SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1804.00237

Flexible model selection for mechanistic network models

Abstract

Network models are applied across many domains where data can be represented as a network. Two prominent paradigms for modeling networks are statistical models (probabilistic models for the observed network) and mechanistic models (models for network growth and/or evolution). Mechanistic models are better suited for incorporating domain knowledge, to study effects of interventions (such as changes to specific mechanisms) and to forward simulate, but they typically have intractable likelihoods. As such, and in a stark contrast to statistical models, there is a relative dearth of research on model selection for such models despite the otherwise large body of extant work. In this paper, we propose a simulator-based procedure for mechanistic network model selection that borrows aspects from Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) along with a means to quantify the uncertainty in the selected model. To select the most suitable network model, we consider and assess the performance of several learning algorithms, most notably the so-called Super Learner, which makes our framework less sensitive to the choice of a particular learning algorithm. Our approach takes advantage of the ease to forward simulate from mechanistic network models to circumvent their intractable likelihoods. The overall process is flexible and widely applicable. Our simulation results demonstrate the approach's ability to accurately discriminate between competing mechanistic models. Finally, we showcase our approach with a protein-protein interaction network model from the literature for yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sixing Chen, Antonietta Mira, Jukka-Pekka Onnela. 2018-04-01. Flexible model selection for mechanistic network models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00237

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME