High-dimensional Sparse Inverse Covariance Estimation using Greedy Methods

In this paper we consider the task of estimating the non-zero pattern of the sparse inverse covariance matrix of a zero-mean Gaussian random vector from a set of iid samples. Note that this is also equivalent to recovering the underlying graph structure of a sparse Gaussian Markov Random Field (GMRF). We present two novel greedy approaches to solving this problem. The first estimates the non-zero covariates of the overall inverse covariance matrix using a series of global forward and backward greedy steps. The second estimates the neighborhood of each node in the graph separately, again using greedy forward and backward steps, and combines the intermediate neighborhoods to form an overall estimate. The principal contribution of this paper is a rigorous analysis of the sparsistency, or consistency in recovering the sparsity pattern of the inverse covariance matrix. Surprisingly, we show that both the local and global greedy methods learn the full structure of the model with high probability given just $O(d\log(p))$ samples, which is a \emph{significant} improvement over state of the art $\ell_1$-regularized Gaussian MLE (Graphical Lasso) that requires $O(d^2\log(p))$ samples. Moreover, the restricted eigenvalue and smoothness conditions imposed by our greedy methods are much weaker than the strong irrepresentable conditions required by the $\ell_1$-regularization based methods. We corroborate our results with extensive simulations and examples, comparing our local and global greedy methods to the $\ell_1$-regularized Gaussian MLE as well as the Neighborhood Greedy method to that of nodewise $\ell_1$-regularized linear regression (Neighborhood Lasso).Comment: Accepted to AI STAT 2012 for Oral Presentatio

Analysis of Testing-Based Forward Model Selection

This paper introduces and analyzes a procedure called Testing-based forward model selection (TBFMS) in linear regression problems. This procedure inductively selects covariates that add predictive power into a working statistical model before estimating a final regression. The criterion for deciding which covariate to include next and when to stop including covariates is derived from a profile of traditional statistical hypothesis tests. This paper proves probabilistic bounds, which depend on the quality of the tests, for prediction error and the number of selected covariates. As an example, the bounds are then specialized to a case with heteroskedastic data, with tests constructed with the help of Huber-Eicker-White standard errors. Under the assumed regularity conditions, these tests lead to estimation convergence rates matching other common high-dimensional estimators including Lasso

High-Dimensional L2L_2Boosting: Rate of Convergence

Boosting is one of the most significant developments in machine learning. This paper studies the rate of convergence of $L_2$Boosting, which is tailored for regression, in a high-dimensional setting. Moreover, we introduce so-called \textquotedblleft post-Boosting\textquotedblright. This is a post-selection estimator which applies ordinary least squares to the variables selected in the first stage by $L_2$Boosting. Another variant is \textquotedblleft Orthogonal Boosting\textquotedblright\ where after each step an orthogonal projection is conducted. We show that both post-$L_2$Boosting and the orthogonal boosting achieve the same rate of convergence as LASSO in a sparse, high-dimensional setting. We show that the rate of convergence of the classical $L_2$Boosting depends on the design matrix described by a sparse eigenvalue constant. To show the latter results, we derive new approximation results for the pure greedy algorithm, based on analyzing the revisiting behavior of $L_2$Boosting. We also introduce feasible rules for early stopping, which can be easily implemented and used in applied work. Our results also allow a direct comparison between LASSO and boosting which has been missing from the literature. Finally, we present simulation studies and applications to illustrate the relevance of our theoretical results and to provide insights into the practical aspects of boosting. In these simulation studies, post-$L_2$Boosting clearly outperforms LASSO.Comment: 19 pages, 4 tables; AMS 2000 subject classifications: Primary 62J05, 62J07, 41A25; secondary 49M15, 68Q3