This paper studies Graphical SLOPE for precision matrix estimation, with emphasis on its ability to recover both sparsity and clusters of edges with equal or similar strength. In a fixed-dimensional regime, we establish that the root-$n$ scaled estimation error converges to the unique minimizer of a strictly convex optimization problem defined through the directional derivative of the SLOPE penalty. We also establish convergence of the induced SLOPE pattern, thereby obtaining an asymptotic characterization of the clustering structure selected by the estimator. A comparison with GLASSO shows that the grouping property of SLOPE can substantially improve estimation accuracy when the precision matrix exhibits structured edge patterns. To assess the effect of departures from Gaussianity, we then analyze Gaussian-loss precision matrix estimation under elliptical distributions. In this setting, we derive the limiting distribution and quantify the inflation in variability induced by heavy tails relative to the Gaussian benchmark. We also study TSLOPE, based on the multivariate $t$-loss, and derive its limiting distribution. The results show that TSLOPE offers clear advantages over GSLOPE under heavy-tailed data-generating mechanisms. Simulation evidence suggests that these qualitative conclusions persist in high-dimensional settings, and an empirical application shows that SLOPE-based estimators, especially TSLOPE, can uncover economically meaningful clustered dependence structures.

In many applications, observations are naturally grouped into different classes.

We propose estimating Gaussian graphical models (GGMs) that are fair with respect to sensitive nodal attributes .

The proof of this lemma requires Lemma A.1, which characterizes the distribution of the residual By Pinsker's inequality, this implies d By Lemma A.1, we have E[ X ( null w w The proof is inspired by Theorem 11.2 in [20], with modifications to our setting. First, we construct a "ghost" dataset The most challenging aspect of the ReLU setting is that we do not have an expression for the TV suffered by the MLE, such as Lemma 4.2 in the linear case. The proof of this Lemma, as well as other Lemmas in this section, can be found in Appendix B.1. Using Lemma B.2 and Lemma B.3, we can form a uniform bound, such that all A straight forward combination of Lemma 4.3 and Lemma B.4 gives the following Theorem. Now we can apply Bernstein's inequality (Theorem 2.10 of [8]).

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/