structure detection : relecture

rapport/chapter3-structure-detection.tex

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@
 We define a collection of bipartite networks as
 $\bm{X} = (X^1,\dots X^m,\dots, X^M)$
 the collection of incidence matrix. Moreover, all the networks in the
-collection have the same type of interaction (e.g., all interactions are
+collection have the same valuation of the interactions (e.g., they are
-binary).
+all binary).
 
 \section{Separate BiSBM (sep-BiSBM)}\label{sec:separate-bisbm-sepbisbm}
 
@@ -51,21 +51,21 @@ Equations~\eqref{eqn:lbm-block-membership-prob},
 \eqref{eqn:lbm-conditional-to-latent} and \eqref{eqn:lbm-emission} defines the
 BiSBM model and we will now use a short notation:
 
-\begin{equation}
+\begin{align}
     \tag{\emph{sep-BiSBM}}
-    X^m \sim \mathcal{F}\text{-BiSBM}_{n_1^m,n_2^m}(Q_1^m, Q_2^m, \bm{\pi^m}, \bm{\rho^m}, \bm{\alpha^m})
+    X^m \sim \mathcal{F}\text{-BiSBM}_{n_1^m,n_2^m}(Q_1^m, Q_2^m, \bm{\pi^m}, \bm{\rho^m}, \bm{\alpha^m}) &  & \forall m = 1, \dots M
-\end{equation}
+\end{align}
-where $\mathcal{F}$ encodes the emission distribution, $n_1^m,n_2^m$ are the row
+where $\mathcal{F}$ encodes the emission distribution, $n_1^m,n_2^m$ are the number of row
 and column nodes, $Q_1^m, Q_2^m$ are the number of row and column blocks in
 network $m$, $\bm{\pi}^m~=~{(\pi^m_q)}_{q=1,\dots,Q_1^m}$ and
 $\bm{\rho}^m~=~{(\rho^m_r)}_{r=1,\dots,Q_2^m}$ are the vectors  of their
 proportions. The $Q_1^m \times Q_2^m$ matrix
 $\bm{\alpha}^m = {(\alpha^m_{qr})}_{\substack{q = 1,\dots,Q_1^m \\ r = 1,\dots,Q_2^m}}$
-are the connectivity parameters, the parameters of the emission distribution.
+are the connectivity parameters, i.e.~the parameters of the emission distribution.
 $\alpha^m_{qr}\in\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}}$ where, for the Bernoulli
 (resp. Poisson) emission distribution, $\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}} = (0,1)$ (resp.
-$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}} = \mathbb{R}^{*+}$). In this $sep$-$BiSBM$ each
+$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}} = \mathbb{R}^{*+}$). In this $sep$-BiSBM model each
-network $m$ is assumed to follow a $BiSBM$ with its own parameters ($\bm{\pi}^m,
+network $m$ is assumed to follow a BiSBM with its own parameters ($\bm{\pi}^m,
     \bm{\rho}^m, \bm{\alpha}^m$).
 % DONE Finish explaining
 
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ network $m$ is assumed to follow a $BiSBM$ with its own parameters ($\bm{\pi}^m,
 \subsection{A collection of iid bipartite SBM}\label{ssec:a-collection-of-i-i-d-bipartite-sbm}
 As for \emph{colSBM} this first model is the most constrained. It assumes that
 all the networks are the independent realizations of the same $Q_1$-$Q_2$-BiSBM
-with identical parameters. The \emph{iid-colBiSBM} is defined as follows:
+with identical parameters. The \emph{iid}-colBiSBM is defined as follows:
 
 \begin{align}
     \tag{\emph{iid}-colBiSBM}
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ with identical parameters. The \emph{iid-colBiSBM} is defined as follows:
 where $\forall (q,r) \in \{1,\dots,Q_1\}\times\{1,\dots,Q_2\}$, $\alpha_{qr} \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}}$,
 $\pi_q \in \left( 0,1 \right], \sum_{q=1}^{Q_1} \pi_q = 1 $ and $\rho_r \in \left( 0,1 \right], \sum_{r=1}^{Q_2} \rho_r = 1 $.
 This model involves $(Q_1 - 1) + (Q_2 - 1) + Q_1\times Q_2$ parameters, the two
-first terms corresponding to block proportions on the row and column dimensions
+first terms corresponding to block proportions on the row and column
 and the third term to connectivity parameters.
 
