Disentangling causal webs in the brain using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A review of current approaches

In the past two decades, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging has been used to relate neuronal network activity to cognitive processing and behaviour. Recently this approach has been augmented by algorithms that allow us to infer causal links between component populations of neuronal networks. Multiple inference procedures have been proposed to approach this research question but so far, each method has limitations when it comes to establishing whole-brain connectivity patterns. In this work, we discuss eight ways to infer causality in fMRI research: Bayesian Nets, Dynamical Causal Modelling, Granger Causality, Likelihood Ratios, LiNGAM, Patel's Tau, Structural Equation Modelling, and Transfer Entropy. We finish with formulating some recommendations for the future directions in this area

Non-parametric Bayesian modeling of complex networks

Modeling structure in complex networks using Bayesian non-parametrics makes it possible to specify flexible model structures and infer the adequate model complexity from the observed data. This paper provides a gentle introduction to non-parametric Bayesian modeling of complex networks: Using an infinite mixture model as running example we go through the steps of deriving the model as an infinite limit of a finite parametric model, inferring the model parameters by Markov chain Monte Carlo, and checking the model's fit and predictive performance. We explain how advanced non-parametric models for complex networks can be derived and point out relevant literature

Different approaches to community detection

A precise definition of what constitutes a community in networks has remained elusive. Consequently, network scientists have compared community detection algorithms on benchmark networks with a particular form of community structure and classified them based on the mathematical techniques they employ. However, this comparison can be misleading because apparent similarities in their mathematical machinery can disguise different reasons for why we would want to employ community detection in the first place. Here we provide a focused review of these different motivations that underpin community detection. This problem-driven classification is useful in applied network science, where it is important to select an appropriate algorithm for the given purpose. Moreover, highlighting the different approaches to community detection also delineates the many lines of research and points out open directions and avenues for future research.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figures. Written as a chapter for forthcoming Advances in network clustering and blockmodeling, and based on an extended version of The many facets of community detection in complex networks, Appl. Netw. Sci. 2: 4 (2017) by the same author

Structure Learning in Coupled Dynamical Systems and Dynamic Causal Modelling

Identifying a coupled dynamical system out of many plausible candidates, each of which could serve as the underlying generator of some observed measurements, is a profoundly ill posed problem that commonly arises when modelling real world phenomena. In this review, we detail a set of statistical procedures for inferring the structure of nonlinear coupled dynamical systems (structure learning), which has proved useful in neuroscience research. A key focus here is the comparison of competing models of (ie, hypotheses about) network architectures and implicit coupling functions in terms of their Bayesian model evidence. These methods are collectively referred to as dynamical casual modelling (DCM). We focus on a relatively new approach that is proving remarkably useful; namely, Bayesian model reduction (BMR), which enables rapid evaluation and comparison of models that differ in their network architecture. We illustrate the usefulness of these techniques through modelling neurovascular coupling (cellular pathways linking neuronal and vascular systems), whose function is an active focus of research in neurobiology and the imaging of coupled neuronal systems

Graphs in machine learning: an introduction

Graphs are commonly used to characterise interactions between objects of interest. Because they are based on a straightforward formalism, they are used in many scientific fields from computer science to historical sciences. In this paper, we give an introduction to some methods relying on graphs for learning. This includes both unsupervised and supervised methods. Unsupervised learning algorithms usually aim at visualising graphs in latent spaces and/or clustering the nodes. Both focus on extracting knowledge from graph topologies. While most existing techniques are only applicable to static graphs, where edges do not evolve through time, recent developments have shown that they could be extended to deal with evolving networks. In a supervised context, one generally aims at inferring labels or numerical values attached to nodes using both the graph and, when they are available, node characteristics. Balancing the two sources of information can be challenging, especially as they can disagree locally or globally. In both contexts, supervised and un-supervised, data can be relational (augmented with one or several global graphs) as described above, or graph valued. In this latter case, each object of interest is given as a full graph (possibly completed by other characteristics). In this context, natural tasks include graph clustering (as in producing clusters of graphs rather than clusters of nodes in a single graph), graph classification, etc. 1 Real networks One of the first practical studies on graphs can be dated back to the original work of Moreno [51] in the 30s. Since then, there has been a growing interest in graph analysis associated with strong developments in the modelling and the processing of these data. Graphs are now used in many scientific fields. In Biology [54, 2, 7], for instance, metabolic networks can describe pathways of biochemical reactions [41], while in social sciences networks are used to represent relation ties between actors [66, 56, 36, 34]. Other examples include powergrids [71] and the web [75]. Recently, networks have also been considered in other areas such as geography [22] and history [59, 39]. In machine learning, networks are seen as powerful tools to model problems in order to extract information from data and for prediction purposes. This is the object of this paper. For more complete surveys, we refer to [28, 62, 49, 45]. In this section, we introduce notations and highlight properties shared by most real networks. In Section 2, we then consider methods aiming at extracting information from a unique network. We will particularly focus on clustering methods where the goal is to find clusters of vertices. Finally, in Section 3, techniques that take a series of networks into account, where each network i