[statnet_help] Changes in how standard errors are reported
across ERGM versions
Pavel N. Krivitsky
p.krivitsky at unsw.edu.au
Tue Aug 11 19:43:50 PDT 2020
Could you by any chance provide the coefficient tables for the two fits
you are discussing?
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 09:39 +0200, David Kretschmer wrote:
> Dear all,
> for a replication project, I have worked with an old version of the
> ERGM package (ergm-3.1.0) and the more recent versions (ergm-3.10.1,
> in particular) and I have a question on differences between these
> I have noticed that, for some of the networks I analyse, the ergm()
> command returns different results for the old and the new version. In
> particular, this holds true for networks in which some of the network
> parameters cannot be estimated from the data, as is obvious from the
> MCMC chain values having the same value across all iterations and the
> MCMC% in the ERGM output being NA (both in the old and the new
> version of ergm()).
> However, the results between versions differ in the fact that, for
> those parameters that cannot be estimated, the newer ergm versions
> report the standard error as NA while the old ergm version reports a
> standard error that is basically indistinguishable from 0 (value of
> the order of 10^-15- 10^-30). In both versions, regular numeric
> values for the coefficients themselves are reported.
> It seems clear to me that the ERGM estimates from these networks, or
> at least the estimates for these parameters, do not have a meaningful
> interpretation. Still, I am interested to learn 1) why, in the older
> versions of the ERGM package, these standard errors close to zero
> were reported and 2) when this behaviour changed.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> David Kretschmer
> University of MannheimMannheim Centre for European Social Research
> A5, 6
> 68159 Mannheim, Germany
> Tel.: +49-621-181-2024
> _______________________________________________statnet_help mailing
> liststatnet_help at u.washington.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the statnet_help