 But the assumption that block proportions are the same among the networks is a
@@ -106,9 +106,9 @@ block proportions. For $m \in \{1,\dots,M\}$, the $X^m$ are independent and
 \end{align}
 where $\forall (q,r) \in \{1,\dots,Q_1\}\times\{1,\dots,Q_2\}$, $\alpha_{qr} \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}}$,
 $\pi^m_q \in \left[ 0,1 \right], \sum_{q=1}^{Q_1} \pi^m_q~=~1, \forall m \in \{1,\dots,M\}$ and $\rho_r \in \left( 0,1 \right], \sum_{r=1}^{Q_2} \rho_r = 1 $.
-This model is more flexible than the iid-colBiSBM as it allows some row block
+This model is more flexible than the iid-colBiSBM as it allows the row block
-proportions to be null
+proportions to vary between networks and even to be null
-in certain networks ($\pi^m_q\in\left[ 0,1 \right]$): if $\pi_q^m = 0$ then the
+($\pi^m_q\in\left[ 0,1 \right]$): if $\pi_q^m = 0$ then the
 block $q$ is not represented in the network $m$. The connectivity structure is
 thus a subset of a large connectivity structure common to all networks. We face
 the same problems as~\cite{chabert-liddellLearningCommonStructures2024a} and
@@ -139,9 +139,9 @@ block proportions. For $m \in \{1,\dots,M\}$, the $X^m$ are independent and
 where $\forall (q,r) \in \{1,\dots,Q_1\}\times\{1,\dots,Q_2\}$, $\alpha_{qr} \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}}$,
 $\pi_q \in \left( 0,1 \right], \sum_{q=1}^{Q_1} \pi_q = 1 $ and
 $\rho^m_r \in \left[ 0,1 \right], \sum_{r=1}^{Q_2} \rho^m_r = 1 $.
-This model is more flexible than the iid-colBiSBM as it allows some column block
+This model is more flexible than the iid-colBiSBM as it allows
-proportions to be
+proportions to vary between networks and even to be null
-null in certain networks ($\rho^m_r\in\left[ 0,1 \right]$): if $\rho_r^m = 0$
+($\rho^m_r\in\left[ 0,1 \right]$): if $\rho_r^m = 0$
 then the column block $r$ is not represented in the network $m$.
 
 \enquote{Mirroring} the formulas for the $\pi$-colBiSBM we relax the constraints on
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ case the matrix full of ones), the number of parameters is:
 
 $\pi\rho$-colBiSBM model still assumes that the networks share a common connectivity
 structure represented by $\bm{\alpha}$ but that each network has its own row and
-column block proportions, it is the less constrained model.
+column block proportions, it is the least constrained model.
 For $m \in \{1,\dots,M\}$, the $X^m$ are independent and
 \begin{align}
     \tag{\emph{$\pi\rho$}-colBiSBM}
@@ -204,22 +204,23 @@ we have: $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{R}_m} (Z_{iq}^m = 1, W_{jr}^m = 1|X^m) =
 
 The formula for the entropy per network is thus:
 \begin{equation*}
-    \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{R}_m) = - \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \log \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} - \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log \tau^{2,m}_{j,r}
+    \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{R}_m) = - \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \log \tau_{iq}^{1,m} - \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log \tau_{jr}^{2,m}
 \end{equation*}
 
