arXiv:1707.00211v1 [] 1 Jul 2017

A note on the role of projectivity in likelihood-based
inference for random graph models
M. Schweinberger∗

P. N. Krivitsky

C. T. Butts

Abstract
There is widespread confusion about the role of projectivity in likelihood-based
inference for random graph models. The confusion is rooted in claims that projectivity, a form of marginalizability, may be necessary for likelihood-based inference and
consistency of maximum likelihood estimators. We show that likelihood-based superpopulation inference is not affected by lack of projectivity and that projectivity is not
a necessary condition for consistency of maximum likelihood estimators.

1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
In the past decade, network data have attracted much attention and so have models of network data, known as random graph models (Fienberg, 2012; Hunter et al., 2012). Despite
recent advances, there is widespread confusion about key issues of statistical inference for
random graph models. Chief among them is the role of projectivity, a form of marginalizability, in likelihood-based inference for random graph models. Based on the work of
Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013), many statisticians have expressed concern that likelihood-based
inference for non-projective random graph models may be problematic and their maximum
likelihood estimators may be inconsistent. Since many random graph models are nonprojective, including sparse Bernoulli random graph models (Erdős & Rényi, 1960) and
other random graph models in common use (Hunter et al., 2012), it is important to clarify
the role of projectivity in likelihood-based inference for random graph models.
∗

The first two authors made equal contributions.

1

1.2 Goal
We clarify that likelihood-based superpopulation inference is not affected by lack of projectivity and that projectivity is not a necessary condition for consistency of maximum
likelihood estimators. In addition, we argue that consistency under replication may be
preferable to consistency under network growth and that consistency under replication does
not require projectivity of random graph models.

1.3 Projectivity
Consider an exponential family of distributions {PN,η , η ∈ Ξ} for a random graph with
a set of nodes N and a set of edges E ⊂ N × N, where η ∈ Ξ is the natural parameter vector of the exponential family. The natural parameter vector η ≡ η(θ, N) may be a
function of a parameter vector θ ∈ Θ and N. An example are the classic Bernoulli(π) random graph models (Erdős & Rényi, 1960), which assume that edges are independent and
identically distributed Bernoulli(π) random variables, with π denoting the probability of
an edge. Bernoulli(π) random graph models are exponential-family random graph models
with the number of edges as sufficient statistic and natural parameter η = logit(π). Some
of the most interesting random graph phenomena occur in the sparse graph regime where
π|N| and hence η(π|N| ) = logit(π|N| ) depend on the size |N| of N (Erdős & Rényi, 1960).
For example, the threshold for connectivity of Bernoulli(π|N| ) random graphs corresponds
to π|N| = (log |N|) / |N| (Erdős & Rényi, 1960), which implies that the natural parameter
η(π|N| ) = logit(π|N| ) depends on |N|.
In a widely read paper, Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013) defined projectivity of exponentialfamily random graph models as follows. Let N′ ⊂ N be a subset of nodes and PN→N′ ,η(θ,N)
be the distribution of the subgraph induced by N′ , that is, the marginalization of PN,η(θ,N)
with respect to edge variables involving nodes in N \ N′ . An exponential-family random
graph model is projective if PN′ ,η(θ,N′ ) = PN→N′ ,η(θ,N) and η(θ, N′ ) = η(θ, N) for all θ ∈ Θ
and all N′ ⊂ N, regardless of the size of N′ . For example, Bernoulli(π|N| ) random graph
models are projective as long as π|N| and η(π|N| ) = logit(π|N| ) do not depend on |N|. When
π|N| and η(π|N| ) = logit(π|N| ) do depend on |N|, Bernoulli(π|N| ) random graph models are
not projective. It follows that Bernoulli(π|N| ) random graph models are not projective in the
sparse graph regime, where some of the most interesting random graph phenonema occur
(Erdős & Rényi, 1960). Many other random graph models are likewise non-projective,
in part because random graphs may be sparse (Erdős & Rényi, 1960) and in part because
edges may be dependent random variables (Shalizi & Rinaldo, 2013).

2

1.4 Projectivity and statistical inference
Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013, page 509) assumed that researchers “fit ERGMs (by maximum
likelihood or pseudo-likelihood) to the observed sub-network, and then extrapolate the
same model, with the same parameters, to the whole network”, where “ERGMs” refers
to exponential-family random graph models. Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013, page 510) went on
to argue that, when random graph models are non-projective, “the parameter estimates
obtained from a sub-network may not provide reliable estimates of... the parameters of
the whole network, rendering the task of statistical inference based on a sub-network illposed.” Here, Shalizi & Rinaldo make the important point that, given an observed subgraph
yN′ of a graph yN with N′ ⊂ N, naive statistical inference for PN,η(θ,N) based on PN′ ,η(θ,N′ )
may be problematic.
While interesting, the results of Shalizi & Rinaldo have been widely misinterpreted as
implying that consistent estimation of non-projective random graph models may not be possible. For example, Fienberg (2012, page 831) writes: “The Shalizi-Rinaldo results also
explain the sense in which one can or cannot get the consistency of maximum likelihood
estimation for ERGMs.” Fienberg (2012) seems to suggest that projectivity is necessary
for consistency of maximum likelihood estimators and that consistent estimation of nonprojective random graph models may hence not be possible. Others have voiced similar
concerns, sometimes in writing (Yan et al., 2016) and more often in personal communications and professional meetings.

