Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Identifying Dynamic Regulation with Adversarial Surrogates

Published 29 Nov 2023 in eess.SY and cs.SY | (2311.17783v1)

Abstract: Homeostasis, the ability to maintain a stable internal environment in the face of perturbations, is essential for the functioning of living systems. Given observations of a system, or even a detailed model of one, it is both valuable and extremely challenging to extract the control objectives of the homeostatic mechanisms. Lacking a clear separation between plant and controller, frameworks such as inverse optimal control and inverse reinforcement learning are unable to identify the homeostatic mechanisms. A recently developed data-driven algorithm, Identifying Regulation with Adversarial Surrogates (IRAS), detects highly regulated or conserved quantities as the solution of a min-max optimization scheme that automates classical surrogate data methods. Yet, the definition of homeostasis as regulation within narrow limits is too strict for biological systems which show sustained oscillations such as circadian rhythms. In this work, we introduce Identifying Dynamic Regulation with Adversarial Surrogates (IDRAS), a generalization of the IRAS algorithm, capable of identifying control objectives that are regulated with respect to a dynamical reference value. We test the algorithm on simulation data from realistic biological models and benchmark physical systems, demonstrating excellent empirical results.

Authors (3)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. G. E. Billman, “Homeostasis: the underappreciated and far too often ignored central organizing principle of physiology,” Frontiers in Physiology, p. 200, 2020.
  2. V. Hsiao, A. Swaminathan, and R. M. Murray, “Control theory for synthetic biology: recent advances in system characterization, control design, and controller implementation for synthetic biology,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 32–62, 2018.
  3. M. E. Kotas and R. Medzhitov, “Homeostasis, inflammation, and disease susceptibility,” Cell, vol. 160, no. 5, pp. 816–827, 2015.
  4. K. Thorsen, O. Agafonov, C. H. Selstø, I. W. Jolma, X. Y. Ni, T. Drengstig, and P. Ruoff, “Robust concentration and frequency control in oscillatory homeostats,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 9, p. e107766, 2014.
  5. D. T. Krieger, “The clocks that time us:(physiology of the circadian timing system).” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 559–560, 1982.
  6. M. Di Rienzo, G. Parati, A. Radaelli, and P. Castiglioni, “Baroreflex contribution to blood pressure and heart rate oscillations: time scales, time-variant characteristics and nonlinearities,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 367, no. 1892, pp. 1301–1318, 2009.
  7. M. C. Moore-Ede, “Physiology of the circadian timing system: predictive versus reactive homeostasis,” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 250, no. 5, pp. R737–R752, 1986.
  8. N. Ab Azar, A. Shahmansoorian, and M. Davoudi, “From inverse optimal control to inverse reinforcement learning: A historical review,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 50, pp. 119–138, 2020.
  9. S. Arora and P. Doshi, “A survey of inverse reinforcement learning: Challenges, methods and progress,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 297, p. 103500, 2021.
  10. C. S. Pittendrigh and D. H. Minis, “The entrainment of circadian oscillations by light and their role as photoperiodic clocks,” The American Naturalist, vol. 98, no. 902, pp. 261–294, 1964.
  11. J. F. Duffy and K. P. Wright Jr, “Entrainment of the human circadian system by light,” Journal of biological rhythms, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 326–338, 2005.
  12. L. M. Ricciardi and L. Sacerdote, “The ornstein-uhlenbeck process as a model for neuronal activity: I. mean and variance of the firing time,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1979.
  13. R. Teichner, A. Shomar, O. Barak, N. Brenner, S. Marom, R. Meir, and D. Eytan, “Identifying regulation with adversarial surrogates,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120, no. 12, p. e2216805120, 2023.
  14. H. W. Yang, M. Guo, and H. He, “Conservation laws of space-time fractional mzk equation for rossby solitary waves with complete coriolis force,” International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 17–32, 2019.
  15. N. Watters, D. Zoran, T. Weber, P. Battaglia, R. Pascanu, and A. Tacchetti, “Visual interaction networks: Learning a physics simulator from video,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  16. A. Santoro, D. Raposo, D. G. Barrett, M. Malinowski, R. Pascanu, P. Battaglia, and T. Lillicrap, “A simple neural network module for relational reasoning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  17. J. B. Hamrick, K. R. Allen, V. Bapst, T. Zhu, K. R. McKee, J. B. Tenenbaum, and P. W. Battaglia, “Relational inductive bias for physical construction in humans and machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01203, 2018.
  18. F. de Avila Belbute-Peres, K. Smith, K. Allen, J. Tenenbaum, and J. Z. Kolter, “End-to-end differentiable physics for learning and control,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018.
  19. M. B. Chang, T. Ullman, A. Torralba, and J. B. Tenenbaum, “A compositional object-based approach to learning physical dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00341, 2016.
  20. J. B. Tenenbaum, V. d. Silva, and J. C. Langford, “A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction,” science, vol. 290, no. 5500, pp. 2319–2323, 2000.