 And the expectation of the completed log-likelihood under the $\mathcal{R}_m$
 variational distribution for network $m$ is:
 \begin{align*}
-    \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{R}_m}[\ell(X^m,Z^m,W^m;\bm{\theta})] = \sum_{i = 1}^{n_1^m}\sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m}\sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1,m}} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_{2,m}} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log f(X^{m}_{ij}; \alpha_{qr}) \\
+    \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{R}_m}[\ell(X^m,Z^m,W^m;\bm{\theta})] = \sum_{i = 1}^{n_1^m}\sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m}\sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_1^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_2^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log f(X^{m}_{ij}; \alpha_{qr}) \\
-    + \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1,m}} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \log \pi_{\color{black}q}^{\color{gray}m} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_{2,m}} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log \rho_{\color{black}r}^{\color{gray}m}
+    + \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_1^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \log \pi_{\color{black}q}^{\color{gray}m} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_2^m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log \rho_{\color{black}r}^{\color{gray}m}
 \end{align*}
-
+with $\mathcal{Q}_1^m = \{q\in \{1 \dots, Q_1\}|\pi_q^m > 0\}$ and
+$\mathcal{Q}_2^m = \{r\in \{1 \dots, Q_2\}|\rho_r^m > 0\}$
 And thus the lower bound becomes:
 
 \begin{align*}
-    \mathcal{J}(\bm{\tau};\bm{\theta}) \coloneqq \sum_{m=1}^{M} \bigg(\sum_{i = 1}^{n_1^m}\sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m}\sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1,m}} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_{2,m}} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log f(X^{m}_{ij}; \alpha_{qr}) \\
+    \mathcal{J}(\bm{\tau};\bm{\theta}) \coloneqq \sum_{m=1}^{M} \bigg(\sum_{i = 1}^{n_1^m}\sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m}\sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_1^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_2^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log f(X^{m}_{ij}; \alpha_{qr}) \\
-    + \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1,m}} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \log \pi_{\color{black}q}^{\color{gray}m} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_{2,m}} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log \rho_{\color{black}r}^{\color{gray}m}          \\
+    + \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \sum_{q \in \mathcal{Q}_1^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \log \pi_{\color{black}q}^{\color{gray}m} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \sum_{r \in \mathcal{Q}_2^m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log \rho_{\color{black}r}^{\color{gray}m}          \\
-    - \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} \log \tau^{1,m}_{i,q} - \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \log \tau^{2,m}_{j,r} \bigg) \color{black}
+    - \sum_{i=1}^{n_1^m} \tau_{iq}^{1,m} \log \tau_{iq}^{1,m} - \sum_{j=1}^{n_2^m} \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \log \tau_{jr}^{2,m} \bigg) \color{black}
 \end{align*}
 
 where we identify the variational distribution $\mathcal{R}$ with its parameter
@@ -284,8 +285,8 @@ while on the other hand,
 \end{align*}
 the parameters take into account all the networks at the same time.
 The connectivity parameters $\alpha_{qr}$ for all models are estimated as the
-ratio of the number of interactions between row block $q$ and column block $r$
+ratio of the number of observed interactions between row block $q$ and column block $r$
-among all networks over the number of number of possible interactions:
+among all networks over the number of possible interactions:
 \begin{align*}
     \widehat{\alpha}_{qr} = \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M} e^{m}_{qr}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M} n^{m}_{qr}}
 \end{align*}
@@ -303,7 +304,7 @@ $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. But as they are in general not known we need to explore the
 latent space to find the \emph{best} values.
 As discussed in~\cite{chabert-liddellLearningCommonStructures2024a}, the
 algorithmic aspect becomes complex when dealing with the bipartite case. Due to
-the size of the latent space being $\mathbb{N}^2$, conducting a complete
+the latent space being $\mathbb{N}^2$, conducting a complete
 exploration of the latent space is practically infeasible. Therefore, in
 addition to adapting the existing formulas, our contribution to addressing this
 challenge involved making significant choices, which are outlined below.
@@ -315,7 +316,7 @@ The below procedures are implemented in the \emph{colSBM} package, available on
 \label{ssec:the-bic-l-criterion-for-model-selection}
 To select the best number of blocks we need a criterion to
 measure adequacy between our model and data. The ELBO might seem a good
-criterion at first but as for the likelihood, the more complex a model the
+criterion at first but as for the likelihood, the more complex the model, the
 higher it gets. And thus a good criterion should make a \emph{trade-off} between
 fitting to data and model complexity.
 