2 The likelihood is not affected by lack of projectivity
The motivating example of Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013) concerns likelihood-based superpopulation inference. In other words, the goal is to infer the population model PN,η(θ,N) that
generated a population graph yN defined on a finite population of nodes N, where yN is
unobserved but a subgraph yN′ of yN induced by a subset of nodes N′ ⊂ N is observed.
One problem, which has been the source of considerable confusion, is that
Shalizi & Rinaldo considered statistical inference based on PN′ ,η(θ,N′ ) (YN′ = yN′ ), despite
the fact that the likelihood is not proportional to PN′ ,η(θ,N′ ) (YN′ = yN′ ) unless the population
model and sampling design satisfy additional conditions. In general, the likelihood is proportional to the probability of the observed data (Fisher, 1922). In particular, if a population
graph yN is generated by population model PN,η(θ,N) and a subgraph yN′ of yN induced by
a subset of nodes N′ ⊂ N is sampled by an ignorable sampling design (Handcock & Gile,

3

2010), then the likelihood is
L(θ; yN′ ) ∝

X

PN,η(θ,N) (YN = yN ),

(1)

yN ∈ YN (yN′ )

where YN (yN′ ) is the set of all graphs on N whose induced subgraph on N′ is yN′ .
Two conclusions follow. First, by construction, the likelihood (1) is proportional to
P
the marginalization yN ∈ YN (yN′ ) PN,η(θ,N) (YN = yN ) and is hence not affected by lack
of projectivity of PN,η(θ,N) . Second, the misspecified likelihood PN′ ,η(θ,N′ ) (YN′ = yN′ ) of
Shalizi & Rinaldo is not, in general, proportional to the proper likelihood (1), hence the results of Shalizi & Rinaldo are not pertinent to likelihood-based superpopulation inference.

3 Projectivity is not necessary for consistency
Fienberg (2012) and others suggested that projectivity may be necessary for consistency
of maximum likelihood estimators. We demonstrate that projectivity is not necessary for
consistency of maximum likelihood estimators by a counterexample.
Consider a sequence of classic Bernoulli(π|N| ) random graphs (Erdős & Rényi, 1960)
with |N| nodes and size-dependent edge probabilities π|N| , where |N| = 1, 2, . . . .
Krivitsky et al. (2011) proposed the parameterization π|N| = logit−1 (θ − log |N|). Here,
the probability of an edge π|N| depends on a size-invariant parameter θ ∈ R and a sizedependent offset log |N|, and so does the natural parameter η(θ, N) = logit(π|N| ) = θ −
log |N|. This parameterization is motivated by invariance considerations: the expected
number of edges of each node tends to exp(θ) as |N| → ∞ and is hence invariant to
network size (Krivitsky et al., 2011). Such models are not projective, because π|N| and
η(θ, N) = θ − log |N| depend on |N|. Despite the lack of projectivity, the maximum
likelihood estimator θb|N| of the size-invariant parameter θ is a consistent estimator of θ
as |N| → ∞ (Krivitsky & Kolaczyk, 2015, Theorem 3.1). Therefore, projectivity is not
necessary for consistency of maximum likelihood estimators.

4 Consistency under replication does not require projectivity
Consistency under network growth, as considered by Shalizi & Rinaldo (2013) and others,
may not be desirable in the first place, because the size of many networks is bounded above
and networks of different sizes are governed by different substantive processes. Consistency under replication of similar-sized graphs from a common generating process may
4

be preferable to consistency under network growth. For example, consistency results may
(1)
(N )
be obtained when N independent graphs of the same size yN , . . . , yN from PN,η(θ,N) are
observed and N → ∞. Consistency under replication does not require projectivity of
PN,η(θ,N) .
If it is not possible to observe independent graphs of the same size, consistency under
replication is possible when a graph consists of subgraphs of similar size from a common
generating process (Schweinberger & Handcock, 2015; Schweinberger & Stewart, 2017).
An example is a friendship network of high school students, where the subgraphs of similar
size correspond to friendship networks within and between high schools of similar size.

5 Conclusion
Many real-world network processes are not believed to be projective, because networks of
different sizes are governed by different substantive processes. Thus, superimposing projectivity on random graph models may be undesirable. Indeed, projectivity is not necessary
for likelihood-based inference.

References
E RD ŐS , P. & R ÉNYI , A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the
Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 5, 17–61.
F IENBERG , S. E. (2012). A brief history of statistical models for network analysis and
open challenges. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 21, 825–839.
F ISHER , R. A. (1922). On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 222, 309–368.
H ANDCOCK , M. S. & G ILE , K. (2010). Modeling social networks from sampled data.
The Annals of Applied Statistics 4, 5–25.
H UNTER , D. R., K RIVITSKY, P. N. & S CHWEINBERGER , M. (2012). Computational
statistical methods for social network models. Journal of Computational and Graphical
Statistics 21, 856–882.
K RIVITSKY, P. N., H ANDCOCK , M. S. & M ORRIS , M. (2011). Adjusting for network
size and composition effects in exponential-family random graph models. Statistical
Methodology 8, 319–339.
5

K RIVITSKY, P. N. & KOLACZYK , E. D. (2015). On the question of effective sample size
in network modeling: An asymptotic inquiry. Statistical Science 30, 184–198.
S CHWEINBERGER , M. & H ANDCOCK , M. S. (2015). Local dependence in random graph
models: characterization, properties and statistical inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 77, 647–676.
S CHWEINBERGER , M. & S TEWART, J. (2017). Consistent M-estimation of curved
exponential-family random graph models with local dependence and growing neighborhoods arxiv.org/abs/1702.01812.
S HALIZI , C. R. & R INALDO , A. (2013). Consistency under sampling of exponential
random graph models. The Annals of Statistics 41, 508–535.
YAN , T., L ENG , C. & Z HU , J. (2016). Asymptotics in directed exponential random graph
models with an increasing bi-degree sequence. The Annals of Statistics 44, 31–57.

6

