Mathematical Modeling seminars

Changes in ocular hemodynamics may be indicative of pathological conditions in the eye (e.g. glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration), but also elsewhere in the body (e.g. systemic hypertension, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders). Thanks to its transparent fluids and structures that allow the light to go through, the eye offers a unique window on the circulation from large to small vessels, and from arteries to veins. Deciphering the causes that lead to changes in ocular hemodynamics in a specific individual could help prevent vision loss as well as aid in the diagnosis and management of diseases beyond the eye. In this talk, we will discuss how mathematical and computational modelling can help in this regard. We will focus on two main factors, namely blood pressure (BP), which drives the blood flow through the vessels, and intraocular pressure (IOP), which compresses the vessels and may impede the flow. Mechanism-driven models translates fundamental principles of physics and physiology into computable equations that allow for identification of cause-to-effect relationships among interplaying factors (e.g. BP, IOP, blood flow). While invaluable for causality, mechanism-driven models are often based on simplifying assumptions to make them tractable for analysis and simulation; however, this often brings into question their relevance beyond theoretical explorations. Data-driven models offer a natural remedy to address these short-comings. Data-driven methods may be supervised (based on labelled training data) or unsupervised (clustering and other data analytics) and they include models based on statistics, machine learning, deep learning and neural networks. Data-driven models naturally thrive on large datasets, making them scalable to a plethora of applications. While invaluable for scalability, data-driven models are often perceived as black- boxes, as their outcomes are difficult to explain in terms of fundamental principles of physics and physiology and this limits the delivery of actionable insights. The combination of mechanism-driven and data-driven models allows us to harness the advantages of both, as mechanism-driven models excel at interpretability but suffer from a lack of scalability, while data-driven models are excellent at scale but suffer in terms of generalizability and insights for hypothesis generation. This combined, integrative approach represents the pillar of the interdisciplinary approach to data science that will be discussed in this talk, with application to ocular hemodynamics and specific examples in glaucoma research.

The affinity between statistical physics and machine learning has a long history. I will describe the main lines of this long-lasting friendship in the context of current theoretical challenges and open questions about deep learning. Theoretical physics often proceeds in terms of solvable synthetic models, I will describe the related line of work on solvable models of simple feed-forward neural networks. I will highlight a path forward to capture the subtle interplay between the structure of the data, the architecture of the network, and the optimization algorithms commonly used for learning.

Networks are widely used as mathematical models of complex systems across many scientific disciplines, and in particular within neuroscience. In this talk, we introduce two aspects of our collaborative research: (1) machine learning and networks, and (2) graph dimensionality. Machine learning and networks. Decades of work have produced a vast corpus of research characterising the topological, combinatorial, statistical and spectral properties of graphs. Each graph property can be thought of as a feature that captures important (and sometimes overlapping) characteristics of a network. We have developed hcga, a framework for highly comparative analysis of graph data sets that computes several thousands of graph features from any given network. Taking inspiration from hctsa, hcga offers a suite of statistical learning and data analysis tools for automated identification and selection of important and interpretable features underpinning the characterisation of graph data sets. We show that hcga outperforms other methodologies (including deep learning) on supervised classification tasks on benchmark data sets whilst retaining the interpretability of network features, which we exemplify on a dataset of neuronal morphologies images. Graph dimensionality. Dimension is a fundamental property of objects and the space in which they are embedded. Yet ideal notions of dimension, as in Euclidean spaces, do not always translate to physical spaces, which can be constrained by boundaries and distorted by inhomogeneities, or to intrinsically discrete systems such as networks. Deviating from approaches based on fractals, here, we present a new framework to define intrinsic notions of dimension on networks, the relative, local and global dimension. We showcase our method on various physical systems.

The affinity between statistical physics and machine learning has long history, this is reflected even in the machine learning terminology that is in part adopted from physics. I will describe the main lines of this long-lasting friendship in the context of current theoretical challenges and open questions about deep learning. Theoretical physics often proceeds in terms of solvable synthetic models, I will describe the related line of work on solvable models of simple feed-forward neural networks. I will highlight a path forward to capture the subtle interplay between the structure of the data, the architecture of the network, and the learning algorithm.

Complex systems can be modeled at various levels of granularity, e.g., we can model a person at the cognitive level, on the neuronal level, or down to the biochemical level. When multiple models represent the same system at different scales, we would like to be able to reason about the causal effects of interventions on each level in such a way that the models remain consistent across levels. In the first part of this talk, I consider which conditions must be fulfilled for two structural equation models (SEMs) to stand in such a causally consistent relation. In the second part of the talk, I present recent work on learning causally consistent SEMs across multiple levels, distinguishing between bottom-up (micro- to macro-level) and top-down (macro- to micro-level) approaches.