Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Who Learns Better Bayesian Network Structures: Accuracy and Speed of Structure Learning Algorithms

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1805.11908 v3 pith:I3WZ5BKN submitted 2018-05-30 stat.ME stat.ML

classification stat.MEstat.ML
keywords algorithmsstructureconstraint-baseddatabayesiancriterionlearnlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Three classes of algorithms to learn the structure of Bayesian networks from data are common in the literature: constraint-based algorithms, which use conditional independence tests to learn the dependence structure of the data; score-based algorithms, which use goodness-of-fit scores as objective functions to maximise; and hybrid algorithms that combine both approaches. Constraint-based and score-based algorithms have been shown to learn the same structures when conditional independence and goodness of fit are both assessed using entropy and the topological ordering of the network is known (Cowell, 2001). In this paper, we investigate how these three classes of algorithms perform outside the assumptions above in terms of speed and accuracy of network reconstruction for both discrete and Gaussian Bayesian networks. We approach this question by recognising that structure learning is defined by the combination of a statistical criterion and an algorithm that determines how the criterion is applied to the data. Removing the confounding effect of different choices for the statistical criterion, we find using both simulated and real-world complex data that constraint-based algorithms are often less accurate than score-based algorithms, but are seldom faster (even at large sample sizes); and that hybrid algorithms are neither faster nor more accurate than constraint-based algorithms. This suggests that commonly held beliefs on structure learning in the literature are strongly influenced by the choice of particular statistical criteria rather than just by the properties of the algorithms themselves.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Temporal Causal Representation Learning with Tensor Decomposition

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CaRTeD jointly learns latent phenotypes and the temporal causal network among them from irregular tensors like EHR data, with a convergence guarantee under strong assumptions.

Pith tools