Lead/Lag directionality is not generally equivalent to causality in nonlinear systems: Comparison of phase slope index and conditional mutual information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications of causal techniques to neural time series have increased extensively over last decades, including a wide and diverse family of methods focusing on electroencephalogram (EEG) analysis. Besides connectivity inferred in defined frequency bands, there is a growing interest in the analysis of cross-frequency interactions, in particular phase and amplitude coupling and directionality. Some studies show contradicting results of coupling directionality from high frequency to low frequency signal components, in spite of generally considered modulation of a high-frequency amplitude by a low-frequency phase. We have compared two widely used methods to estimate the directionality in cross frequency coupling: conditional mutual information (CMI) and phase slope index (PSI). The latter, applied to infer cross-frequency phase-amplitude directionality from animal intracranial recordings, gives opposite results when comparing to CMI. Both metrics were tested in a numerically simulated example of unidirectionally coupled Rössler systems, which helped to find the explanation of the contradictory results: PSI correctly estimates the lead/lag relationship which, however, is not generally equivalent to causality in the sense of directionality of coupling in nonlinear systems, correctly inferred by using CMI with surrogate data testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".