Adjoint-aided inference of Gaussian process driven differential equations

Linear systems occur throughout engineering and the sciences, most notably as differential equations. In many cases the forcing function for the system is unknown, and interest lies in using noisy observations of the system to infer the forcing, as well as other unknown parameters. In differential equations, the forcing function is an unknown function of the independent variables (typically time and space), and can be modelled as a Gaussian process (GP). In this paper we show how the adjoint of a linear system can be used to efficiently infer forcing functions modelled as GPs, after using a truncated basis expansion of the GP kernel. We show how exact conjugate Bayesian inference for the truncated GP can be achieved, in many cases with substantially lower computation than would be required using MCMC methods. We demonstrate the approach on systems of both ordinary and partial differential equations, and by testing on synthetic data, show that the basis expansion approach approximates well the true forcing with a modest number of basis vectors. Finally, we show how to infer point estimates for the non-linear model parameters, such as the kernel length-scales, using Bayesian optimisation.

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a vital step in using mathematical models and simulations to take decisions. The field of cardiac simulation has begun to explore and adopt UQ methods to characterise uncertainty in model inputs and how that propagates through to outputs or predictions. In this perspective piece we draw attention to an important and under-addressed source of uncertainty in our predictions --- that of uncertainty in the model structure or the equations themselves. The difference between imperfect models and reality is termed model discrepancy, and we are often uncertain as to the size and consequences of this discrepancy. Here we provide two examples of the consequences of discrepancy when calibrating models at the ion channel and action potential scales. Furthermore, we attempt to account for this discrepancy when calibrating and validating an ion channel model using different methods, based on modelling the discrepancy using Gaussian processes (GPs) and autoregressive-moving-average (ARMA) models, then highlight the advantages and shortcomings of each approach. Finally, suggestions and lines of enquiry for future work are provided.