@@ -340,7 +341,7 @@ well-separated blocks by imposing a penalty on the entropy of node grouping.
 However, the objective of our study extends beyond grouping nodes into coherent
 blocks. We also aim to assess the similarity of connectivity patterns across
 different networks. Consequently, we aim to permit models that offer more
-flexible node grouping without penalizing entropy.
+flexible node grouping by not penalizing on entropy.
 
 This leads us to formulate a BIC-like criterion in the following manner:
 
@@ -352,49 +353,49 @@ We provide below the expression for the penalties for the 4 models that we
 propose.
 \begin{description}
     \item[\textit{iid}-colBiSBM] For the $\bm\pi$ and $\bm\rho$:
-        \begin{align*}
+          \begin{align*}
-            \text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1) = (Q_1 - 1)\log(\sum_{m=1}^{M}n_{1}^{m}) & , &
+              \text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1) = (Q_1 - 1)\log(\sum_{m=1}^{M}n_{1}^{m}) & , &
-            \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2) = (Q_2 - 1)\log(\sum_{m=1}^{M}n_{2}^{m})
+              \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2) = (Q_2 - 1)\log(\sum_{m=1}^{M}n_{2}^{m})
-        \end{align*}
+          \end{align*}
-        For the $\bm\alpha$:
+          For the $\bm\alpha$:
-        \[\text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2) = Q_1 \times Q_2 \log(N_M)\]
+          \[\text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2) = Q_1 \times Q_2 \log(N_M)\]
-        with
+          with
-        \[ N_M = \sum_{m = 1}^{M} n_{1}^{m} \times n_{2}^{m} \]
+          \[ N_M = \sum_{m = 1}^{M} n_{1}^{m} \times n_{2}^{m} \]
-        And thus the $\text{BIC-L}$ formula is the following:
+          And thus the $\text{BIC-L}$ formula is the following:
-        \[ \text{BIC-L}(\bm{X},Q_1, Q_2) = \max_{\theta}
+          \[ \text{BIC-L}(\bm{X},Q_1, Q_2) = \max_{\theta}
-            \mathcal{J} (\mathcal{\hat{R}}, \bm{\theta})
+              \mathcal{J} (\mathcal{\hat{R}}, \bm{\theta})
-            - \frac{1}{2} [\text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1) + \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2) +
+              - \frac{1}{2} [\text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1) + \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2) +
-                \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2)]\]
+                  \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2)]\]
     \item[$\bm{\pi\rho}$-colBiSBM] The support penalties are
-        \begin{align*}
+          \begin{align*}
-            \text{pen}_{S_1}(Q_1) = -2 \log p_{Q_1} (S_1) & , &
+              \text{pen}_{S_1}(Q_1) = -2 \log p_{Q_1} (S_1) & , &
-            \text{pen}_{S_2}(Q_2) = -2 \log p_{Q_2} (S_2)
+              \text{pen}_{S_2}(Q_2) = -2 \log p_{Q_2} (S_2)
-        \end{align*}
+          \end{align*}
-        with \begin{align*}
+          with \begin{align*}
-            \textstyle \log p_{Q_1}(S_1) = - M \log(Q_1) - \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log {Q_1
+              \textstyle \log p_{Q_1}(S_1) = - M \log(Q_1) - \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log {Q_1
-            \choose Q_1^{(m)}}, \\
+              \choose Q_1^{(m)}}, \\
-            \textstyle \log p_{Q_2}(S_2) = - M \log(Q_2) - \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log {Q_2
+              \textstyle \log p_{Q_2}(S_2) = - M \log(Q_2) - \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log {Q_2
-            \choose Q_2^{(m)}}.
+              \choose Q_2^{(m)}}.
-        \end{align*}
+          \end{align*}
-        And penalties for the $\bm\rho$ and $\bm\pi$ are
+          And penalties for the $\bm\rho$ and $\bm\pi$ are
-        \[ \text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1, S_1) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} (Q_{1}^{(m)} - 1)
+          \[ \text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1, S_1) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} (Q_{1}^{(m)} - 1)
-            \log n_{1}^{m},
+              \log n_{1}^{m},
-            ~\text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2, S_2) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} (Q_{2}^{(m)} - 1)
+              ~\text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2, S_2) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} (Q_{2}^{(m)} - 1)
-            \log n_{2}^{m}. \]
+              \log n_{2}^{m}. \]
-        Penalties for the $\bm\alpha$
+          Penalties for the $\bm\alpha$
-        \[ \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2, S_1, S_2) = (\sum_{q=1}^{Q_1}
+          \[ \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2, S_1, S_2) = (\sum_{q=1}^{Q_1}
-            \sum_{r=1}^{Q_2} \mathbbb{1}_{(S_1)'S_2 > 0}) \log (N_M). \]
+              \sum_{r=1}^{Q_2} \mathbbb{1}_{(S_1)'S_2 > 0}) \log (N_M). \]
-        And the corresponding BIC-L formula,
+          And the corresponding BIC-L formula,
-        \[
+          \[
-            \begin{aligned}
+              \begin{aligned}
-                \text{BIC-L}(\bm{X},Q_1, Q_2) =
+                  \text{BIC-L}(\bm{X},Q_1, Q_2) =
-                \max_{S_1,S_2} [
+                  \max_{S_1,S_2} [
-                              & \max_{\theta_{S_1,S_2} \in \Theta_{S_1,S_2}} \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{\hat{R}},\theta_{S_1,S_2}) \\
+                                & \max_{\theta_{S_1,S_2} \in \Theta_{S_1,S_2}} \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{\hat{R}},\theta_{S_1,S_2}) \\
-                - \frac{1}{2} & (\text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1, S_1)  + \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2, S_2)                                   \\
+                  - \frac{1}{2} & (\text{pen}_{\pi}(Q_1, S_1)  + \text{pen}_{\rho}(Q_2, S_2)                                   \\
-                              & + \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2, S_1, S_2)                                                    \\
+                                & + \text{pen}_{\alpha}(Q_1, Q_2, S_1, S_2)                                                    \\
-                              & + \text{pen}_{S_1}(Q_1) + \text{pen}_{S_2}(Q_2))]                                            \\
+                                & + \text{pen}_{S_1}(Q_1) + \text{pen}_{S_2}(Q_2))]                                            \\
-            \end{aligned}
+              \end{aligned}
-        \]
+          \]
 \end{description}
 
