Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.22735

Modeling Transition Dynamics and Network Structure in Cross-National Process Data: A Hierarchical Multi-State Survival Framework

Abstract

Process data from computer-based assessments record the sequence and timing of actions through which respondents solve a task, providing information about both the pace and structure of problem-solving behavior. Modeling such processes across countries is challenging because country-by-response-group cells are often small and unbalanced and the observed transition supports can differ substantially across countries. We propose a hierarchical framework that integrates a Bayesian multi-state survival model with a network-based representation of transition structure. Partial pooling across countries yields country-specific covariate and key-action effects, transition speed, and estimates of between-country heterogeneity. Posterior transition probability networks are embedded in a common latent space using a directed graph auto-encoder adapted to heterogeneous supports, and 1-Wasserstein distances between node-role distributions are evaluated across posterior draws to characterize global network structure while propagating estimation uncertainty. We apply the framework to two problem-solving items from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies across 14 countries. The results reveal cross-country heterogeneity in transition speed, systematic response-group differences in global network organization, item-dependent variation in within-group dispersion across countries, and local differences in routing around shared intermediate actions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Doungjun Kim, Daeun Hwangbo, Minjeong Jeon, Ick Hoon Jin. 2026-09-19. Modeling Transition Dynamics and Network Structure in Cross-National Process Data: A Hierarchical Multi-State Survival Framework. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22735

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