Researcher profile

Neville K. Kitson

Neville K. Kitson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Effective and efficient structure learning with pruning and model averaging strategies

Learning the structure of a Bayesian Network (BN) with score-based solutions involves exploring the search space of possible graphs and moving towards the graph that maximises a given objective function. Some algorithms offer exact solutions that guarantee to return the graph with the highest objective score, while others offer approximate solutions in exchange for reduced computational complexity. This paper describes an approximate BN structure learning algorithm, which we call Model Averaging Hill-Climbing (MAHC), that combines two novel strategies with hill-climbing search. The algorithm starts by pruning the search space of graphs, where the pruning strategy can be viewed as an aggressive version of the pruning strategies that are typically applied to combinatorial optimisation structure learning problems. It then performs model averaging in the hill-climbing search process and moves to the neighbouring graph that maximises the objective function, on average, for that neighbouring graph and over all its valid neighbouring graphs. Comparisons with other algorithms spanning different classes of learning suggest that the combination of aggressive pruning with model averaging is both effective and efficient, particularly in the presence of data noise.

preprint2020arXiv

Large-scale empirical validation of Bayesian Network structure learning algorithms with noisy data

Numerous Bayesian Network (BN) structure learning algorithms have been proposed in the literature over the past few decades. Each publication makes an empirical or theoretical case for the algorithm proposed in that publication and results across studies are often inconsistent in their claims about which algorithm is 'best'. This is partly because there is no agreed evaluation approach to determine their effectiveness. Moreover, each algorithm is based on a set of assumptions, such as complete data and causal sufficiency, and tend to be evaluated with data that conforms to these assumptions, however unrealistic these assumptions may be in the real world. As a result, it is widely accepted that synthetic performance overestimates real performance, although to what degree this may happen remains unknown. This paper investigates the performance of 15 structure learning algorithms. We propose a methodology that applies the algorithms to data that incorporates synthetic noise, in an effort to better understand the performance of structure learning algorithms when applied to real data. Each algorithm is tested over multiple case studies, sample sizes, types of noise, and assessed with multiple evaluation criteria. This work involved approximately 10,000 graphs with a total structure learning runtime of seven months. It provides the first large-scale empirical validation of BN structure learning algorithms under different assumptions of data noise. The results suggest that traditional synthetic performance may overestimate real-world performance by anywhere between 10% and more than 50%. They also show that while score-based learning is generally superior to constraint-based learning, a higher fitting score does not necessarily imply a more accurate causal graph. To facilitate comparisons with future studies, we have made all data, raw results, graphs and BN models freely available online.