 \subsection{Initialization and pairing of the models}
@@ -420,11 +421,11 @@ For the memberships on the rows: $row~order_m = order\left(\rho_m \times
 
 Using this order we relabel the memberships for the $M$ fitted collection of a
 single network.
-We then use the $M$ memberships to fit a collection containing
+We then use the $M$ memberships to compute first $\bm{\tau}$ to fit a collection
-the $M$ networks.
+containing the $M$ networks.
 \subsection{Greedy exploration to find an estimation of the mode}\label{ssec:greedy-exploration-to-find-an-estimation-of-the-mode}
 Using the previously fitted models for $Q = (1,2)$ and $Q = (2,1)$ we choose to
-perform a greedy exploration to find a first mode.
+perform a greedy exploration from each of those points to find a first mode.
 
 Meaning that for a given $Q = (Q_1, Q_2)$ we will compute all the possible
 memberships for the points $Q \in \{(Q_1 + 1, Q_2),(Q_1, Q_2 + 1),(Q_1 - 1,
@@ -432,6 +433,10 @@ memberships for the points $Q \in \{(Q_1 + 1, Q_2),(Q_1, Q_2 + 1),(Q_1 - 1,
 maximizes the BIC-L as the next point from which to repeat the procedure. We
 repeat the procedure until the BIC-L stops increasing $2$ times in a row.
 
