Back to search
2006.13154

Inferring Causal Networks of Dynamical Systems through Transient Dynamics and Perturbation

George Stepaniants, Bingni W. Brunton, J. Nathan Kutz

correcthigh confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM

Audit review

The paper’s PCI algorithm defines the distance layers Dk(p), uses Case 2 to downweight edges when y lies beyond k+1 (including D∞), and derives the Case 3 Bayes update P(x→y | ∃v∈Dk(p) v→y) = P(x→y) / (1 − ∏v∈Dk(p)(1 − P(v→y))) (its Eq. (5))—all of which match the candidate’s steps (a)–(b) and formulae. The algorithm initializes A(x,y)=0.5, performs multiplicative updates (divide by 10 in Case 2; divide by 1−∏(1−A) in Case 3), and thresholds at 0.5, consistent with the candidate’s step (c) product-form summary. Minor issues: the paper implicitly assumes independence across {v→y} for Eq. (5), which the candidate states explicitly, and there is a small pseudocode/text mismatch for whether y∈D∞(p) is penalized in Case 2; the prose states it is, per k+1<m≤∞, while the printed loop looks like it excludes D∞ (see Algorithm 1 vs. Case 2 prose). Overall, both are aligned and use the same Bayes/independence argument.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

PCI’s distance-layer logic and Bayes update are sound and yield a simple, effective inference scheme when perturbations and approximately uniform local couplings are available. The derivation of the Case 3 update is correct under an implicit independence assumption, and the overall workflow aligns with the candidate’s reconstruction. A few clarifications (explicit independence assumption, reconciling a small Case 2 pseudocode/prose mismatch, and discussing probability normalization) would remove ambiguities without changing the substance.