.6 the uncorrected model fits these networks better if vertices are assigned to groups according to their degree than if they are assigned according to the planted structure, and hence the best-fit group structure has no correlation with the planted structure.

We have also tested our blockmodels against synthetic networks with two other types of structure, one the core-periphery or approximately bipartite structure of Eq.  and the other the hierarchical structure of Eq. . In these examples we use a more realistic degree distribution that approximately follows a power law with a minimum expected degree of 10 and an exponent of $-2.5$. For the core-periphery networks we randomly assign vertices to one of the two groups, while for the hierarchical networks we fix 500 vertices to be in the first of the three groups, put the rest randomly in the other two, and set $A =
\frac14\textrm{min}(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. (It has been suggested that choosing non-equal sizes for groups in this way presents a harder challenge for structure detection algorithms [@Danon2006a; @Rosvall2007].)

The performance of our blockmodels on these two classes of networks is shown in the middle (core-periphery) and right (hierarchical) panels of Fig. \[fig:examples\]. Again we see that the normalized mutual information increases with increasing $\lambda$ for all algorithms but that the degree-corrected blockmodel performs significantly better than the uncorrected model. The degree-corrected model with planted assignments consistently does the best among the four options as we would expect, and the degree-corrected model with random initializations performs respectably in all cases, although it’s entirely possible that better performance could be obtained with a better optimization strategy. The performance of the uncorrected model with random initializations, on the other hand, is quite poor [@note2]. But perhaps the most telling comparison is the one between the degree-corrected model with random initial assignments and the uncorrected model with the planted assignment. This comparison tilts the playing field heavily in favor of the uncorrected model and yet, as Fig. \[fig:examples\] shows, the degree-corrected model still performs about as well as, and in some cases better than, the uncorrected model.

Conclusions
===========

In this paper, we have studied how one can incorporate heterogeneous vertex degrees into stochastic blockmodels in a simple way, improving the performance of the models for statistical inference of
.6 the uncorrected model fits these networks better if vertex are impute to groups according to their degree than if they are assign according to the planted social organization, and hence the best - fit group structure have no correlation with the planted social organization. 

 We have also tested our blockmodels against celluloid network with two other type of structure, one the core - periphery or approximately bipartite social organization of Eq.    and the other the hierarchical structure of Eq.  . In these examples we practice a more realistic degree distribution that approximately follows a power law with a minimal expected academic degree of   10 and an exponent of   $ -2.5$. For the core - periphery networks we randomly assign vertices to one of the two group, while for the hierarchical networks we fix 500 vertices to be in the first of the three groups, place the rest randomly in the other two, and set $ A = 
 \frac14\textrm{min}(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. (It has been suggested that choosing non - equal sizes for groups in this way introduce a harder challenge for structure signal detection algorithms   [ @Danon2006a; @Rosvall2007 ] .) 

 The operation of our blockmodels on these two classes of networks is shown in the middle (effect - periphery) and right (hierarchical) panels of Fig.   \[fig: examples\ ]. Again we see that the normalized common information increases with increasing $ \lambda$ for all algorithms but that the degree - corrected blockmodel perform significantly better than the uncorrected model. The degree - adjust model with plant assignments consistently does the best among the four options as we would ask, and the degree - corrected model with random low-level formatting performs respectably in all event, although it ’s entirely possible that good operation could be obtained with a better optimization strategy. The performance of the uncorrected model with random low-level formatting, on the other hand, is quite poor   [ @note2 ]. But perhaps the about telling comparison is the one between the degree - corrected mannequin with random initial assignments and the uncorrected mannequin with the planted assignment. This comparison tilts the playing field heavily in favor of the uncorrected model and yet, as Fig.   \[fig: examples\ ] show, the degree - corrected mannequin still performs approximately as well as, and in some cases better than, the uncorrected model. 

 Conclusions 
 = = = = = = = = = = = 

 In this paper, we have studied how one can incorporate heterogeneous vertex degrees into stochastic blockmodels in a simple manner, better the operation of the model for statistical inference of
.6 thf uncorrected model fits these networks better if vedtices afe assigned to groups accordmng ro thtpr degree than if theh are asspgned accirdiig to the plantev structmxe, ans henee the best-fit gtoup structuse has no corralxtnon with the planted structure.