+Let us denote the neighborhood in the latent space of a point $Q$ by
+$\mathcal{N}(Q) = Q + {(1,0), (0,1), (-1,0), (0,-1)}$, the four neighbors of $Q$
+in the grid.
+
 \begin{algorithm}[H]
     \small
     \caption{Greedy Exploration for Mode Estimation}
@@ -443,28 +448,31 @@ repeat the procedure until the BIC-L stops increasing $2$ times in a row.
     \Output{Estimation of the mode using greedy exploration}
 
     \BlankLine
-    Initialize $Q = (1,2)$ as the starting point\\
+    \For{$Q_{\text{start}} \in \{(1,2), (2,1)\}$}{ % and $Q = (2,1)$ as starting point
-    Initialize $\text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}}$ as the maximum achieved BIC-L value\\
+    \BlankLine
+    Initialize $\text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}} \leftarrow \text{BIC-L}(Q_{\text{start}})$\\
     Initialize $consecutive\_count$ as 0
 
     \BlankLine
+    $Q_{\text{curr}} \leftarrow Q_{\text{start}}$
+
     \While{$consecutive\_count < 2$}{
-    Compute possible memberships for $Q \in \{(Q_1 + 1, Q_2), (Q_1, Q_2 + 1), (Q_1 - 1, Q_2), (Q_1, Q_2 - 1)\}$\;
+    Fit models in $\mathcal{N}(Q_{\text{curr}})$\;
-    Fit models with the computed memberships
-    Choose the model with the maximum BIC-L as the next point
 
     \BlankLine
-    \If{$\text{BIC-L} > \text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}}$}{
+    $Q \leftarrow \arg\max_{Q \in \mathcal{N}(Q_{\text{curr}})} \text{BIC-L}(Q)$
-    $\text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}} \leftarrow \text{BIC-L}$\\
+
+    $\text{BIC-L}_{\text{curr}} \leftarrow \max_{Q \in \mathcal{N}(Q_{\text{curr}})} \text{BIC-L}(Q)$
+    \BlankLine
+    \If{$\text{BIC-L}_{\text{curr}} > \text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}}$}{
+    $\text{BIC-L}_{\text{max}} \leftarrow \text{BIC-L}_{\text{curr}}$\\
     $consecutive\_count \leftarrow 0$
     }
     \Else{
         $consecutive\_count \leftarrow consecutive\_count + 1$
     }
-    \BlankLine
-    $Q \leftarrow$ Next selected point
     }
-
+    }
     \BlankLine
     \textbf{Output:} Estimation of the mode using greedy exploration
 \end{algorithm}
@@ -512,8 +520,7 @@ consists of two alternating steps:
         \For{$Q_1 \in \left[ Q_{1,\text{center}} - \text{depth} ; Q_{1,\text{center}} + \text{depth} \right]$}{
             \For{$Q_2 \in \left[ Q_{2,\text{center}} - \text{depth}; Q_{2,\text{center}} + \text{depth} \right] $}{
                 Compute possible splits from predecessors $(Q_1 - 1, Q_2)$ and $(Q_1, Q_2 - 1)$\\
-                Fit models with the block membership changes
+                Among the model generated from the splits choose the best in regard of the BIC-L
-                Compare and keep the best model based on BIC-L
             }
         }
 
@@ -523,13 +530,12 @@ consists of two alternating steps:
         \For{$Q_1 \in \left[ Q_{1,\text{center}} + \text{depth} ; Q_{1,\text{center}} - \text{depth} \right]$}{
             \For{$Q_2 \in \left[ Q_{2,\text{center}} + \text{depth}; Q_{2,\text{center}} - \text{depth} \right] $}{
                 Compute possible merges from predecessors $(Q_1 + 1, Q_2)$ and $(Q_1, Q_2 + 1)$\\
-                Fit models with the block membership changes
+                Among the model generated from the merges choose the best in regard of the BIC-L
-                Compare and keep the best model based on BIC-L
             }
         }
 
