A Latent Position Co-Clustering Model for Multiplex Networks

C.J. Clarke; Michael Fop

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

A Latent Position Co-Clustering Model for Multiplex Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LaPCoM shows that a hierarchical latent position model can co-cluster the networks of a multiplex and the nodes within each network cluster, with cluster counts inferred from the data.

desk verdict A useful new co-clustering model for multiplex networks, well-built but with an untested shared-latent-space assumption and a couple of post-hoc real-data decisions that need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09370 v1 pith:GE6TSWLN submitted 2025-07-12 stat.ME

C.J. Clarke , Michael Fop This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62H3062F1562P25

keywords multiplexnetworkslatentpositionmodelco-clusteringmixtureoffinitemixturesBayesiannonparametricsmodel-basedclusteringcommunitydetectionMarkovchainMonteCarlo

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

LaPCoM is a Bayesian model that treats a multiplex as a collection of networks generated from a two-level mixture: first networks are grouped into clusters that share a latent position space, and then, inside each such space, nodes are grouped by a Gaussian mixture on their latent positions. The paper's central claim is that this hierarchical latent-space formulation lets one recover both levels of structure at once, with the number of clusters at each level learned from the data through a mixture-of-finite-mixtures prior rather than fixed in advance. If the claim holds, practitioners gain a single interpretable tool for multiplex data that currently requires separate network-clustering and node-clustering analyses, and it works for both binary and count-valued edges. Simulations show accurate recovery of latent spaces and clusterings, and the real-data applications yield groupings with substantive meaning, such as lesson versus lunchtime network regimes and class-based node communities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical mixture-of-mixtures latent position model: a top-level mixture over networks, each component carrying a shared latent position matrix $Z_g$, and a bottom-level Gaussian mixture on the rows of $Z_g$. A dynamic mixture of finite mixtures prior, with translated beta-negative-binomial priors on $G$ and each $K_g$ and Dirichlet concentration parameters scaled by the component count, is what lets the model empty superfluous components and choose cluster numbers automatically; telescoping sampling updates the component counts, and Procrustes alignment plus label-permutation post-processing resolves rotational and label-switching identifiability.

What would settle it

Generate a two-cluster multiplex in which the two clusters have identical latent positions and node communities but different per-network intercepts, or a within-cluster node-specific position shift, then fit LaPCoM; consistently recovering more than two network clusters, or node partitions that differ across networks in the same cluster, would falsify the shared-$Z_g$ exchangeability assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a multiplex can be modelled as $Y^{(m)} \sim \sum_{g=1}^{G} \tau_g \prod_{i\ne j} P(\lambda_{g,ij})$, with $f(\lambda_{g,ij}) = \alpha - \|z_{g,i} - z_{g,j}\|_2^2$, where each network-level component $g$ has its own latent position matrix $Z_g$; the rows of $Z_g$ are then drawn from a Gaussian mixture $\sum_{k=1}^{K_g} \pi_{gk} \mathrm{MVN}_2(\mu_{gk}, \Sigma_{gk})$, which induces node clusters within that network cluster. The number of network components $G$ and node components $K_g$ are treated as random under translated $\beta$-negative-binomial priors, with Dirichlet shrinkage on the mixing weights, so the fitted model selects active clusters automatically; inference uses a Metropolis-within-Gibbs sampler with telescoping updates. Simulation studies report near-perfect or high adjusted Rand indices at both levels, and the model matches or beats comparison methods on network clustering while providing node-level clustering that they lack. Applications to three multiplexes yield network-level clusters aligned with context, such as perceived advice density, Facebook versus other ties, and lunchtime versus class hours, and node-level clusters aligned with academic roles or school classes.

