Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42158214›Full record

ArticleStatistics and computing2026

Neural posterior estimation on exponential random graph models: evaluating bias and implementation challenges.

Yefeng Fan, Simon Richard White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yefeng FanMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-6039-2994
Simon Richard WhiteMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8642-7037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are flexible probabilistic frameworks to model statistical networks through a variety of network summary statistics. Conventional Bayesian estimation for ERGMs involves iteratively exchanging with an auxiliary variable due to the intractability of the ERGM likelihood. However, this approach has limited scalability in large-scale implementations. Neural posterior estimation (NPE) is a recent advancement in simulation-based inference, using a neural network-based density estimator to infer the posterior for models with doubly intractable likelihoods for which simulations can be generated. While NPE has been successfully adopted in various fields such as cosmology, little research has investigated its use for ERGMs. Performing NPE on ERGMs not only provides a different approach to estimation for intractable ERGM likelihoods but also allows more efficient and scalable inference using the amortisation properties of NPE, and therefore we investigate how NPE can be effectively implemented in ERGMs. In this study, we present the first systematic implementation of NPE for ERGMs, rigorously evaluating potential biases, interpreting the bias magnitudes, and assessing computational costs. We compare NPE fits with conventional Bayesian ERGM fits as well as related neural simulation-based methods, namely neural likelihood estimation and neural ratio estimation. In our synthetic data analysis, we show that training a neural posterior estimator on 500,000 simulations circumvents the roughly 4,000,000,000 simulations required by conventional exchange-algorithm inference, enabling real-time posterior estimation. More importantly, our work highlights ERGM-specific areas that may pose particular challenges for the adoption of NPE.

Indexed as

Bayesian ERGMNPEScalabilitySNPE

Identifiers

PMID42158214
PMCPMC13180768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.