  21. A. R. Adem and C. M. Khalique, “Symmetry reductions, exact solutions and conservation laws of a new coupled kdv system,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 3465–3475, 2012.
  22. S. Y. Lukashchuk, “Conservation laws for time-fractional subdiffusion and diffusion-wave equations,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 791–802, 2015.
  23. A. R. Adem and B. Muatjetjeja, “Conservation laws and exact solutions for a 2d zakharov–kuznetsov equation,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 48, pp. 109–117, 2015.
  24. O. El-Kalaawy, “Variational principle, conservation laws and exact solutions for dust ion acoustic shock waves modeling modified burger equation,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1031–1041, 2016.
  25. ——, “Modulational instability: conservation laws and bright soliton solution of ion-acoustic waves in electron-positron-ion-dust plasmas,” The European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 133, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2018.
  26. ——, “New: Variational principle–exact solutions and conservation laws for modified ion-acoustic shock waves and double layers with electron degenerate in plasma,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 032308, 2017.
  27. O. El-Kalaawy, S. Moawad, and S. Wael, “Stability: Conservation laws, painlevé analysis and exact solutions for s-kp equation in coupled dusty plasma,” Results in physics, vol. 7, pp. 934–946, 2017.
  28. S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 113, no. 15, pp. 3932–3937, 2016.
  29. F. Alet, D. Doblar, A. Zhou, J. Tenenbaum, K. Kawaguchi, and C. Finn, “Noether networks: meta-learning useful conserved quantities,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 16 384–16 397, 2021.
  30. R. Teichner, R. Meir, and D. Eitan, “Enhancing causal estimation through unlabeled offline data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07895, 2022.
  31. X. Li, T.-K. L. Wong, R. T. Q. Chen, and D. Duvenaud, “Scalable gradients for stochastic differential equations,” International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2020.
  32. P. Kidger, J. Foster, X. Li, H. Oberhauser, and T. Lyons, “Neural SDEs as Infinite-Dimensional GANs,” International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
  33. H. El-Samad, “Biological feedback control—respect the loops,” Cell Systems, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 477–487, 2021.
  34. K. Sidaway-Lee, M. J. Costa, D. A. Rand, B. Finkenstadt, and S. Penfield, “Direct measurement of transcription rates reveals multiple mechanisms for configuration of the arabidopsis ambient temperature response,” Genome biology, vol. 15, pp. 1–10, 2014.
  35. Y.-J. Choi and K. Sawada, “Physical sensors: Fluorescence sensors,” in Encyclopedia of Sensors and Biosensors (First Edition), first edition ed., R. Narayan, Ed.   Oxford: Elsevier, 2023, pp. 1–19.
  36. A. Amir, “Cell size regulation in bacteria,” Physical review letters, vol. 112, no. 20, p. 208102, 2014.
  37. J. Grilli, M. Osella, A. S. Kennard, and M. C. Lagomarsino, “Relevant parameters in models of cell division control,” Physical Review E, vol. 95, no. 3, p. 032411, 2017.
  38. L. Susman, M. Kohram, H. Vashistha, J. T. Nechleba, H. Salman, and N. Brenner, “Individuality and slow dynamics in bacterial growth homeostasis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 25, pp. E5679–E5687, 2018.
  39. S. Jun and S. Taheri-Araghi, “Cell-size maintenance: universal strategy revealed,” Trends in microbiology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4–6, 2015.
  40. P.-Y. Ho, J. Lin, and A. Amir, “Modeling cell size regulation: From single-cell-level statistics to molecular mechanisms and population-level effects,” Annual review of biophysics, vol. 47, pp. 251–271, 2018.
  41. L. Luo, Y. Bai, and X. Fu, “Stochastic threshold in cell size control,” Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 013173, 2023.
  42. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, “The feynman lectures on physics; vol. i,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 750–752, 1965.
  43. S.-M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark, “Ai feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression,” Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 16, p. eaay2631, 2020.
  44. L. Ljung, “System identification,” in Signal analysis and prediction.   Springer, 1998, pp. 163–173.
  45. M. Schmidt and H. Lipson, “Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data,” science, vol. 324, no. 5923, pp. 81–85, 2009.
  46. B. C. Daniels and I. Nemenman, “Automated adaptive inference of phenomenological dynamical models,” Nature communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2015.
  47. J. Shen, F. Liu, Y. Tu, and C. Tang, “Finding gene network topologies for given biological function with recurrent neural network,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2021.
  48. A. Haber and E. Schneidman, “Learning the architectural features that predict functional similarity of neural networks,” Physical Review X, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 021051, 2022.
  49. B. Chen, K. Huang, S. Raghupathi, I. Chandratreya, Q. Du, and H. Lipson, “Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data,” Nature Computational Science, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 433–442, 2022.
  50. M. Arjovsky, L. Bottou, I. Gulrajani, and D. Lopez-Paz, “Invariant risk minimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893, 2019.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up