Empirical evaluation of scoring functions for Bayesian network model selection

In this work, we empirically evaluate the capability of various scoring functions of Bayesian networks for recovering true underlying structures. Similar investigations have been carried out before, but they typically relied on approximate learning algorithms to learn the network structures. The suboptimal structures found by the approximation methods have unknown quality and may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Our study uses an optimal algorithm to learn Bayesian network structures from datasets generated from a set of gold standard Bayesian networks. Because all optimal algorithms always learn equivalent networks, this ensures that only the choice of scoring function affects the learned networks. Another shortcoming of the previous studies stems from their use of random synthetic networks as test cases. There is no guarantee that these networks reflect real-world data. We use real-world data to generate our gold-standard structures, so our experimental design more closely approximates real-world situations. A major finding of our study suggests that, in contrast to results reported by several prior works, the Minimum Description Length (MDL) (or equivalently, Bayesian information criterion (BIC)) consistently outperforms other scoring functions such as Akaike\u27s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian Dirichlet equivalence score (BDeu), and factorized normalized maximum likelihood (fNML) in recovering the underlying Bayesian network structures. We believe this finding is a result of using both datasets generated from real-world applications rather than from random processes used in previous studies and learning algorithms to select high-scoring structures rather than selecting random models. Other findings of our study support existing work, e.g., large sample sizes result in learning structures closer to the true underlying structure; the BDeu score is sensitive to the parameter settings; and the fNML performs pretty well on small datasets. We also tested a greedy hill climbing algorithm and observed similar results as the optimal algorithm

Evaluating Overfit and Underfit in Models of Network Community Structure

A common data mining task on networks is community detection, which seeks an unsupervised decomposition of a network into structural groups based on statistical regularities in the network's connectivity. Although many methods exist, the No Free Lunch theorem for community detection implies that each makes some kind of tradeoff, and no algorithm can be optimal on all inputs. Thus, different algorithms will over or underfit on different inputs, finding more, fewer, or just different communities than is optimal, and evaluation methods that use a metadata partition as a ground truth will produce misleading conclusions about general accuracy. Here, we present a broad evaluation of over and underfitting in community detection, comparing the behavior of 16 state-of-the-art community detection algorithms on a novel and structurally diverse corpus of 406 real-world networks. We find that (i) algorithms vary widely both in the number of communities they find and in their corresponding composition, given the same input, (ii) algorithms can be clustered into distinct high-level groups based on similarities of their outputs on real-world networks, and (iii) these differences induce wide variation in accuracy on link prediction and link description tasks. We introduce a new diagnostic for evaluating overfitting and underfitting in practice, and use it to roughly divide community detection methods into general and specialized learning algorithms. Across methods and inputs, Bayesian techniques based on the stochastic block model and a minimum description length approach to regularization represent the best general learning approach, but can be outperformed under specific circumstances. These results introduce both a theoretically principled approach to evaluate over and underfitting in models of network community structure and a realistic benchmark by which new methods may be evaluated and compared.Comment: 22 pages, 13 figures, 3 table