To avoid missing important variables and their connections in networks, more and more variables are included in network analysis. Here we show that in a setting with many more parameters than observations (high-dimensional) it is possible to get a conservative (i.e., low false positive rate) estimate of the neighbourhood for each node (which connections are in the network). A neighbourhood is often estimated with a linear model, and this leads to two interesting cases: (i) If the true model is linear, then neighbourhood selection work reasonably well, and (ii) if the true model is nonlinear, then neighbourhood selection requires a penalty for the high dimensions. Here we show the impact of the ridge parameter on the mean squared error, and how this leads to low test variance and hence to neighbourhoods with large numbers of edges. We connect these insights with results from machine learning, where the so-called double descent (when more parameters are included than observations, the mean squared error goes down a second time) has put the traditional view on model selection upside down. Essentially, for adequate neighbourhood selection in models with a large number of parameters, the volume of the model space needs to be included in the penalty. Most neighbourhood selection methods (e.g., Lasso, AIC, BIC) lead to spurious edges (high false positive rate), but we prove that in the high-dimensional setting, minimum description length leads to correct neighbourhood selection or smaller (low false positive rates) in both cases when either the model is correctly or incorrectly assumed linear
Minimax-optimal rates for multivariate distribution estimation are known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. We propose a sparse Bayesian network approach in which each conditional probability is estimated using sparsity-aware conditional mean methods. The resulting estimator, \textit{BAyesian Network Distribution regression} (BAND), handles mixed data types in high-dimensional time series and achieves polynomial total variation convergence rates while allowing the feature dimension to grow polynomially with the sample size. These rates are substantially faster than the classical optimal rates for multivariate histogram density estimators that lack sparsity. Empirical evaluations show that BAND performs competitively for data sampling and confidence region forecasting against a range of state-of-the-art benchmarks.
An accurate assessment of a model's complexity is crucial for topics such as interpretation, generalization, and model selection. However, most existing complexity measures either rely on heuristic assumptions or are computationally prohibitive. In this paper, we present a mathematically rigorous yet easy-to-compute measure of model complexity that is based on the similarities between the model gradients across inputs. It is thus well-defined for any parametric model, but also for kernel-based non-parametric models. We prove that our measure of complexity generalizes model-specific complexity measures such as polynomial degree (for polynomial regression), kernel length scale (for Matérn kernels), number of neighbors (for k-nearest neighbors), number of splits (for decision trees), and number of trees (for random forests). We also use our measure to obtain new insights into the double descent phenomenon for random Fourier features, random forests, neural networks, and gradient boosting.
The marginal likelihood, also known as the evidence, is regarded as a mathematical embodiment of Occam's razor, enabling model selection that avoids overfitting. The evidence lower bound (ELBO) objective from variational inference has also been used for similar purposes. Prior work has shown that restricting the approximate posterior family via a mean-field approximation can lead the ELBO to underfit. In this paper, we show how ELBO-based hyperparameter learning in a simple over-parameterized regression model can also produce overfitting, depending on the assumed rank of the covariance matrix in a Gaussian approximate posterior. Surprisingly, among only the underfit and overfit options, Bayesian model selection via the evidence itself sometimes prefers the overfit version, while the ELBO does not. Bayesian practitioners hoping to scale to large models should be cautious about how reduced-rank assumptions needed for tractability may impact the potential for model selection.