Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 14.
Published in final edited form as: J Mach Learn Res. 2015;16(13):417–453.

Table 1:

Performance of different regularization methods in estimating graphical Granger causality with balanced group sizes and no misspecification; d = 2, T = 5, SNR = 1.8. Precision (P), Recall (R), MCC are given in percentages (numbers in parentheses give standard deviations). ERR LAG gives the error associated with incorrect estimation of VAR order.

p = 60, ∣E∣ =351
Group Size=3
p = 120, ∣E∣ =1404
Group Size=3
p = 200, ∣E∣ =3900
Group Size=5
n 160 110 60 160 110 60 160 110 60
P Lasso 80(2) 75(2) 66(4) 69(1) 62(2) 52(2) 52(1) 47(1) 38(1)
Grp 95(2) 91(4) 83(7) 91(3) 80(5) 68(7) 78(4) 72(3) 59(6)
Thgrp 96(1) 92(3) 86(6) 93(3) 83(5) 70(7) 82(4) 76(3) 64(6)
Agrp 96(2) 92(4) 83(7) 92(3) 82(5) 69(7) 81(3) 74(3) 60(6)
R Lasso 71(2) 54(2) 31(2) 54(1) 40(1) 22(1) 38(1) 28(1) 15(1)
Grp 99(1) 93(3) 71(7) 91(2) 81(2) 48(8) 84(1) 70(2) 41(4)
Thgrp 99(1) 93(3) 71(7) 91(2) 81(2) 48(8) 84(2) 69(2) 41(3)
Agrp 99(1) 93(3) 71(7) 91(2) 81(2) 47(8) 84(1) 69(2) 40(4)
MCC Lasso 75(2) 63(2) 45(3) 60(1) 49(1) 33(1) 43(1) 35(1) 23(1)
Grp 97(1) 92(3) 76(5) 91(1) 80(2) 56(2) 81(2) 70(2) 48(2)
Thgrp 98(1) 93(2) 78(5) 92(1) 81(2) 57(3) 83(2) 72(2) 50(3)
Agrp 97(1) 92(3) 76(5) 91(1) 81(2) 56(3) 82(2) 71(2) 48(2)
ERR Lasso 10.5 11.3 13.9 16.63 17.37 16.69 19.79 20 18.52
LAG Grp 3.19 6.95 12.76 4.86 10.77 12.65 4.21 5.27 7.8
Thgrp 2.83 5.87 10.01 3.98 9.03 11.19 3.06 3.91 5.68
Agrp 3.13 6.89 12.59 4.63 10.37 12.34 3.58 4.87 7.59