Load-bearing premise

Networks assigned to the same network-level cluster are assumed to share one latent position matrix, so all differences between those networks, such as density, sender or receiver tendencies, or temporal drift, must be absorbed by the common intercept and the shared positions; if real same-cluster networks differ in latent positions, the model will either split the cluster or distort the shared space and the node clusters with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single fitted model yields both a low-dimensional map of each network cluster and community labels for nodes inside it, so practitioners do not need separate network-level and node-level clustering pipelines.
The number of network clusters and of node clusters per network cluster is estimated from the data, so users are not forced to pre-specify $G$ and $K_g$.
Because the edge distribution is plug-in (Bernoulli for binary, Poisson for counts), the same co-clustering machinery applies to presence-absence and interaction-count multiplexes.
The shared latent space per network cluster offers a parsimonious alternative to fitting one latent space per network, with posterior predictive checks indicating comparable or better fit in the applications shown.
Network-level clusters can capture meaningful context regimes in time-stamped multiplexes, such as lesson versus lunchtime interaction periods, even without an explicit temporal model.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural boundary of the shared-$Z_g$ assumption is that network-specific sender, receiver, or density effects would require either more network clusters or an extended model with per-network intercepts or random latent shifts; this is testable by simulation and is a likely next step.
The primary school application suggests that replacing the Poisson edge distribution with a zero-inflated or overdispersed count model would improve fit on weighted multiplexes without changing the co-clustering structure; the paper itself flags the Poisson restriction.
The fixed two-dimensional latent space could be relaxed by shrinkage priors on the latent dimension, which would let the model decide whether a network cluster needs more than two dimensions for its map.
The co-clustering output doubles as an exploratory visualization tool: each network-level cluster gets its own two-dimensional plot, and the node-level clusters inside it read directly as roles or communities, which could guide hypothesis generation on real multiplex data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

LaPCoM is worth a look. It is a genuine new combination, a two-level mixture-of-mixtures that clusters networks and nodes simultaneously under a latent position model, with MFM priors and automatic selection of the number of clusters. The paper is well specified, the supplement includes full conditionals and MCMC pseudocode, the PPCs are extensive, and the authors are admirably honest about limitations (fixed dimension, no temporal dependence, Poisson underfitting counts, no directionality). That honesty is earned: the simulations and applications mostly support the model.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The most important is the shared-latent-space assumption: every network in a network-level cluster contributes the same Z_g. If the networks in a true cluster have heterogeneous latent structure, the model will either split the cluster or estimate a compromise latent space that blurs node-level clusters. The simulations never stress this, since they generate data from the same model, so the strong recovery results are self-consistency checks. The Aarhus application gives a hint: within the four-network cluster, per-network LPCM fits show 1, 3, 7, and 1 node clusters, which suggests heterogeneity that LaPCoM's shared Z_1 cannot represent. This deserves testing in revision, for example with network-specific latent perturbations or sender-receiver effects.

Second, the Aarhus analysis contains two post-hoc decisions: two chains are dropped because a K=5 node-cluster solution was called 'spurious', and the post-processing result (which merged the Facebook cluster into one) is overridden because K=2 is considered 'more interpretable'. These are disclosed, but they weaken the real-data demonstration and should be better justified.

Third, PopNet beats LaPCoM on network-level ARI in every simulated comparison. LaPCoM's counterarguments, such as node-level clustering, count-valued support, and faster runtime, are valid, but the reader should see this in context: network-level clustering is not uniformly superior.

The count-valued primary-school application underfits large edge counts, and the authors admit the Poisson is overly restrictive. Minor, given the clustering focus.

Overall, this is a serious methods paper for statisticians working on multiplex networks. I would send it to peer review, with a request that the authors address the shared-latent-space robustness and clean up the post-hoc selection in Aarhus. The code is public, the derivations are complete, and the model is genuinely useful. I would cite it if I were working on network clustering.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LaPCoM, a hierarchical mixture-of-mixtures latent position model for multiplex networks that simultaneously clusters networks and, within each network-level cluster, clusters nodes in a shared latent space. The model uses a mixture of finite mixtures at both levels, with priors on the number of active clusters, and is fitted via a Metropolis-within-Gibbs sampler with telescoping sampling and post-processing for label switching. The authors evaluate the method in two simulation studies, compare it with four existing approaches, and apply it to three real multiplex datasets, reporting posterior predictive checks in each case.

