Echo State Network models for nonlinear Granger causality

While Granger Causality (GC) has been often employed in network neuroscience, most GC applications are based on linear multivariate autoregressive (MVAR) models. However, real-life systems like biological networks exhibit notable non-linear behavior, hence undermining the validity of MVAR-based GC (MVAR-GC). Current nonlinear GC estimators only cater for additive nonlinearities or, alternatively, are based on recurrent neural networks (RNN) or Long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, which present considerable training difficulties and tailoring needs. We define a novel approach to estimating nonlinear, directed within-network interactions through a RNN class termed echo-state networks (ESN), where training is replaced by random initialization of an internal basis based on orthonormal matrices. We reformulate the GC framework in terms of ESN-based models, our ESN-based Granger Causality (ES-GC) estimator in a network of noisy Duffing oscillators, showing a net advantage of ES-GC in detecting nonlinear, causal links. We then explore the structure of ES-GC networks in the human brain employing functional MRI data from 1003 healthy subjects drawn from the human connectome project, demonstrating the existence of previously unknown directed within-brain interactions. ES-GC performs better than commonly used and recently developed GC approaches, making it a valuable tool for the analysis of e.g. multivariate biological networks.

[1]  A. Seth,et al.  Granger causality and transfer entropy are equivalent for Gaussian variables. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[2]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  LSTM: A Search Space Odyssey , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[3]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Multivariate Granger causality analysis of fMRI data , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[4]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview , 2013, NeuroImage.

[5]  A. Seth,et al.  Multivariate Granger causality and generalized variance. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  Zhiyuan Tang,et al.  Recurrent neural network training with dark knowledge transfer , 2015, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[7]  Tshilidzi Marwala Neural Networks for Modeling Granger Causality , 2015 .

[8]  Andrea Duggento,et al.  Multivariate Granger causality unveils directed parietal to prefrontal cortex connectivity during task-free MRI , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[9]  Emily B. Fox,et al.  An Interpretable and Sparse Neural Network Model for Nonlinear Granger Causality Discovery , 2017, 1711.08160.

[10]  C. Granger Testing for causality: a personal viewpoint , 1980 .

[11]  A. Seth,et al.  Granger causality for state-space models. , 2015, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Wei Liu,et al.  Discovering Granger-Causal Features from Deep Learning Networks , 2018, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[13]  François Benhmad Modeling nonlinear Granger causality between the oil price and U.S. dollar: A wavelet based approach , 2012 .

[14]  Mark Jenkinson,et al.  The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project , 2013, NeuroImage.

[15]  Doina Bucur,et al.  Causal Discovery with Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks , 2019, Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr..

[16]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis , 2003, ICTAI.

[17]  Patrick L. Purdon,et al.  Reply to Barnett et al.: Regarding interpretation of Granger causality analyses , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  T. Bossomaier,et al.  Transfer entropy as a log-likelihood ratio. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[19]  C. Granger Testing for causality: a personal viewpoint , 1980 .

[20]  Ali Shojaie,et al.  Network granger causality with inherent grouping structure , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[21]  Maxime Descoteaux,et al.  Tractography and machine learning: Current state and open challenges , 2019, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[22]  Luca Faes,et al.  Neural networks with non-uniform embedding and explicit validation phase to assess Granger causality , 2015, Neural Networks.

[23]  Herbert Jaeger,et al.  The''echo state''approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks , 2001 .

[24]  Patrick L Purdon,et al.  A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Mingzhou Ding,et al.  Is Granger Causality a Viable Technique for Analyzing fMRI Data? , 2013, PloS one.

[26]  Guorong Wu,et al.  A blind deconvolution approach to recover effective connectivity brain networks from resting state fMRI data , 2012, Medical Image Anal..

[27]  G. Rangarajan,et al.  Multiple Nonlinear Time Series with Extended Granger Causality , 2004 .

[28]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Six problems for causal inference from fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[29]  J. Geweke,et al.  Measures of Conditional Linear Dependence and Feedback between Time Series , 1984 .

[30]  Jianfeng Feng,et al.  Granger Causality: Theory and Applications , 2010 .

[31]  Anil K. Seth,et al.  Solved problems for Granger causality in neuroscience: A response to Stokes and Purdon , 2018, NeuroImage.

[32]  D. M. Titterington,et al.  Neural Networks: A Review from a Statistical Perspective , 1994 .

[33]  R. Shibata Selection of the order of an autoregressive model by Akaike's information criterion , 1976 .

[34]  L. Faes,et al.  Multiscale Granger causality. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[35]  Anil K. Seth,et al.  Misunderstandings regarding the application of Granger causality in neuroscience , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Pedro D. Maia,et al.  Inferring connectivity in networked dynamical systems: Challenges using Granger causality. , 2016, Physical review. E.

[37]  C. Granger Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[38]  Daniele Marinazzo,et al.  Kernel method for nonlinear granger causality. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[39]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[40]  Gang Pan,et al.  Estimating Brain Connectivity With Varying-Length Time Lags Using a Recurrent Neural Network , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[41]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs: Notation , 2001 .

[42]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  Group-PCA for very large fMRI datasets , 2014, NeuroImage.

[43]  Andrea Duggento,et al.  Functional connectivity in amygdalar‐sensory/(pre)motor networks at rest: new evidence from the Human Connectome Project , 2017, The European journal of neuroscience.

[44]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  FSL , 2012, NeuroImage.

[45]  Ninon Burgos,et al.  New advances in the Clinica software platform for clinical neuroimaging studies , 2019 .

[46]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Learning to Forget: Continual Prediction with LSTM , 2000, Neural Computation.

[47]  Luca Faes,et al.  On the interpretability and computational reliability of frequency-domain Granger causality , 2017, F1000Research.

[48]  M Palus,et al.  Synchronization as adjustment of information rates: detection from bivariate time series. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[49]  E. Fox,et al.  Neural Granger Causality for Nonlinear Time Series , 2018, 1802.05842.