Papers › Bayesian Testing of Scientific Expectations Under Exponential Random Graph Models

Bayesian Testing of Scientific Expectations Under Exponential Random Graph Models

28 Apr 2023arXiv:2304.14750links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Joris Mulder, Nial Friel, Philip Leifeld

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

The exponential random graph (ERGM) model is a commonly used statistical framework for studying the determinants of tie formations from social network data. To test scientific theories under the ERGM framework, statistical inferential techniques are generally used based on traditional significance testing using p-values. This methodology has certain limitations, however, such as its inconsistent behavior when the null hypothesis is true, its inability to quantify evidence in favor of a null hypothesis, and its inability to test multiple hypotheses with competing equality and/or order constraints on the parameters of interest in a direct manner. To tackle these shortcomings, this paper presents Bayes factors and posterior probabilities for testing scientific expectations under a Bayesian framework. The methodology is implemented in the R package 'BFpack'. The applicability of the methodology is illustrated using empirical collaboration networks and policy networks.

PaperPDFCode

Code

jomulder/BFpack officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections