Convergent cross mapping: Difference between revisions
ChromeGames (talk | contribs) m Adding short description: "Statistical test for causality" (Shortdesc helper) |
Update with accurate algorithmic description, citations, and recent extensions. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Statistical test for causality}} |
{{Short description|Statistical test for causality}} |
||
'''Convergent cross mapping''' ('''CCM''') is a [[statistical test]] for a [[Causality|cause-and-effect relationship]] between two [[Variable (mathematics)|variables]] that, like the [[Granger causality]] test, seeks to resolve the problem that [[correlation does not imply causation]].<ref name="Sugihara 2012">''[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/496]'' Sugihara G., May R., Ye H., Hsieh C., Deyle E., Fogarty M., Munch S., 2012. Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems. Science 338:496-500</ref> While Granger causality is best suited for purely [[stochastic]] systems where the influences of the causal variables are separable (independent of each other), CCM is based on the theory of [[dynamical system]]s and can be applied to systems where causal variables have synergistic effects. |
|||
'''Convergent cross mapping''' ('''CCM''') is a [[statistical test]] for a [[Causality|cause-and-effect relationship]] between two [[time series]] [[Variable (mathematics)|variables]] that, like the [[Granger causality]] test, seeks to resolve the problem that [[correlation does not imply causation]].<ref name="Sugihara 2012">{{cite journal|last=Sugihara|first=George|title=Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems|journal=Science|date=26 October 2012|volume=338|pages=496–500|doi=10.1126/science.1227079|url=http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/sugihara-causality-science-2012.pdf|accessdate=5 July 2013|pmid=22997134|issue=6106|display-authors=etal|bibcode=2012Sci...338..496S}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Cause test could end up in court|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528842.100-cause-test-could-end-up-in-court.html|accessdate=5 July 2013|newspaper=New Scientist|issue=2884|at=Opinion|date=28 September 2012}}</ref> While Granger causality is best suited for purely [[stochastic]] systems where the influences of the causal variables are separable (independent of each other), CCM is based on the theory of [[dynamical system]]s and can be applied to systems where causal variables have synergistic effects. The fundamental idea of this test was first published by Cenys et al. in 1991<ref>{{cite journal | last=Čenys | first=A. | last2=Lasiene | first2=G. | last3=Pyragas | first3=K. | title=Estimation of interrelation between chaotic observables | journal=Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=52 | issue=2–3 | year=1991 | issn=0167-2789 | doi=10.1016/0167-2789(91)90130-2 | pages=332–337}}</ref> and used in a series of statistical approaches (see for example,<ref>{{cite journal | last=Schiff | first=Steven J. | last2=So | first2=Paul | last3=Chang | first3=Taeun | last4=Burke | first4=Robert E. | last5=Sauer | first5=Tim | title=Detecting dynamical interdependence and generalized synchrony through mutual prediction in a neural ensemble | journal=Physical Review E | publisher=American Physical Society (APS) | volume=54 | issue=6 | date=1996-12-01 | issn=1063-651X | doi=10.1103/physreve.54.6708 | pages=6708–6724}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Arnhold | first=J. | last2=Grassberger | first2=P. | last3=Lehnertz | first3=K. | last4=Elger | first4=C.E. | title=A robust method for detecting interdependences: application to intracranially recorded EEG | journal=Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=134 | issue=4 | year=1999 | issn=0167-2789 | doi=10.1016/s0167-2789(99)00140-2 |arxiv=chao-dyn/9907013 | pages=419–430}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Chicharro | first=Daniel | last2=Andrzejak | first2=Ralph G. | title=Reliable detection of directional couplings using rank statistics | journal=Physical Review E | publisher=American Physical Society (APS) | volume=80 | issue=2 | date=2009-08-27 | issn=1539-3755 | doi=10.1103/physreve.80.026217 | page=026217| hdl=10230/16204 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>). It was then further elaborated in 2012 by the lab of [[George Sugihara]] of the [[Scripps Institution of Oceanography]].<ref>[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528843.300-causality-test-could-help-preserve-the-natural-world.html?full=true Michael Marshall in New Scientist magazine 2884: Causality test could help preserve the natural world, 28 September 2012]</ref> |
