Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 24.

Published in final edited form as: Electron J Stat. 2017 Apr 11;11(1):1207–1234. doi: 10.1214/17-EJS1251

Fig. 4 — The constrained penalized optimization problem (10) was performed, for a range of values of the tuning parameter λ. The x-axis displays the size of the estimated edge set ℰ̂_℘ (12), and the y-axis displays the number of true positives, averaged over 200 simulated data sets. The curves represent performance when ζ is chosen to yield card(ℰ̂(ζ)) = 4card(ℰ̃) (T = 300 [ ]and T = 600 [ ]), and when ζ is chosen to yield card(ℰ̂(ζ)) = 8card(ℰ̃) (T = 300 [ ] and T = 600 [ ]). We also display performance of the unconstrained penalized optimization problem (5) (T = 300 [ ] and T = 600 [ ]).

Inline graphic — The constrained penalized optimization problem (10) was performed, for a range of values of the tuning parameter λ. The x-axis displays the size of the estimated edge set ℰ̂_℘ (12), and the y-axis displays the number of true positives, averaged over 200 simulated data sets. The curves represent performance when ζ is chosen to yield card(ℰ̂(ζ)) = 4card(ℰ̃) (T = 300 [ ]and T = 600 [ ]), and when ζ is chosen to yield card(ℰ̂(ζ)) = 8card(ℰ̃) (T = 300 [ ] and T = 600 [ ]). We also display performance of the unconstrained penalized optimization problem (5) (T = 300 [ ] and T = 600 [ ]).