Bayesian GLASSO shows good coverage of uncertainty for strength and closeness centrality, but uncertainty in betweenness centrality is estimated less well¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2025: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q1 i? For uncertainty in centrality measures, the Bayesian GLASSO shows good coverage for strength and closeness centrality, while betweenness centrality uncertainty is estimated less well. → Joran Jongerling 2022

Evidence¶

Joran Jongerling 2022¶

Joran Jongerling, Sacha Epskamp, Donald Williams. (2022). Bayesian uncertainty estimation for Gaussian graphical models and centrality indices. Multivariate Behavioral Research. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/bayesian-uncertainty-estimation-for-gaussian-graphical-models-and-centrality-indices/

q1 · i? · design · r2

Simulation results on uncertainty estimation: "the Bayesian GLASSO shows good coverage for strength and closeness centrality", with betweenness estimated less well. No coverage rates are printed in the available text.

"the Bayesian GLASSO shows good coverage for strength and closeness centrality, but uncertainty in betweenness centrality is estimated less well."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In simulations, the Bayesian GLASSO performed better than the Horseshoe prior for estimating symptom networks — related
• In simulations, Bayesian GLASSO estimation outperforms frequentist GLASSO on bias in edge weights, centrality measures, correlation between estimated and true partial correlations, and specificity — related
• The frequentist graphical LASSO has difficulty estimating centrality indices and uncertainty in these measures in symptom networks — related
• Regularization-based graphical modeling has key drawbacks, including difficulty obtaining valid parameter uncertainty and inflated false positive rates — a broader claim this one bears on