|||
==Theory== |
==Theory== |
||
In the event one has access to system variables as [[time series]] observations, [[Takens' theorem|Takens' embedding theorem]] can be applied. Takens' theorem guarantees the [[State_space|state space]] of a dynamical system can be reconstructed from a single observed time series of the system, <math>X</math>. This reconstructed or ''shadow manifold'' <math>M_X</math> is [[diffeomorphic]] to the true manifold, <math>M</math>, preserving instrinsic state space properties of <math>M</math> in <math>M_X</math>. |
|||
Convergent Cross Mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem <ref>''[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018295]'' Deyle ER, Sugihara G (2011) Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction. PLoS ONE 6(3): e18295</ref> that it should be possible to cross predict or ''cross map'' between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables <math>X</math> and <math>Y</math>, <math>X</math> causes <math>Y</math>. Since <math>X</math> and <math>Y</math> belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions via embeddings <math>M_{X}</math> and <math>M_{Y}</math>, also map to the same system. |
|||
⚫ | Cross mapping |
||
The causal variable <math>X</math> leaves a signature on the affected variable <math>Y</math>, and consequently, the reconstructed states based on <math>Y</math> can be used to cross predict values of <math>X</math>. CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting <math>X</math> using the <math>M_{Y}</math> library of points (or vice-versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of <math>M_{Y}</math> are used. If the prediction skill of <math>X</math> increases and saturates as the entire <math>M_{Y}</math> is used, this provides evidence that <math>X</math> is casually influencing <math>Y</math>. |
|||
⚫ | Cross mapping is generally asymmetric. If <math>X</math> forces <math>Y</math> unidirectionally, variable <math>Y</math> will contain information about <math>X</math>, but not vice versa. Consequently, the state of <math>X</math> can be predicted from <math>M_Y</math>, but <math>Y</math> will not be predictable from <math>M_X</math>. |
||
==Algorithm== |
==Algorithm== |
||
The basic steps of convergent cross mapping for a variable <math>X</math> of length <math>N</math> against variable <math>Y</math> are: |
|||
The basic steps of the convergent cross mapping test according to<ref>{{cite journal |last=McCracken|first=James|date=2014|title=Convergent cross-mapping and pairwise asymmetric inference|arxiv=1407.5696 |journal=Physical Review E |volume=90 |issue= 6|pages= 062903|bibcode=2014PhRvE..90f2903M|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.90.062903 |pmid=25615160}}</ref> |
|||
# |
# If needed, create the state space manifold <math>M_Y</math> from <math>Y</math> |
||
# Define a sequence of library subset sizes <math>L</math> ranging from a small fraction of <math>N</math> to close to <math>N</math>. |
|||
# Find the nearest neighbors to a point in the shadow manifold at time {{var|t}} |
|||
# Define a number of ensembles <math>N_E</math> to evaluate at each library size. |
|||
# Create weights using the nearest neighbors |
|||
# At each library subset size <math>L_i</math>: |
|||
# Estimate {{var|Y}} using the weights; (this estimate is called <math>Y</math> | <math>M_X</math> ) |
|||
## For <math>N_E</math> ensembles: |
|||
⚫ | |||
### Randomly select <math>L_i</math> state space vectors from <math>M_Y</math> |
|||
### Estimate <math>\hat{X}</math> from the random subset of <math>M_Y</math> using the the [[Empirical_dynamic_modeling#Simplex|Simplex]] state space prediction |
|||
⚫ | |||
## Compute the mean correlation <math>\bar{\rho}</math> over the <math>N_E</math> ensembles at <math>L_i</math> |
|||
# The spectrum of <math>\bar{\rho}</math> versus <math>L</math> must exhibit convergence. |
|||
# Assess significance. One technique is to compare <math>\bar{\rho}</math> to <math>\bar{\rho_S}</math> computed from <math>S</math> random realizations (surrogates) of <math>X</math>. |
|||
==Applications== |
==Applications== |
||