         \BlankLine
-        Update the best model based on the maximum BIC-L
+        Choose the mode as the one that maximizes the BIC-L
     }
 
     \BlankLine
@@ -637,6 +643,7 @@ The procedure then repeats for the point at $(Q_1 + 1, Q_2)$ until it reaches
 $(Q_{1,center} + depth, Q_2)$ from which it repeats from
 $(Q_{1,center} - depth, Q_2 + 1)$. This repeats until computing the best model
 for $(Q_{1,center} + depth, Q_{2,center} + depth)$.
+
 \textit{Note on the initialization:} The forward pass starts from the point
 $(Q_{1,center} + depth, Q_{2,center} + depth)$, so this points needs to have at
 least a model fitted. In the best case, the greedy exploration will have visited
@@ -663,7 +670,7 @@ $(Q_{1,center} + depth, Q_{2,center} + depth)$, we know it was initialized at
 least by the forward pass, no special case here.\\
 
 At the end of the moving window pass, the model of max BIC-L is the new best
-fit and the procedure can repeat until convergence.
+fit and the procedure repeats until convergence.
 
 \section{Networks clustering}
 \label{sec:networks-clustering}
@@ -752,7 +759,7 @@ trivial partition in a unique group.
 Then using the \emph{Kmeans} we split the collection in two sub-collections
 with the dissimilarity matrix. The two sub-collections are fitted and we
 compute the score of this new partition $\mathcal{G}^{*} = \{G_1, G_2\}$.
-If $Sc(\mathcal{G}^{*}) > Sc(\mathcal{G})$ then we repeat the same procedure on
+If $Sc(\mathcal{G}^{*}) > Sc(\mathcal{G})$, we repeat the same procedure on
 $G_1$ and $G_2$. Else we return $\mathcal{G}$.
 We illustrate our capacity to perform a partition of a collection for all
 colBiSBM models in~\ref{sec:network-clustering-of-simulated-networks}.
@@ -772,11 +779,11 @@ we obtain the following result of identifiability\footnote{The proof is in appen
     \begin{itemize}
         \item[(1.1)] $\exists m^*\in\{1,\dots,M\} : n^1_{m^*} \geq 2 Q_2 - 1~\text{and}~n^2_{m^*} \geq 2 Q_1 - 1$.
         \item[(1.2)] $\forall 1\leq q \leq Q_1, \pi_q > 0$
-            and the coordinates of vector $\bm{\rho}
+              and the coordinates of vector $\bm{\rho}
-                {X^{m^*}}^T$ are distinct (where ${X^{m^*}}^T$ is the transpose of $X^{m^*}$).
+                  {X^{m^*}}^T$ are distinct (where ${X^{m^*}}^T$ is the transpose of $X^{m^*}$).
         \item[(1.3)] $\forall 1\leq r \leq Q_2, \rho_r > 0$
-            and the coordinates of vector $\bm{\pi}
+              and the coordinates of vector $\bm{\pi}
-                X^{m^*}$ are distinct.
+                  X^{m^*}$ are distinct.
     \end{itemize}
 \end{theorem}
 

rapport/remerciements.tex

@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ Maxime.
 Merci à tous les permanents du 3\ieme étage, parmi lesquels: Christophe,
 Stéphane et Vincent.
 
-Merci à Hugo, Théodore, Éric, Jean-Benoist, Nicolas, Tristan, Sarah, Jade et
+Merci à Liliane, Isabelle, Hugo, Théodore, Éric, Jean-Benoist, Nicolas, Lucia,
-Pierre Gloaguen.
+Tristan, Sarah, Jade et Pierre Gloaguen.
 
 Un grand merci à tous ceux qui ont participé de près ou de loin au bon
 déroulement de ce stage.