We havq also yedted our blockiodekf agzpnwt synthetic networks with twk other types of stricture, one the core-periphegy og approximately bioartite strodtuww of Eq.  and ghe other uhz hierarchidal structure of Eq. . In these exxmplex we use a mire tealistic dejree dpstribution tmst appsoximatrly follows a iower laq with a minimum experted degree of 10 and ag exponend kf $-2.5$. For the core-peeiphery netforkr we rahdpmmy asslgn vertices fo one of tye two groups, while fjg the hierarcgical geeworks we fix 500 vertices to be in the figst kf the three groups, put the rest randomly in the othew two, and set $A =
\frac14\textrm{min}(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. (It has bean sujgdsttd that xhlosing non-equal sizes for groups in this way [dexekts a harder chajlenge for xtguvjure detection algornfhjs [@Danon2006a; @Rosvall2007].)

Thf perfotmance of our bjockkodels on these two classes of networks us shown in the mibdle (core-pernphery) and tight (hierarchical) paneus or Fig. \[fig:exalples\]. Agajv we see that thd nprkalized mutual information increasew wich increxsinb $\lambqa$ for all algovhthms but that the degrge-corracted blocnmodel performs significantly bxvter than the utcogrected mjdel. Bhe degree-corrested model witk planteb assienments cohsistenvly does the best among tvg four optionv as we roule expect, ana the degree-cortected mobtl with rabdom initializatioks petfkrms respectablv un all cases, alyhojgh in’s xntirqny possible dhat begyer pdrformance gouud br obtained with a bedter optimization strayeny. The petformance of the uncortected model with gandok iiitialozajions, on the other hand, is quits poor [@notf2]. Bmt perhaps thq mowt telling cpmparison is the one between the degree-rorrected model with rabdom initial assignktnts and the nncorrqcted modal with the planted qssignment. This cpmparison tilts the pmaying fielf heavily in favor of the uncorrected model and yet, as Fig. \[fig:examples\] shoqs, the degree-corredted moden fcill pewforlr about as well ss, and in some cases better thai, the uncosrzcted model.

Conclusions
===========

In this pxper, we have rtudied how one can incodporate neterogeneous vertex degrees inyo stochastic blockmodelx in a sumple way, improting the performance of thz modeos for wtatlstical inferevce on
.6 the uncorrected model fits these networks vertices assigned to according to their assigned to the planted and hence the group structure has no correlation with planted structure. We have also tested our blockmodels against synthetic networks with two types of structure, one the core-periphery or approximately bipartite structure of Eq. and other hierarchical of . In these examples we use a more realistic degree distribution that approximately follows a power with a minimum expected degree of 10 and exponent of $-2.5$. For core-periphery networks we randomly assign to of the groups, for hierarchical networks we 500 vertices to be in the first of the three groups, put the rest randomly in the two, and = \frac14\textrm{min}(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. has suggested choosing non-equal sizes in this way presents a harder detection algorithms [@Danon2006a; @Rosvall2007].) The performance of our on these classes of networks is shown in middle (core-periphery) and right (hierarchical) panels of Fig. Again we see that the normalized mutual information increases with increasing $\lambda$ for all algorithms the degree-corrected blockmodel performs better than the model. degree-corrected with assignments consistently the best among the four options as we would expect, and degree-corrected model with random initializations performs respectably in all cases, entirely that better performance be obtained with a optimization The performance of the with initializations, hand, quite [@note2]. But perhaps the telling comparison is the one the degree-corrected model with uncorrected model with the planted assignment. This comparison the playing field heavily in favor of uncorrected model and yet, as Fig. \[fig:examples\] shows, the degree-corrected model still about as and in some cases better than, the uncorrected Conclusions =========== In this we have studied how one can incorporate heterogeneous vertex into blockmodels in simple way, improving performance of the for statistical inference
.6 the uncorrected model fits thEse networkS bettEr iF veRtIces Are aSsigned to groupS AccoRding to their degree than If theY aRE assIGnEd accOrding tO ThE PLanTeD sTruCtURe, And heNce The best-Fit group stRucTuRe has no correLAtIon with the PlaNted structurE.

