No abstract

Inverse Ising inference allows pairwise interactions of complex binary systems to be reconstructed from empirical correlations. Typical estimators used for this inference, such as Pseudo-likelihood maximization (PLM), are biased. Using the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model as a benchmark, we show that these biases are large in critical regimes close to phase boundaries, and may alter the qualitative interpretation of the inferred model. In particular, we show that the small-sample bias causes models inferred through PLM to appear closer-to-criticality than one would expect from the data. Data-driven methods to correct this bias are explored and applied to a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) dataset from neuroscience. Our results indicate that additional care should be taken when attributing criticality to real-world datasets.