The Origins of Computational Mechanics: A Brief Intellectual History and Several Clarifications

The principle goal of computational mechanics is to define pattern and structure so that the organization of complex systems can be detected and quantified. Computational mechanics developed from efforts in the 1970s and early 1980s to identify strange attractors as the mechanism driving weak fluid turbulence via the method of reconstructing attractor geometry from measurement time series and in the mid-1980s to estimate equations of motion directly from complex time series. In providing a mathematical and operational definition of structure it addressed weaknesses of these early approaches to discovering patterns in natural systems. Since then, computational mechanics has led to a range of results from theoretical physics and nonlinear mathematics to diverse applications---from closed-form analysis of Markov and non-Markov stochastic processes that are ergodic or nonergodic and their measures of information and intrinsic computation to complex materials and deterministic chaos and intelligence in Maxwellian demons to quantum compression of classical processes and the evolution of computation and language. This brief review clarifies several misunderstandings and addresses concerns recently raised regarding early works in the field (1980s). We show that misguided evaluations of the contributions of computational mechanics are groundless and stem from a lack of familiarity with its basic goals and from a failure to consider its historical context. For all practical purposes, its modern methods and results largely supersede the early works. This not only renders recent criticism moot and shows the solid ground on which computational mechanics stands but, most importantly, shows the significant progress achieved over three decades and points to the many intriguing and outstanding challenges in understanding the computational nature of complex dynamic systems.Comment: 11 pages, 123 citations; http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/compmech/pubs/cmr.ht

Switching Regression Models and Causal Inference in the Presence of Discrete Latent Variables

Given a response $Y$ and a vector $X = (X^1, \dots, X^d)$ of $d$ predictors, we investigate the problem of inferring direct causes of $Y$ among the vector $X$. Models for $Y$ that use all of its causal covariates as predictors enjoy the property of being invariant across different environments or interventional settings. Given data from such environments, this property has been exploited for causal discovery. Here, we extend this inference principle to situations in which some (discrete-valued) direct causes of $Y$ are unobserved. Such cases naturally give rise to switching regression models. We provide sufficient conditions for the existence, consistency and asymptotic normality of the MLE in linear switching regression models with Gaussian noise, and construct a test for the equality of such models. These results allow us to prove that the proposed causal discovery method obtains asymptotic false discovery control under mild conditions. We provide an algorithm, make available code, and test our method on simulated data. It is robust against model violations and outperforms state-of-the-art approaches. We further apply our method to a real data set, where we show that it does not only output causal predictors, but also a process-based clustering of data points, which could be of additional interest to practitioners.Comment: 46 pages, 14 figures; real-world application added in Section 5.2; additional numerical experiments added in the Appendix

The Infinite Latent Events Model

We present the Infinite Latent Events Model, a nonparametric hierarchical Bayesian distribution over infinite dimensional Dynamic Bayesian Networks with binary state representations and noisy-OR-like transitions. The distribution can be used to learn structure in discrete timeseries data by simultaneously inferring a set of latent events, which events fired at each timestep, and how those events are causally linked. We illustrate the model on a sound factorization task, a network topology identification task, and a video game task.NTT Communication Science LaboratoriesUnited States. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR FA9550-07-1-0075)United States. Office of Naval Research (ONR N00014-07-1-0937)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Graduate Research Fellowship)United States. Army Research Office (ARO W911NF-08-1-0242)James S. McDonnell Foundation (Causal Learning Collaborative Initiative

Causal Discovery from Temporal Data: An Overview and New Perspectives

Temporal data, representing chronological observations of complex systems, has always been a typical data structure that can be widely generated by many domains, such as industry, medicine and finance. Analyzing this type of data is extremely valuable for various applications. Thus, different temporal data analysis tasks, eg, classification, clustering and prediction, have been proposed in the past decades. Among them, causal discovery, learning the causal relations from temporal data, is considered an interesting yet critical task and has attracted much research attention. Existing casual discovery works can be divided into two highly correlated categories according to whether the temporal data is calibrated, ie, multivariate time series casual discovery, and event sequence casual discovery. However, most previous surveys are only focused on the time series casual discovery and ignore the second category. In this paper, we specify the correlation between the two categories and provide a systematical overview of existing solutions. Furthermore, we provide public datasets, evaluation metrics and new perspectives for temporal data casual discovery.Comment: 52 pages, 6 figure

Invariant Causal Prediction for Sequential Data

We investigate the problem of inferring the causal predictors of a response $Y$ from a set of $d$ explanatory variables $(X^1,\dots,X^d)$. Classical ordinary least squares regression includes all predictors that reduce the variance of $Y$. Using only the causal predictors instead leads to models that have the advantage of remaining invariant under interventions, loosely speaking they lead to invariance across different "environments" or "heterogeneity patterns". More precisely, the conditional distribution of $Y$ given its causal predictors remains invariant for all observations. Recent work exploits such a stability to infer causal relations from data with different but known environments. We show that even without having knowledge of the environments or heterogeneity pattern, inferring causal relations is possible for time-ordered (or any other type of sequentially ordered) data. In particular, this allows detecting instantaneous causal relations in multivariate linear time series which is usually not the case for Granger causality. Besides novel methodology, we provide statistical confidence bounds and asymptotic detection results for inferring causal predictors, and present an application to monetary policy in macroeconomics.Comment: 55 page

Vanilla PP for Philosophers: A Primer on Predictive Processing

The goal of this short chapter, aimed at philosophers, is to provide an overview and brief explanation of some central concepts involved in predictive processing (PP). Even those who consider themselves experts on the topic may find it helpful to see how the central terms are used in this collection. To keep things simple, we will first informally define a set of features important to predictive processing, supplemented by some short explanations and an alphabetic glossary. The features described here are not shared in all PP accounts. Some may not be necessary for an individual model; others may be contested. Indeed, not even all authors of this collection will accept all of them. To make this transparent, we have encouraged contributors to indicate briefly which of the features are necessary to support the arguments they provide, and which (if any) are incompatible with their account. For the sake of clarity, we provide the complete list here, very roughly ordered by how central we take them to be for “Vanilla PP” (i.e., a formulation of predictive processing that will probably be accepted by most researchers working on this topic). More detailed explanations will be given below. Note that these features do not specify individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of “predictive processing”. All we currently have is a semantic cluster, with perhaps some overlapping sets of jointly sufficient criteria. The framework is still developing, and it is difficult, maybe impossible, to provide theory-neutral explanations of all PP ideas without already introducing strong background assumptions