Cited by 98Complex Systems and Time Series AnalysisChaos control and synchronizationControl Systems and Identification

Mitigating the effects of measurement noise on Granger causality

Open access
Nalatore, Hariharan, Ding, Mingzhou, Rangarajan, Govindan·2007·Physical Review E

Abstract

Computing Granger causal relations among bivariate experimentally observed time series has received increasing attention over the past few years. Such causal relations, if correctly estimated, can yield significant insights into the dynamical organization of the system being investigated. Since experimental measurements are inevitably contaminated by noise, it is thus important to understand the effects of such noise on Granger causality estimation. The first goal of this paper is to provide an analytical and numerical analysis of this problem. Specifically, we show that, due to noise contamination, (1) spurious causality between two measured variables can arise and (2) true causality can be suppressed. The second goal of the paper is to provide a denoising strategy to mitigate this problem. Specifically, we propose a denoising algorithm based on the combined use of the Kalman filter theory and the expectation-maximization algorithm. Numerical examples are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the denoising approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreve.75.031123

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Granger causality may not be appropriate for fMRI time-series and performs poorly in comparison to structural (non-dynamic) approaches based upon partial correlations.

    “However, there is a growing appreciation that Granger causality may not be appropriate for fMRI time-series (e.g., Nalatore et al 2007) and performs poorly in comparison to structural (non-dynamic) approaches based upon partial correlations (Smith et al., 2010).”

    From Network discovery with DCM (2011) · cites this paper as Nalatore et al 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [9]A. Brovelli, M. Ding, A. Ledberg, Y. Chen, R. Nakamura, and S. L. Bressler, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 , 9849 (2004).
  2. [10]D. L. Thornton and D. S. Batten, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 17 , 164 (1985).
  3. [11]T. E. Hall and N. R. Noble, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 19 , 112 (1987).
  4. [12]C. Hiemstra and J. D. Jones, Journal of Finance 49 , 1639 (1994).
  5. [13]Y. Chen, G. Rangarajan, J. Feng, and M. Ding, Physics Letters A 324 , 26 (2004).
  6. [21]M. Morf, A. Vieira, D. Lee, and T. Kailath, IEEE Trans Geoscience Electronics 16 , 85 (1978).
  7. [27]E. Weinstein, A. V. Oppenheim, M. Feder, and J. R. Buck, IEEE Trans Signal Proc. 42 , 846 (1994).
  8. [28]V. Digalakis, J. R. Rohlicek, and M. Ostendorf, IEEE Trans Speech Audio Proc. 1 , 431 (1993).
  9. [29]H. Akaike, IEEE Trans Autom Control AC-19, 716 (1974).
  10. [30]Y. T. Chan and R. Langford, IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Proc. 30 , 689 (1980).
  11. [31]J. A. Cadzow, Proc. IEEE 70 , 907 (1982).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nalatore, H., Ding, M., & Rangarajan, G.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2007-03-29
Volume
75
Issue
3
Pages
031123-031123
ISSN
  • 1539-3755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-2376
OpenAlex
W2154674952
Cited by
98
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review E (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOT FOUND REPOSITORY (Indian Institute of Science Bangalore) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defence Research and Development Organisation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH071620, R21MH071620)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Chaos control and synchronization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
Keywords
Granger causality, measurement noise, spurious causality, noise reduction, time series denoising, Kalman filter, expectation-maximization algorithm, bivariate time series, causal inference
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Models, Biological, Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistics as Topic, Models, Statistical, Causality, Epidemiologic Measurements, Artifacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review