Significance. If the shared-latent-space assumption holds, LaPCoM is a useful contribution: it provides a single interpretable framework for two-level clustering of multiplex networks, supports both binary and count data, and avoids fixing the number of clusters. The supplementary material contains full conditional derivations and MCMC pseudocode, and the R code is publicly available, which are substantial strengths. The simulation study is broad, and the comparison with four competitors gives a useful picture of the model's performance. However, the central exchangeability assumption is not stress-tested, and some real-data conclusions rely on post-hoc decisions, so the strength of the empirical claims is currently stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.2 and Section 4] The model's central identifying assumption is that all networks in a network-level cluster share a single latent position matrix Z_g, introduced in the likelihood in Section 2.2. The simulation studies in Section 4 generate data from this exact model, so accurate recovery is partly a self-consistency check. The assumption is never varied: there is no scenario in which networks within a true cluster have network-specific latent perturbations, density offsets, or sender/receiver effects. This is load-bearing because under within-cluster latent heterogeneity the model may either split clusters or produce a compromise latent space that blurs node-level clusters. Please add a simulation that generates networks as Z_{g,i} plus a network-specific perturbation, or with network-specific intercept shifts, and report the resulting G+ and node-level ARI.
[Section 5.2] The Aarhus application contains two post-hoc decisions that weaken the illustrative claim. First, two chains with node-level cluster estimates K2+ = 6 and K2+ = 5 are excluded because the K2+ = 5 solution was 'deemed spurious' without a stated quantitative criterion. Second, after post-processing merged the two clusters in the Facebook latent space into a single cluster, the authors override this and 'consider the K2+ = 2 solution more interpretable'. Since the posterior distribution of K2+ reportedly had 'considerable spread', the reported node-level structure should be accompanied by a sensitivity analysis that retains all chains and reports the posterior mass on each K2+, rather than selecting the solution that is most interpretable.
[Section 5.3 and Supplementary Section I] The primary-school application shows a clear model deficiency for count-valued multiplexes: the posterior predictive ECDF of positive edge counts systematically underestimates large counts, and the authors state that 'the Poisson distribution may be too restrictive'. Because count-valued networks are one of the two data types the model is claimed to accommodate, this is not a peripheral issue. The manuscript acknowledges this in Section 6, but the main text still presents the analysis as successful. Please either fit a more flexible edge distribution (e.g., zero-inflated Poisson or negative binomial) or substantially temper the claims about count-valued data.
[Section 4.2, Tables 2 and 3] The comparison with PopNet is reported as favorable to LaPCoM, but the tables show PopNet achieving perfect network-level ARI in all five scenarios, while LaPCoM attains 0.86–1.00 with wider credible intervals for G+. The stated advantages of LaPCoM are real (node-level clustering, count data support, lower runtime), but the wording 'matched this accuracy' in the discussion of Table 2 is misleading. Please report the comparison with a more neutral characterization, distinguishing recovery accuracy from model flexibility.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1] In the introduction, the latent position cluster model is referred to as 'LPM' instead of 'LPCM' when citing Handcock et al. (2007); the abbreviation is inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
[Section 5.2] There is a typo: 'prescence' should be 'presence'.
[Supplementary Section B] In the definition of the expected variance V(N), the text states 'nmin = 5 if N < 60, and nmin = 5 if N ≥ 60'; the second condition should presumably be nmin = 10, consistent with Table 1 and the surrounding discussion.
[Section 5.3 and Figure 9] The axis labels in Figure 9 contain R code fragments such as 'primary_school_pp$primary_school_Z[[optimal_clustering_networks[m]]][,1]'; these should be replaced with clean labels such as 'Dimension 1' and 'Dimension 2'.
[Section 4.1] The sentence 'the interquartile range (IQR) was 0.01' begins with a lowercase letter and is a fragment; it should be integrated into the preceding sentence.
[Section 3.3] The post-processing section states that 'we select the smaller mode to favour parsimony' when the posterior is multimodal, but it does not describe how the two methods' estimates are reconciled when they disagree; a sentence explaining the practical consequence for the reported G+ would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LaPCoM is a forward generative model, and its simulation studies are self-consistency checks rather than definitional reductions.

full rationale

LaPCoM is specified as a forward generative model: each network Y^(m) is drawn from a network-level mixture with link f(lambda_g,ij)=alpha - ||z_g,i - z_g,j||^2, and the latent positions z_g,i arise from a node-level Gaussian mixture (Eq. 1, Section 2.2). The target clusters are not defined in terms of the observed networks; they are posterior allocations of latent variables inferred by MCMC. The simulation studies (Section 4 and Supplement Section F) generate data from this same generative family and then test recovery. This is a standard self-consistency check; it does not by itself prove the model against alternatives, but it is not a definitional circularity because estimation can fail (e.g., Scenario B in Study 1, where LaPCoM splits posterior mass between G+ = 2 and G+ = 4) and because the paper also benchmarks against external methods (PopNet, graphclust, Mantziou et al., Signorelli and Wit) and uses posterior predictive checks against latentnet on real data. The only self-citations (D'Angelo et al. 2023 for label-switching post-processing; Gwee et al. 2025 for count-valued LPMs; Scrucca et al. 2016 for mclust initialisation) are methodological references and are not load-bearing for the co-clustering claim. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges limiting assumptions (e.g., temporal dependence is not modeled in Section 5.3; the Poisson distribution 'may be too restrictive' in Section 6), which further indicates the model is not retrofitted to force agreement. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation-to-equation reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard latent space modeling assumptions, a fixed latent dimension chosen for interpretability, and black-box adoption of telescoping sampling and Procrustes alignment. No new physical or domain entities are introduced. The free parameters are MCMC tuning constants and a hand-set minimum cluster size parameter.

