. (2004): Risk-sharing and endogenous group formation, in Insurance against Poverty, ed. by S. Dercon, Oxford University Press, chap. 10

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    De Weerdt, J. and S. Dercon (2006): Risk-sharing networks and insurance against illness, Journal of Development Economics, 81, 337--356

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    De Weerdt, J. and M. Fafchamps (2011): Social identity and the formation of health insurance networks, Journal of Development Studies, 47, 1152--1177

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Dhaene, G. and K. Jochmans (2015): Split-panel jackknife estimation of fixed-effect models, The Review of Economic Studies, 82, 991--1030

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    (2019): An empirical model of dyadic link formation in a network with unobserved heterogeneity, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 763--776

    Dzemski, A. (2019): An empirical model of dyadic link formation in a network with unobserved heterogeneity, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 763--776

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Fern \'a ndez-Val, I. and M. Weidner (2016): Individual and time effects in nonlinear panel models with large N, T, Journal of Econometrics, 192, 291--312

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2018): Fixed effects estimation of large-T panel data models, Annual Review of Economics, 10, 109--138

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Gao, W. Y. (2020): Nonparametric identification in index models of link formation, Journal of Econometrics, 215, 399--413

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Gao, W. Y., M. Li, and S. Xu (2023): Logical differencing in dyadic network formation models with nontransferable utilities, Journal of Econometrics, 235, 302--324

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Goldsmith-Pinkham, P. and G. W. Imbens (2013): Social networks and the identification of peer effects, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31, 253--264

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Graham, B. S. (2017): An econometric model of network formation with degree heterogeneity, Econometrica, 85, 1033--1063

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    7, 111--218

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2020): Network data, in Handbook of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7, 111--218

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    (2021): An econometric model of network formation with an application to board interlocks between firms, Journal of Econometrics, 224, 345--370

    Gualdani, C. (2021): An econometric model of network formation with an application to board interlocks between firms, Journal of Econometrics, 224, 345--370

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Hahn, J. and G. Kuersteiner (2011): Bias reduction for dynamic nonlinear panel models with fixed effects, Econometric Theory, 27, 1152--1191

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Hahn, J., H. R. Moon, and C. Snider (2017): LM test of neglected correlated random effects and its application, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 35, 359--370

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Hahn, J. and W. Newey (2004): Jackknife and analytical bias reduction for nonlinear panel models, Econometrica, 72, 1295--1319

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Hirano, K. and J. H. Wright (2017): Forecasting with model uncertainty: Representations and risk reduction, Econometrica, 85, 617--643

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Hsieh, C.-S. and L. F. Lee (2016): A social interactions model with endogenous friendship formation and selectivity, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31, 301--319

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Hughes, D. W. (2023): Estimating nonlinear network data models with fixed effects, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15603

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Jackson, M. O., Z. Lin, and N. N. Yu (2024): Adjusting for peer-influence in propensity scoring when estimating treatment effects, Working Paper

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Jackson, M. O. and A. Wolinsky (1996): A strategic model of social and economic networks, Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 44--74

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    (2017): Semiparametric analysis of network formation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1--9

    Jochmans, K. (2017): Semiparametric analysis of network formation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1--9

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Jochmans, K. and M. Weidner (2019): Fixed-effect regressions on network data, Econometrica, 87, 1543--1560

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Johnsson, I. and H. R. Moon (2021): Estimation of peer effects in endogenous social networks: Control function approach, Review of Economics and Statistics, 103, 328--345

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    K \"o nig, M. D., D. Rohner, M. Thoenig, and F. Zilibotti (2017): Networks in conflict: Theory and evidence from the great war of africa, Econometrica, 85, 1093--1132

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Le Cam, L. M. (1969): Th \'e orie asymptotique de la d \'e cision statistique, Les Presses de l'Universitede Montreal, Montreal

    work page 1969

  45. [45]

    Leung, M. P. (2019): A weak law for moments of pairwise stable networks, Journal of Econometrics, 210, 310--326

