Optimal estimators and tests for reciprocal effects
有向网络互惠效应的最优估计与检验AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究有向网络中的互惠效应、环计数和节点度异质性,属于网络建模方向。
有向网络互惠效应的最优估计与检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The $p_1$ model plays a fundamental role in modeling directed networks, where the reciprocal effect parameter $ρ$ is of special interest in practice. However, due to nonlinear factors in this model, how to estimate $ρ$ efficiently is a long-standing open problem. We tackle the problem by the cycle count approach. The challenge is, due to the nonlinear factors in the model, for any given type of generalized cycles, the expected count is a complicated function of many parameters in the model, so it is unclear how to use cycle counts to estimate $ρ$. However, somewhat surprisingly, we discover that, among many types of generalized cycles with the same length, we can carefully pick a pair of them such that in the ratio between the expected cycle counts of the two types, the non-linear factors cancel out nicely with each other, and as a result, the ratio equals to $\mathrm{exp}(ρ)$ exactly. Therefore, though the expected count of cycles of any type is not tractable, the ratio between the expected cycle counts of a (carefully chosen) pair of generalized cycles may have an utterly simple form. We study to what extent such pairs exist, and use our discovery to derive both an estimate for $ρ$ and a testing procedure for testing $ρ= ρ_0$. In a setting where we allow a wide range of reciprocal effects and a wide variety of network sparsity and degree heterogeneity, we show that our estimator achieves the optimal rate and our test achieves the optimal phase transition. Technically, first, motivated by what we observe on real networks, we do not want to impose strong conditions on reciprocal effects, network sparsity, and degree heterogeneity. Second, our proposed statistic is a type of $U$-statistic, the analysis of which involves complex combinatorics and is error-prone. For these reasons, our analysis is long and delicate.