free parameters (2)

Proposal scaling factors delta_Z and delta_alpha = tuned per scenario/application, values not reported
Chosen by hand to achieve suitable MCMC acceptance rates; affect inference but not the model definition.
nmin (minimum average nodes per cluster) = 5 for N<60, 10 for N>=60
Used to set Kmax and the expected variance in the IG prior on node-level cluster variances; chosen by the authors without data-driven justification.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Edges are conditionally independent given latent positions (dyadic independence).
Inherited from the LPM in Section 2.1; standard but strong for real networks with triadic closure or sender/receiver effects.
domain assumption Networks within a network-level cluster share a single latent position matrix Z_g.
Core model assumption in Section 2.2; if violated, network clusters may be distorted.
ad hoc to paper Latent space dimension is fixed to p=2.
Chosen for visualization and interpretability (Section 2.2); may miss higher-dimensional structure as the authors acknowledge in Section 6.
standard math The telescoping sampling procedure of Fruhwirth-Schnatter et al. (2021) correctly samples the posterior of the MFM.
Adopted as a black-box from the cited work; assumed correct.
standard math Procrustes alignment resolves rotational, reflectional, and translational invariance of latent spaces.
Standard post-processing following Hoff et al. (2002), Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Latent Position Co-Clustering Model for Multiplex Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GE6TSWLN

@misc{pith2026250709370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Latent Position Co-Clustering Model for Multiplex Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GE6TSWLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09370}
}

read the original abstract

Multiplex networks are increasingly common across diverse domains, motivating the development of clustering methods that uncover patterns at multiple levels. Existing approaches typically focus on clustering either entire networks or nodes within a single network. We address the lack of a unified latent space framework for simultaneous network- and node-level clustering by proposing a latent position co-clustering model (LaPCoM), based on a hierarchical mixture-of-mixtures formulation. LaPCoM enables co-clustering of networks and their constituent nodes, providing joint dimension reduction and two-level cluster detection. At the network level, it identifies global homogeneity in topological patterns by grouping networks that share similar latent representations. At the node level, it captures local connectivity and community patterns. The model adopts a Bayesian nonparametric framework using a mixture of finite mixtures, which places priors on the number of clusters at both levels and incorporates sparse priors to encourage parsimonious clustering. Inference is performed via Markov chain Monte Carlo with automatic selection of the number of clusters. LaPCoM accommodates both binary and count-valued multiplex data. Simulation studies and comparisons with existing methods demonstrate accurate recovery of latent structure and clusters. Applications to real-world social multiplexes reveal interpretable network-level clusters aligned with context-specific patterns, and node-level clusters reflecting social patterns and roles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09370 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Comparison of nodal clustering performance measured by Adjusted Rand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Latent space representation of the Krackhardt advice multiplex obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (16 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Latent space representation of the Krackhardt advice multiplex obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Boxplots showing the distribution of Schieber et al. dissimilarities across 500 multiplexes generated from the posterior predictive distribution, using both latentnet and LaPCoM. 1, with lower values indicating better fit. Distances were computed for each of the M netw…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Latent space representation of the Aarhus multiplex from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Latent space representation of the Aarhus multiplex obtained from fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Boxplots showing the distribution of area under the curve (AUC) values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Latent space representations of the networks. Point colours indicate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Illustration of how different BN B prior settings affect the prior distribution on the number of components G and the corresponding induced prior on the number of clusters G+. displayed. The expected value and variance of G under a BN B(aG, bG, cG) prior distribution…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Boxplots showing the distribution of F1-scores across 500 multiplexes generated from the posterior predictive distribution, using both latentnet and LaPCoM, for the Krackhardt application. G Posterior Predictive Checks for the Krackhardt Multiplex In this section, we…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Boxplots showing the distribution of squared differences (in density) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Boxplots showing the distribution of Hamming distances across 500 mul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Boxplots showing the distribution of area under the curve (AUC) values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Boxplots showing the distribution of the Hamming distances across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Boxplots showing the distribution of the network distances across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Boxplots showing the distribution of F1-scores across 500 multiplexes generated from the posterior predictive distribution, using both latentnet and LaPCoM. coauthor facebook leisure lunch work latentnet LaPCoM latentnet LaPCoM latentnet LaPCoM latentnet LaPCoM latent…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Boxplots showing the distribution of squared differences (in density) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Empirical cumulative distribution functions of log positive counts for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