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Leung, M. P. and H. R. Moon (2019): Normal approximation in large network models, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11060

    work page arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Qu, and X

    Lewbel, A., X. Qu, and X. Tang (2023): Social networks with unobserved links, Journal of Political Economy, 131, 898--946

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Sheng, and Z

    Mei, Z., L. Sheng, and Z. Shi (2024): Nickell bias in panel local projection: Financial crises are worse than you think, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13455

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    (2017): A structural model of dense network formation, Econometrica, 85, 825--850

    Mele, A. (2017): A structural model of dense network formation, Econometrica, 85, 825--850

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2022): A structural model of homophily and clustering in social networks, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40, 1377--1389

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    (2024): Strategic network formation with many agents, Working Paper

    Menzel, K. (2024): Strategic network formation with many agents, Working Paper

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    (2016): Structural estimation of pairwise stable networks with nonnegative externality, Journal of Econometrics, 195, 224--235

    Miyauchi, Y. (2016): Structural estimation of pairwise stable networks with nonnegative externality, Journal of Econometrics, 195, 224--235

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Moreira, M. J. (2009): A maximum likelihood method for the incidental parameter problem , The Annals of Statistics, 37, 3660 -- 3696

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    Neyman, J. and E. L. Scott (1948): Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations, Econometrica, 1--32

    work page 1948

  55. [55]

    Qu, L., L. Chen, T. Yan, and Y. Chen (2024): Inference in semiparametric formation models for directed networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19637

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Ridder, G. and S. Sheng (2020): Two-step estimation of a strategic network formation model with clustering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.03838

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Robbins, H. and S. Monro (1951): A stochastic approximation method, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 400--407

    work page 1951

  58. [58]

    (1997): On methods of sieves and penalization, The Annals of Statistics, 25, 2555--2591

    Shen, X. (1997): On methods of sieves and penalization, The Annals of Statistics, 25, 2555--2591

    work page 1997

  59. [59]

    (2020): A structural econometric analysis of network formation games through subnetworks, Econometrica, 88, 1829--1858

    Sheng, S. (2020): A structural econometric analysis of network formation games through subnetworks, Econometrica, 88, 1829--1858

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    (2017): Semiparametric estimation in network formation models with homophily and degree heterogeneity, SSRN 2988698

    Toth, P. (2017): Semiparametric estimation in network formation models with homophily and degree heterogeneity, SSRN 2988698

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. (2000): Asymptotic Statistics, vol. 3, Cambridge university press

    work page 2000

  62. [62]

    (1982): Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models, Econometrica, 1--25

    White, H. (1982): Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models, Econometrica, 1--25

    work page 1982

  63. [63]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1996): Estimation, inference and specification analysis, 22, Cambridge university press

    work page 1996

  64. [64]

    Approximating the inverse of a diagonally dominant matrix with positive elements

    Yan, T. (2019): Approximating the inverse of a diagonally dominant matrix with positive elements, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00668

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Jiang, S

    Yan, T., B. Jiang, S. E. Fienberg, and C. Leng (2019): Statistical inference in a directed network model with covariates, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114, 857--868

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Leng, and J

    Yan, T., C. Leng, and J. Zhu (2016 a ): Asymptotics in directed exponential random graph models with an increasing bi-degree sequence, The Annals of Statistics, 44, 31--57

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    Qin, and H

    Yan, T., H. Qin, and H. Wang (2016 b ): Asymptotics in undirected random graph models parameterized by the strengths of vertices, Statistica Sinica, 273--293

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Yan, T. and J. Xu (2013): A central limit theorem in the -model for undirected random graphs with a diverging number of vertices, Biometrika, 100, 519--524

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    (2020): Identification and estimation of network models with nonparametric unobserved heterogeneity, Department of Economics, Princeton University

    Zeleneev, A. (2020): Identification and estimation of network models with nonparametric unobserved heterogeneity, Department of Economics, Princeton University

    work page 2020