*Demonstrating that the apparent correlation between [[South American pilchard|sardine]] and [[Californian anchovy|anchovy]] in the [[California Current]] is due to shared climate forcing and not direct interaction.<ref name="Sugihara 2012" /> |
*Demonstrating that the apparent correlation between [[South American pilchard|sardine]] and [[Californian anchovy|anchovy]] in the [[California Current]] is due to shared climate forcing and not direct interaction.<ref name="Sugihara 2012" /> |
||
*Inferring the causal direction between groups of neurons in the brain.<ref |
*Inferring the causal direction between groups of neurons in the brain.<ref>''[https://openreview.net/forum?id=4TSiOTkKe5P]''De Brouwer E. (2021) Latent Convergent Cross Mapping, International Conference on Learning Representation (ICLR), Vienna, Austria, May 4 2021.</ref> |
||
*Untangling Brain-Wide Dynamics in Consciousness<ref>''[https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004537]''Tajima S, Yanagawa T, Fujii N, Toyoizumi T (2015) Untangling Brain-Wide Dynamics in Consciousness by Cross-Embedding. PLoS Comput Biol 11(11): e1004537. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004537</ref> |
|||
*Environmental context dependency in species interactions <ref>''[https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2118539119]'' Liu, Owen R., Gaines, Steven D. (2022). Environmental context dependency in species interactions. PNAS 119 (36) e2118539119 doi:10.1073/pnas.2118539119</ref> |
|||
==Extensions== |
|||
Extensions to CCM include: |
|||
* Extended Convergent Cross Mapping<ref>''[https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14750]''Ye, H., Deyle, E., Gilarranz, L. et al., 2015. Distinguishing time-delayed causal interactions using convergent cross mapping. Sci Rep 5, 14750 (2015). doi:10.1038/srep14750</ref> |
|||
* Convergent Cross Sorting<ref>''[https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98864-2]'' Breston, L., Leonardis, E.J., Quinn, L.K. et al. 2021. Convergent cross sorting for estimating dynamic coupling. Sci Rep 11, 20374 (2021). doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98864-2</ref> |
|||
== See also == |
|||
* [[Empirical dynamic modeling]] |
|||
* [[System dynamics]] |
|||
* [[Complex dynamics]] |
|||
* [[Nonlinear dimensionality reduction]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
<References/> |
|||
== |
== Further reading == |
||
* {{cite journal |
|||
|journal = Ecol Res |
|||
|year = 2017 |
|||
|title = Empirical dynamic modeling for beginners |
|||
|pages = 785–796 |
|||
|author = Chang, CW., Ushio, M. & Hsieh, Ch. |
|||
|volume = 32 |
|||
|doi = 10.1007/s11284-017-1469-9 |
|||
|url = https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-017-1469-9 |
|||
}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |
|||
|journal = ICES Journal of Marine Science |
|||
|year = 2020 |
|||
|title = Frequently asked questions about nonlinear dynamics and empirical dynamic modelling |
|||
|pages = 1463–1479 |
|||
|author = Stephan B Munch, Antoine Brias, [[George Sugihara]], Tanya L Rogers |
|||
|volume = 77 |
|||
|doi = 10.1093/icesjms/fsz209 |
|||
|issue = 4 |
|||
|url = https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz209 |
|||
}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
Animations: |
Animations: |
||
* {{YouTube|7ucgQE3SO0o|State Space Reconstruction: Time Series and Dynamic Systems}} |
* {{YouTube|7ucgQE3SO0o|State Space Reconstruction: Time Series and Dynamic Systems}} |
||
Line 29: | Line 77: | ||
* {{YouTube|NrFdIz-D2yM|State Space Reconstruction: Convergent Cross Mapping}} |
* {{YouTube|NrFdIz-D2yM|State Space Reconstruction: Convergent Cross Mapping}} |
||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[:Category:Empirical_research]] |
|||
[[:Category:Nonlinear_systems]] |
|||
[[:Category:Predictive analytics]] |
|||
[[:Category:Nonlinear_time_series_analysis]] |
|||
⚫ |
Revision as of 04:36, 16 September 2022
Convergent cross mapping (CCM) is a statistical test for a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables that, like the Granger causality test, seeks to resolve the problem that correlation does not imply causation.[1] While Granger causality is best suited for purely stochastic systems where the influences of the causal variables are separable (independent of each other), CCM is based on the theory of dynamical systems and can be applied to systems where causal variables have synergistic effects.