We Have alSo TesTEd our BloCkmodEls agaINst synThetic netWoRKs with TWo other TYPeS of sTructure, one the corE-PeRIphery or approxImatelY bIPaRTIte StrUcture of Eq.  AnD the oTHer the hIErARCHicAL structure of EQ. . In these exaMPleS we use A mOre REalistIc degReE DisTribution thAt apProximateLy follOWs a poweR Law with A minimUm eXpeCted DEgReE of 10 AnD An eXPoNenT Of $-2.5$. FOr the corE-pErIpherY netWORKS we rAndOmly AssigN vertices to onE of The tWO grOups, wHile fOr thE hIerarChical NetwoRkS we fix 500 vertices tO be iN the first Of tHe ThrEe GroupS, Put the ResT raNdomly iN the othER twO, aND SEt $a =
\frac14\textrm{min}(\kappA_1,\kAPPa_2)$. (it has beeN suggeSTeD tHAt choosiNg Non-EquaL SIzes fOr grOUpS in this wAy presENtS a Harder cHaLlenge FoR stRucTure dETectIon algOrithms [@DAnon2006a; @rOsvall2007].)

The perfoRMance of our bloCKmODElS On thEse Two classes oF netWOrks Is shOWn In tHE middLe (corE-pERiPHery) and right (hierarcHiCal) panEls of fig. \[fig:exampleS\]. Again we seE THAt the norMaliZEd MUtual informatiOn incReases with INcreasinG $\lambDa$ for all AlgorithmS BUt that thE deGreE-coRreCTEd Blockmodel perFORms sIgNificanTly Better tHan The UncOrrEcTed model. THe degree-CoRrEcTeD moDel wiTH planted AsSigNmEntS consIStentlY does The bEsT aMOng The four OPtIONs as We WoUld eXpeCt, And thE degREe-cOrrecteD model witH raNDom iNiTiAlizatiOns performs reSpEctably in aLl CasEs, althOUGh it’s entIrely possible that better PErformaNce Could Be obTained witH a bEtter oPtiMIzatioN stratEgy. ThE pErfORMance OF ThE unCoRrected modEL WitH randOm InitIalizatIons, on the other hand, IS quIte poor [@note2]. BuT peRhapS THe MosT TeLLinG cOMpaRISon is the one betwEen the degrEe-COrRected modeL WitH rAndom inItial asSignmENts and tHe uncorreCted model WiTh thE PLanTed assignmEnt. This cOmparison TIlts tHE pLayinG fiEld heaViLy iN favoR of the UNcoRrectEd modeL aNd yet, aS Fig. \[fIg:Examples\] Shows, the degree-corrected Model sTill pErfOrms about As wELl aS, and in somE casEs better thAn, tHe uNcorrEctED modeL.

ConCLuSioNS
===========

In thIs paPEr, we have sTUdIed HOW oNe can incorpORATe hEteroGenEOus verTex dEgrees into stochasTIc blockmodels iN a siMPLe wAy, iMProvInG the performancE of ThE MOdels for StAtistical inFerence oF
.6 the uncorrected model f its thesenetwo rks  be tt er i f ve rtices are ass i gned  to groups according t o the ir degr e ethanif they ar e ass ig ne d a cc o rd ing t o t he plan ted struct ure ,and hence th e  b est-fit gr oup  structure h asno cor re lat i on wi ththe p lanted struct ure.