Barile, F., Lunag\'omez, S., and Nipoti, B. (2024). Bayesian nonparametric modeling of heterogeneous populations of networks. a rXiv 2410.10354

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

Battaglia, E., Peiretti, F., and Pensa, R. G. (2024). Co-clustering: A survey of the main methods, recent trends, and open problems. ACM Comput. Surv. , 57(2)

work page 2024
[3]

and Dunson, D

Bhattacharya, A. and Dunson, D. B. (2011). Sparse B ayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika , 98(2):291--306

work page 2011
[4]

Biernacki, C., Jacques, J., and Keribin, C. (2023). A survey on model-based co-clustering: High dimension and estimation challenges. Journal of Classification , 40:332--381

work page 2023
[5]

Brandes, U., Lerner, J., and Nagel, U. (2011). Network ensemble clustering using latent roles. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification , 5:81--94

work page 2011
[6]

Chabert-Liddell, S.-C., Barbillon, P., and Donnet, S. (2024). Learning common structures in a collection of networks. an application to food webs. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 18(2):1213 -- 1235

work page 2024
[7]

Cox, M. A. A. and Cox, T. F. (2008). Multidimensional scaling , pages 315--347. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg

work page 2008
[8]

B., and Vogelstein, J

Durante, D., Dunson, D. B., and Vogelstein, J. T. (2017). Nonparametric B ayes modeling of populations of networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 112(520):1516--1530

work page 2017

Show all 60 references

[9]

D’Angelo, S., Alf \'o , M., and Fop, M. (2023). Model-based clustering for multidimensional social networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , 186(3):481--507

2023
[10]

B., and Alf \'o , M

D’Angelo, S., Murphy, T. B., and Alf \'o , M. (2019). Latent space modelling of multidimensional networks with application to the exchange of votes in Eurovision song contest . The Annals of Applied Statistics , 13(2):900 -- 930

2019
[11]

Fan, X., Pensky, M., Yu, F., and Zhang, T. (2022). Alma: Alternating minimization algorithm for clustering mixture multilayer network. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 23(330):1--46

2022
[12]

Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. (2011). Dealing with label dwitching under model uncertainty , chapter 10, pages 213--239. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

2011
[13]

Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. (2023). Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse B ayesian factor analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 381(2247):20220148

2023
[14]

and Malsiner-Walli, G

Fr\" u hwirth-Schnatter, S. and Malsiner-Walli, G. (2019). From here to infinity: Sparse finite versus Dirichlet process mixtures in model-based clustering . Advances in Data Analysis and Classification , 13(1):33--64

2019
[15]

u hwirth-Schnatter, S., Malsiner-Walli, G., and Gr \

Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S., Malsiner-Walli, G., and Gr \"u n, B. (2021). Generalized mixtures of finite mixtures and telescoping sampling . Bayesian Analysis , 16(4):1279 -- 1307

2021
[16]

Gemmetto, V., Barrat, A., and Cattuto, C. (2014). Mitigation of infectious disease at school: Targeted class closure vs school closure. BMC infectious diseases , 14(1):695

2014
[17]

and Murphy, T

Gollini, I. and Murphy, T. B. (2016). Joint modeling of multiple network views. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 25(1):246--265

2016
[18]

Y., Gormley, I

Gwee, X. Y., Gormley, I. C., and Fop, M. (2023). Model-based clustering for network data via a latent shrinkage position cluster model. a rXiv 2310.03630

2023
[19]

Y., Gormley, I

Gwee, X. Y., Gormley, I. C., and Fop, M. (2025). A latent shrinkage position model for binary and count network data . Bayesian Analysis , 20(2):405 -- 433

2025
[20]