Theory
In the event one has access to system variables as time series observations, Takens' embedding theorem can be applied. Takens' theorem guarantees the state space of a dynamical system can be reconstructed from a single observed time series of the system, . This reconstructed or shadow manifold is diffeomorphic to the true manifold, , preserving instrinsic state space properties of in .
Convergent Cross Mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem [2] that it should be possible to cross predict or cross map between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables and , causes . Since and belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions via embeddings and , also map to the same system.
The causal variable leaves a signature on the affected variable , and consequently, the reconstructed states based on can be used to cross predict values of . CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting using the library of points (or vice-versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of are used. If the prediction skill of increases and saturates as the entire is used, this provides evidence that is casually influencing .
Cross mapping is generally asymmetric. If forces unidirectionally, variable will contain information about , but not vice versa. Consequently, the state of can be predicted from , but will not be predictable from .
Algorithm
The basic steps of convergent cross mapping for a variable of length against variable are:
- If needed, create the state space manifold from
- Define a sequence of library subset sizes ranging from a small fraction of to close to .
- Define a number of ensembles to evaluate at each library size.
- At each library subset size :
- For ensembles:
- Randomly select state space vectors from
- Estimate from the random subset of using the the Simplex state space prediction
- Compute the correlation between and
- Compute the mean correlation over the ensembles at
- For ensembles:
- The spectrum of versus must exhibit convergence.
- Assess significance. One technique is to compare to computed from random realizations (surrogates) of .
Applications
- Demonstrating that the apparent correlation between sardine and anchovy in the California Current is due to shared climate forcing and not direct interaction.[1]
- Inferring the causal direction between groups of neurons in the brain.[3]
- Untangling Brain-Wide Dynamics in Consciousness[4]
- Environmental context dependency in species interactions [5]
Extensions
Extensions to CCM include:
See also
References
- ^ a b [1] Sugihara G., May R., Ye H., Hsieh C., Deyle E., Fogarty M., Munch S., 2012. Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems. Science 338:496-500
- ^ [2] Deyle ER, Sugihara G (2011) Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction. PLoS ONE 6(3): e18295
- ^ [3]De Brouwer E. (2021) Latent Convergent Cross Mapping, International Conference on Learning Representation (ICLR), Vienna, Austria, May 4 2021.
- ^ [4]Tajima S, Yanagawa T, Fujii N, Toyoizumi T (2015) Untangling Brain-Wide Dynamics in Consciousness by Cross-Embedding. PLoS Comput Biol 11(11): e1004537. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004537
- ^ [5] Liu, Owen R., Gaines, Steven D. (2022). Environmental context dependency in species interactions. PNAS 119 (36) e2118539119 doi:10.1073/pnas.2118539119
- ^ [6]Ye, H., Deyle, E., Gilarranz, L. et al., 2015. Distinguishing time-delayed causal interactions using convergent cross mapping. Sci Rep 5, 14750 (2015). doi:10.1038/srep14750
- ^ [7] Breston, L., Leonardis, E.J., Quinn, L.K. et al. 2021. Convergent cross sorting for estimating dynamic coupling. Sci Rep 11, 20374 (2021). doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98864-2
Further reading
- Chang, CW., Ushio, M. & Hsieh, Ch. (2017). "Empirical dynamic modeling for beginners". Ecol Res. 32: 785–796. doi:10.1007/s11284-017-1469-9.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Stephan B Munch, Antoine Brias, George Sugihara, Tanya L Rogers (2020). "Frequently asked questions about nonlinear dynamics and empirical dynamic modelling". ICES Journal of Marine Science. 77 (4): 1463–1479. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz209.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
External links
Animations:
- State Space Reconstruction: Time Series and Dynamic Systems on YouTube
- State Space Reconstruction: Takens' Theorem and Shadow Manifolds on YouTube
- State Space Reconstruction: Convergent Cross Mapping on YouTube
Category:Empirical_research Category:Nonlinear_systems Category:Predictive analytics Category:Nonlinear_time_series_analysis Category:Time series statistical tests