OK. Fig 1 and its legend in this paper (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7442167/) is a summary of what I just stated before.

-Tim

At 2017-03-28 07:18:52, "Tiago de Paula Peixoto" <tiago@skewed.de> wrote: >On 28.03.2017 00:02, treinz wrote: >> I think I'm confused by how the input and output are related to each other >> in the layered model. Let's say each network in my data is 1 of the top 3 >> layers of Fig. 1 of the paper you mentioned. I don't have a well-defined >> sequence variable for the networks except that I know they're related to >> each other but not exactly the same. You can think of them as realizations >> of different perturbed states of the same underlying network but each comes >> with some experimental noise. I'm expecting the algorithm to tell me how >> many of these perturbed states are there in my data and what's the SBM for >> each of these states. I'm thinking maybe the layered SBM can help me with >> that. But it seems that in order to use the layered model, I have to first >> collapse all the networks, which I think will lose a lot of information in >> my data and I don't know how to interpret the output. > >I don't really understand what you want, exactly, and what you mean by >"perturbed states". Forget about the layered SBM for a moment, and try to >explain clearly and succinctly how your data is, and what you want to obtain >in the end. > >Best, >Tiago > >-- >Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de> >