S., Raftery, A

Handcock, M. S., Raftery, A. E., and Tantrum, J. M. (2007). Model-based clustering for social networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , 170(2):301--354

2007
[21]

D., Raftery, A

Hoff, P. D., Raftery, A. E., and Handcock, M. S. (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 97(460):1090--1098

2002
[22]

and Arabie, P

Hubert, L. and Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification , 2:193--218

1985
[23]

Jing, B.-Y., Li, T., Lyu, Z., and Xia, D. (2021). Community detection on mixture multilayer networks via regularized tensor decomposition . The Annals of Statistics , 49(6):3181 -- 3205

2021
[24]

A., Paez, M., and Lin, L

Josephs, N., Amini, A. A., Paez, M., and Lin, L. (2025). Nested stochastic block model for simultaneously clustering networks and nodes. a rXiv 2307.09210

2025 arXiv
[25]

Kowal, D. R. and Canale, A. (2023). Semiparametric functional factor models with B ayesian rank selection . Bayesian Analysis , 18(4):1161 -- 1189

2023
[26]

Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks , 9(2):109--134

1987
[27]

Krivitsky, P. N. and Handcock, M. S. (2008). Fitting latent cluster models for networks with latentnet. Journal of Statistical Software , 24(5):1–23

2008
[28]

Krivitsky, P. N. and Handcock, M. S. (2024). latentnet: Latent position and cluster models for statistical networks . The Statnet Project (https://statnet.org). R package version 2.11.0

2024
[29]

and Wilkinson, D

Lee, C. and Wilkinson, D. J. (2019). A review of stochastic block models and extensions for graph clustering. Applied Network Science 2019 4:1 , 4:1--50

2019
[30]

Legramanti, S., Durante, D., and Dunson, D. B. (2020). Bayesian cumulative shrinkage for infinite factorizations. Biometrika , 107(3):745--752

2020
[31]

and Liu, R

Liu, H. and Liu, R. (2025). Latent variable modeling of social networks with directional relations: An exploration of profile similarity of latent factors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 32(3):550--564

2025
[32]

Lu, C., Rastelli, R., and Friel, N. (2025). A zero-inflated P oisson latent position cluster model. a rXiv 2502.13790

2025
[33]

C., and Wolfe, P

Lunag \'o mez, S., Olhede, S. C., and Wolfe, P. J. (2021). Modeling network populations via graph distances. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 116(536):2023--2040

2021
[34]

Magnani, M., Micenkova, B., and Rossi, L. (2013). Combinatorial analysis of multiple networks. a rXiv 1303.4986

2013 arXiv
[35]

u hwirth-Schnatter, S., and Gr \

Malsiner-Walli, G., Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S., and Gr \"u n, B. (2016). Model-based clustering based on sparse finite G aussian mixtures. Statistics and Computing , 26:303--324

2016
[36]

Mantziou, A., Lunag \'o mez, S., and Mitra, R. (2024). Bayesian model-based clustering for populations of network data . The Annals of Applied Statistics , 18(1):266 -- 302

2024
[37]

Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., and Leisch, F. (2023). e1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics, probability theory group (Formerly: E1071), TU Wien . R package version 1.7-13

2023
[38]

Miller, J. W. and Harrison, M. T. (2018). Mixture models with a prior on the number of components. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113(521):340--356

2018
[39]

and Pensky, M

Noroozi, M. and Pensky, M. (2024). Sparse subspace clustering in diverse multiplex network model. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 203:105333

2024
[40]

L., Blanchet, F

Oksanen, J., Simpson, G. L., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., Wagner, H., Barbour, M., Bedward, M., Bolker, B., Borcard, D., Carvalho, G., Chirico, M., De Caceres , M., Durand, S., Evangelista, H....