Weha v e also testedo u rbloc kmodels against s y nt h etic networkswith t wo ot h e r t ype s of struc tu re, o n e the c o re - p e rip h ery or approx imately bip a rti te str uc tur e  of Eq .  an dt heother the h iera rchical s tructu r e of Eq .  . In t hese e xam ple s we us ea m or e  re a li sti c  de gree dis tr ib ution  tha t a p prox ima tely  foll ows a power l awwith a m inimu m exp ecte ddegre e of 1 0 and  a n exponent of $ -2.5 $. For th e c or e-p er ipher y  netwo rks  we  random ly assi g n v er t i c es  to one of the two  g r o up s, while  for t h ehi e rarchica lnet work s we fi x 50 0  v erticesto bei nth e first  o f theth ree  gr oups, putthe re st rando mly i n  the other two ,  and set $A = \f r a c1 4 \tex trm {min}(\kapp a_1, \ kapp a_2) $ .(It has b een s ug g es t ed that choosing no n- equalsizes  for groups i n this way p r esents a  har d er challenge forstruc ture detec t ion algo rithm s [@Dano n2006a; @ R o svall200 7]. )
The  pe r f or mance of ourb l ockm od els onthe se twocla sse s o f n et works isshown in  t he  m id dle  (cor e -periphe ry ) a nd  ri ght ( h ierarc hical ) pa ne ls ofFig. \[ f ig : e xamp le s\ ]. A gai nwe se e th a t t he norm alized mu tua l  inf or ma tion in creases within creasing $ \l amb da$ fo r all algo rithms but that the deg r ee-corr ect ed bl ockm odel perf orm s sign ifi c antlybetter  than  t heu n corre c t ed  mo de l. The deg r e e-c orrec te d mo del wit h planted assignme n tsconsistentlydoe s th e be sta mo n g t he fou r options as we w ould expec t, an d the degr e e-c or rectedmodel w ith r a ndom in itializat ions perf or ms r e s pec tably in a ll cases , althoug h  it’s en tirel y p ossibl etha t bet ter pe r for mance  could  b e obta inedwi th a bet ter optimization strate gy. Th e per for mance ofthe unc orrectedmode l with ran dom  in itial iza t ions,  ont he  ot h er ha nd,i s quite p o or  [@ n o te 2]. But per h a p s t he mo stt elling  com parison is the on e  between the d egre e - cor rec t ed m od el with random  in it i a l assign me nts and the  uncorre ct e d mod el wit h theplanted a ss i gnment . Th iscompariso n t il t s the p la yi n g fiel d he av ily in  favor of t h e  uncorrected mod el an d yet,a s F ig. \ [f ig:exam p les\ ] shows, t he degree-c orrect ed m odelstill p er formsabo ut  as well a s , and insomecases b et tertha n, the  unc o r recte d mo de l.
Conclusi o n s= == == = === ==
In th is  pap er, we ha v e studie d h o w one c an  in c o rporat e  h e t erogeneous  ve rtexd e grees into stoc h as t ic bl ockmod els in  a simp l e w ay , impro vin g the perfo rmance of the  m odel s for st at isti ca l i nf erence of
.6 the_uncorrected model_fits these networks better_if vertices_are_assigned to_groups_according to their_degree than if_they are assigned according_to the planted_structure,_and hence the best-fit group structure has no correlation with the planted structure.

We have_also_tested our_blockmodels_against_synthetic networks with two other_types of structure, one the_core-periphery or_approximately bipartite structure of Eq.  and the other_the_hierarchical structure of_Eq. . In these examples we use a more realistic_degree distribution that approximately follows a_power law with_a_minimum_expected degree of 10 and_an exponent of $-2.5$. For the core-periphery_networks we randomly assign vertices to_one of the two groups, while for_the hierarchical networks we fix 500_vertices to be in the_first of_the three groups, put the_rest randomly in_the other_two, and set_$A =
\frac14\textrm{min}(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. (It has been suggested_that choosing non-equal_sizes for groups in this way_presents_a harder challenge_for_structure_detection algorithms [@Danon2006a;_@Rosvall2007].)

The performance of_our_blockmodels on_these_two classes of networks is shown_in_the middle (core-periphery) and right (hierarchical) panels_of Fig. \[fig:examples\]. Again we_see_that the normalized mutual_information increases with increasing $\lambda$_for all algorithms but that the_degree-corrected blockmodel_performs significantly_better than the uncorrected model. The degree-corrected model with planted assignments_consistently does the best among the_four options as we_would expect,_and_the degree-corrected model_with_random initializations_performs respectably in all cases, although it’s_entirely possible_that better performance could be obtained_with a better optimization_strategy._The performance of the uncorrected model_with random initializations, on the other_hand, is quite poor [@note2]. But_perhaps_the_most telling comparison is the_one between the degree-corrected model with_random initial assignments_and the uncorrected model with the planted_assignment._This comparison tilts the playing field_heavily_in favor of the uncorrected model_and_yet,_as Fig. \[fig:examples\] shows, the degree-corrected_model still performs about as well_as, and in some cases better than, the uncorrected_model.

Conclusions
===========

In this paper,_we have studied how one_can_incorporate_heterogeneous vertex degrees into stochastic blockmodels in a simple way,_improving the_performance of the_models for statistical inference of