PENALTY SELECTION METHODS IN NETWORK MODELS ANNA WYSOCKI

  • Slides: 38
Download presentation
PENALTY SELECTION METHODS IN NETWORK MODELS ANNA WYSOCKI, M. S. awysocki@ucdavis. edu

PENALTY SELECTION METHODS IN NETWORK MODELS ANNA WYSOCKI, M. S. awysocki@ucdavis. edu

GAUSSIAN GRAPHICAL MODELS

GAUSSIAN GRAPHICAL MODELS

How are network models estimated?

How are network models estimated?

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j . 01 . 957 -. 06 -. 02 k -. 03 -. 06 . 957 0 l 0 -. 02 0 . 952

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j . 01 . 957 -. 06 -. 02 k -. 03 -. 06 . 957 0 l 0 -. 02 0 . 952

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j

Ω= -1 Σ i i. 953 j. 01 k -. 03 l 0 j . 01 . 957 -. 06 -. 02 k -. 03 -. 06 . 957 0 l 0 -. 02 0 . 952

Choosing lambda is extremely important. As different lambdas can correspond to different networks.

Choosing lambda is extremely important. As different lambdas can correspond to different networks.

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) •

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) • Rotation Information Criterion (RIC) • Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC)

 PENELTY SELECTION METHODS

PENELTY SELECTION METHODS

PENELTY SELECTION METHODS i≠j

PENELTY SELECTION METHODS i≠j

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) •

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) • Rotation Information Criterion (RIC) • Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC)

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) •

PENELTY SELECTION • Cross-Validation. METHODS • Stability Approach to Regularization Selection (St. ARS) • Rotation Information Criterion (RIC) • Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC)

 • Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu &

• Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu & Feng, 2013) • EBIC + PC size (Kuisman & Sillanpaa, 2016) • Low-Dimensional • EBIC Performance (Epskamp, 2016; Epskmap, Borsboom & Fried, 2018) • EBIC vs non-regularized methods (Williams, Rhemtulla, Wysocki & Rast, 2018) • St. ARS vs. EBIC vs. RIC (Mohammadi & Wit, 2015)

 • Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu &

• Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu & Feng, 2013) • EBIC + PC size (Kuisman & Sillanpaa, 2016) • Low-Dimensional • EBIC Performance (Epskamp, 2016; Epskmap, Borsboom & Fried, 2018) • EBIC vs non-regularized methods (Williams, Rhemtulla, Wysocki & Rast, 2018) • St. ARS vs. EBIC vs. RIC (Mohammadi & Wit, 2015)

 • Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu &

• Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu & Feng, 2013) • EBIC + PC size (Kuisman & Sillanpaa, 2016) • Low-Dimensional • EBIC Performance (Epskamp, 2016; Epskmap, Borsboom & Fried, 2018) • EBIC vs non-regularized methods (Williams, Rhemtulla, Wysocki & Rast, 2018) • St. ARS vs. EBIC vs. RIC (Mohammadi & Wit, 2015)

 • Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu &

• Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu & Feng, 2013) • EBIC + PC size (Kuisman & Sillanpaa, 2016) • Low-Dimensional • EBIC Performance (Epskamp, 2016; Epskmap, Borsboom & Fried, 2018) • EBIC vs non-regularized methods (Williams, Rhemtulla, Wysocki & Rast, 2018) • St. ARS vs. EBIC vs. RIC (Mohammadi & Wit, 2015)

 • Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu &

• Expected Performance • CV Over-selects (Chetverikov et al. , 2017; Yu & Feng, 2013) • EBIC + PC size (Kuisman & Sillanpaa, 2016) • Low-Dimensional • EBIC Performance (Epskamp, 2016; Epskmap, Borsboom & Fried, 2018) • EBIC vs non-regularized methods (Williams, Rhemtulla, Wysocki & Rast, 2018) • St. ARS vs. EBIC vs. RIC (Mohammadi & Wit, 2015)

1. What is the best method for psychological data? 2. How does partial correlation

1. What is the best method for psychological data? 2. How does partial correlation size affect performance? 3. How does sparsity affect performance?

SIMULATION PROCEDURE • Conditions • Sample Size (100, 250, 500, …, 3000) • Number

SIMULATION PROCEDURE • Conditions • Sample Size (100, 250, 500, …, 3000) • Number of Variables (20) • Sparsity (. 10, . 20, …, . 90) • Partial Correlation Range (-. 1, . 1 ; -. 3, . 3 ; -. 5, . 5) • Performance Measures • False Positive Rate • Sensitivity

How does sparsity affect method performance?

How does sparsity affect method performance?

How does partial correlation size affect method performance?

How does partial correlation size affect method performance?

What is the best method for psychological data?

What is the best method for psychological data?

SUMMARY • Sparsity and partial correlation size matter • CV: Sensitive but with a

SUMMARY • Sparsity and partial correlation size matter • CV: Sensitive but with a cost • EBIC: Inconsistent Results • St. ARS + RIC most balanced results

THANK YOU! ANNA WYSOCKI, M. S. awysocki@ucdavis. edu

THANK YOU! ANNA WYSOCKI, M. S. awysocki@ucdavis. edu