Learning a Tree-Structured Ising Model in Order to Make Predictions
summary
Claim: learning a tree Ising model only to get accurate pairwise posteriors needs far fewer samples than learning the exact graph. Method: compute empirical pairwise correlations, run Chow‑Liu MST, truncate edges below a threshold, then project by matching edge marginals; proof uses an edge‑pairing lemma to control errors along differing paths. Guarantee: with n = O(max(e^{2β}, η^{-2}) · log p) samples the reconstructed model gives all pairwise correlations within η. Only proven for trees and K=2 marginals.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (17)
- 0:00Intro
- 0:25learning graphical models from data
- 0:48two questions in graphical model learning
- 1:33medical diagnosis
- 2:39recommendation system
- 3:09the structure learning problem
- 4:25sample complexity lower bound
- 6:01neighborhood search algorithm
- 11:28the learning for predictions problem
- 11:43approximate learning
- 12:47high girth graphs with corr. decay
- 14:17a distance between distributions
- 15:01this talk: trees and k = 2
- 21:28learning a forest
- 22:52illustrative example
- 24:58proof sketch
- 30:46inductive argument
related talks
48mHow Hard Is Inference for Structured Prediction?
53mStatistical Estimation from Dependent Data
52mNew Algorithms For The Graph Alignment Problem
51mHow to Predict When Estimation is Hard: Algorithms for Learning on Graphs
49mMetric Representations: Algorithms and Geometry
27mDistribution Learning Meets Graph Structure Sampling
47mLearning Probabilistic Models for Graph Partitioning in the Presence of Noise
40mTesting Correlation of Unlabeled Random Graphs