2024
[41]

and Wang, Y

Pensky, M. and Wang, Y. (2024). Clustering of diverse multiplex networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , 11(4):3441--3454

2024
[42]

R: A language and environment for statistical computing

R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing

2023
[43]

Rebafka, T. (2023). graphclust: Hierarchical graph clustering for a collection of networks . R package version 1.3

2023
[44]

Rebafka, T. (2024). Model-based clustering of multiple networks with a hierarchical algorithm. Statistical Computing , 34(32)

2024
[45]

Ren, S., Wang, X., Liu, P., and Zhang, J. (2023). Bayesian nonparametric mixtures of exponential random graph models for ensembles of networks. Social Networks , 74:156--165

2023
[46]

and McCormick, T

Salter-Townshend, M. and McCormick, T. H. (2017). Latent space models for multiview network data. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 11(3):1217--1244

2017
[47]

A., Carpi, L., D\' az-Guilera, A., Pardalos, P

Schieber, T. A., Carpi, L., D\' az-Guilera, A., Pardalos, P. M., Masoller, C., and Ravetti, M. G. (2017). Quantification of network structural dissimilarities. Nature communications , 8:13928

2017
[48]

B., and Raftery, A

Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B., and Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: C lustering, classification and density estimation using G aussian finite mixture models. The R Journal , 8(1):289--317

2016
[49]

Sewell, D. K. and Chen, Y. (2016). Latent space models for dynamic networks with weighted edges. Social Networks , 44:105--116

2016
[50]

Sewell, D. K. and Chen, Y. (2017). Latent space approaches to community detection in dynamic networks . Bayesian Analysis , 12(2):351 -- 377

2017
[51]

and Wit, E

Signorelli, M. and Wit, E. C. (2020). Model-based clustering for populations of networks. Statistical Modelling , 20(1):9--29

2020
[52]

Stanley, N., Shai, S., Taylor, D., and Mucha, P. J. (2016). Clustering network layers with the strata multilayer stochastic block model. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , 3(2):95--105

2016
[53]

Stehl \'e , J., Voirin, N., Barrat, A., Cattuto, C., Isella, L., Pinton, J., Quaggiotto, M., Van den Broeck , W., R \'e gis, C., Lina, B., and Vanhems, P. (2011). High-resolution measurements of face-to-face contact patterns in a primary school. PLOS ONE , 6(8):e23176

2011
[54]

M., Flynt, A., and Choi, D

Sweet, T. M., Flynt, A., and Choi, D. (2019). Clustering ensembles of social networks. Network Science , 7(2):141--159

2019
[55]

M., Thomas, A

Sweet, T. M., Thomas, A. C., and Junker, B. W. (2013). Hierarchical network models for education research: Hierarchical latent space models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 38(3):295--318

2013
[56]

V., and Bezerianos, A

Taya, F., de Souza, J., Thakor, N. V., and Bezerianos, A. (2016). Comparison method for community detection on brain networks from neuroimaging data. Applied Network Science , 1(1):8

2016
[57]

Wade, S. (2015). mcclust.ext: Point estimation and credible balls for Bayesian cluster analysis . R package version 1.0

2015
[58]

and Ghahramani, Z

Wade, S. and Ghahramani, Z. (2018). Bayesian cluster analysis: P oint estimation and credible balls (with discussion). Bayesian Analysis , 13(2)

2018
[59]

Wu, J. (2012). Advances in K-means clustering: A data mining thinking . Springer Theses. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1 edition

2012
[60]

Yin, F., Shen, W., and Butts, C. T. (2022). Finite mixtures of ERGMs for modeling ensembles of networks . Bayesian Analysis , 17(4):1153--1191

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Barile, F., Lunag\'omez, S., and Nipoti, B. (2024). Bayesian nonparametric modeling of heterogeneous populations of networks. a rXiv 2410.10354

work page arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Battaglia, E., Peiretti, F., and Pensa, R. G. (2024). Co-clustering: A survey of the main methods, recent trends, and open problems. ACM Comput. Surv. , 57(2)

work page 2024

[3] [3]

and Dunson, D

Bhattacharya, A. and Dunson, D. B. (2011). Sparse B ayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika , 98(2):291--306

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Biernacki, C., Jacques, J., and Keribin, C. (2023). A survey on model-based co-clustering: High dimension and estimation challenges. Journal of Classification , 40:332--381

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Brandes, U., Lerner, J., and Nagel, U. (2011). Network ensemble clustering using latent roles. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification , 5:81--94

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Chabert-Liddell, S.-C., Barbillon, P., and Donnet, S. (2024). Learning common structures in a collection of networks. an application to food webs. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 18(2):1213 -- 1235

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Cox, M. A. A. and Cox, T. F. (2008). Multidimensional scaling , pages 315--347. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg

work page 2008

[8] [8]

B., and Vogelstein, J

Durante, D., Dunson, D. B., and Vogelstein, J. T. (2017). Nonparametric B ayes modeling of populations of networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 112(520):1516--1530

work page 2017