Decoding Model Uncertainty: New Laws for Biological Insights

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new computational framework reveals how accurately we can estimate parameters in complex biological models, paving the way for more reliable data-driven discoveries.

A hierarchical framework for analyzing parameter identifiability integrates eigenvalue decomposition and the Schur complement to categorize parameters across scales, revealing that predictive uncertainty stems from non-identifiable subspaces-specifically, contributions from zero-order non-identifiable parameters [latex]\boldsymbol{U\_{k-r\_{0}}^{\to p}\theta}[/latex] and first-order non-identifiable parameters [latex]\boldsymbol{U\_{k-r\_{0}-r\_{1}}^{\to p}\theta}[/latex]-and quantifying this uncertainty through a metric [latex]\mathcal{K}\_{i}[/latex] that defines practical identifiability.

This work establishes scaling laws governing parameter identifiability and provides a robust method for uncertainty quantification in data-driven biological modeling.

Rigorous validation of data-driven mechanistic models is often hampered by challenges in quantifying parameter identifiability and associated uncertainty. This is addressed in ‘Unveiling Scaling Laws of Parameter Identifiability and Uncertainty Quantification in Data-Driven Biological Modeling’, which introduces a computational framework revealing fundamental scaling laws governing both parameter identifiability and uncertainty quantification through asymptotic analysis of the [latex]Fisher Information Matrix[/latex] and perturbed Hessian matrices. The resulting hierarchical approach enables robust uncertainty estimates even within non-identifiable subspaces, demonstrated through applications to HIV dynamics and amyloid-beta propagation. As digital twins become increasingly prevalent in biological research, can these scaling laws ensure that data-driven inferences are both accurate and grounded in verifiable biological reality?

The Limits of Observation: Identifying the Unknowable in Complex Systems

The foundation of much scientific progress rests upon mathematical models, yet the process of translating observational data into meaningful parameter values is frequently challenged by a fundamental problem: identifiability. This occurs when multiple combinations of parameter values can produce the same observable output, rendering a unique solution impossible. Essentially, the data alone does not contain enough information to pinpoint the ‘true’ values, creating ambiguity in the model’s representation of the system. While a model might accurately simulate observed phenomena, the inability to confidently determine specific parameter values introduces uncertainty and limits the predictive power of the model. This is particularly problematic in complex systems – like biological networks or climate models – where numerous parameters interact, and data is often sparse or noisy, potentially leading to flawed interpretations and unreliable conclusions.

The Fisher Information Matrix (FIM), a cornerstone of statistical parameter estimation, frequently falls short when applied to complex systems. While traditionally used to assess the precision with which model parameters can be estimated, the FIM’s efficacy diminishes considerably in high-dimensional spaces and with non-linear models. This is because the FIM assumes local quadratic approximations of the likelihood function, an assumption that breaks down when dealing with intricate relationships between parameters and data. Consequently, a seemingly positive-definite FIM – indicating identifiability – can be misleading, failing to capture the full complexity of the parameter space and potentially leading to inaccurate or unreliable parameter estimates. Such limitations necessitate the exploration of more robust identifiability analysis techniques that move beyond reliance on local quadratic approximations and can effectively handle the challenges posed by complex, non-linear models.

The difficulty in uniquely determining model parameters doesn’t simply represent a mathematical inconvenience; it fundamentally undermines the predictive power of complex systems modeling. When parameters are not identifiable, multiple combinations can equally explain observed data, leading to forecasts that lack robustness and can diverge significantly from reality. This ambiguity extends beyond mere inaccuracy; it obscures the true relationships within the modeled system, hindering the extraction of meaningful insights and preventing researchers from confidently interpreting results. Consequently, conclusions drawn from data-driven modeling become tenuous, potentially leading to flawed decision-making across diverse fields, from epidemiology and climate science to engineering and economics. The inability to confidently estimate parameters thus casts doubt on the very foundation of model-based inference and necessitates the development of more sophisticated techniques to address these inherent limitations.

Analysis of Amyloid-β spatiotemporal dynamics reveals that perturbations of ε-order non-identifiable parameters-quantified through reconstruction using a network-based PDE model, uncertainty quantification, and eigenvector analysis-result in quantifiable deviations from observed standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs), as indicated by 95% confidence intervals and metrics [latex]\mathcal{K}_{i}[/latex] for the first 17 brain regions.

Beyond First-Order Approximations: Unveiling Parameter Sensitivity

The Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) provides a local approximation of the curvature of the likelihood surface, assuming a quadratic Taylor expansion. However, this approximation is limited; the Hessian matrix, comprised of second-order partial derivatives of the log-likelihood function, offers a more comprehensive representation of this curvature. Specifically, negative eigenvalues of the Hessian indicate directions of high curvature and potential instability in parameter estimation, details that are not apparent from the FIM alone. Analysis of the Hessian, therefore, provides a more nuanced understanding of the identifiability landscape, particularly in regions where the quadratic approximation inherent in the FIM is inadequate.

Eigenvalue Decomposition (EVD) of the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) and the Hessian matrix provides a nuanced understanding of parameter identifiability. The eigenvalues of the FIM represent the curvature of the likelihood surface along each parameter direction; smaller eigenvalues indicate directions with greater uncertainty and potential for ill-conditioning. EVD of the Hessian, which captures second-order sensitivity, reveals more complex curvature characteristics beyond those captured by the FIM, including potential for local minima or saddle points. Analyzing the eigenvectors associated with small eigenvalues in both matrices identifies specific parameter combinations driving uncertainty, and the ratio of eigenvalues can highlight directions of strong or weak identifiability. This decomposition allows for a characterization of the identifiability landscape, moving beyond a simple determination of global identifiability to pinpoint specific sources of uncertainty and potential limitations in parameter estimation.

Schur complement analysis offers a computationally streamlined approach to assess identifiability by determining the invertibility of matrices derived from the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) and Hessian. Specifically, given a partitioned matrix [latex] \begin{bmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{bmatrix} [/latex], the Schur complement of A is [latex] D – CA^{-1}B [/latex]. If this Schur complement is invertible, then the original matrix is also invertible. In the context of identifiability, this allows efficient verification of positive-definiteness – a key criterion for parameter estimation – without directly inverting potentially large matrices. By focusing on smaller, more manageable sub-matrices via Schur complements, the computational burden associated with confirming identifiability is significantly reduced, particularly in complex models with numerous parameters.

Validation of polynomial fitting accuracy using coordinate identifiability analysis, eigenvalue analysis of practical identifiability, and uncertainty quantification demonstrates that perturbations to non-identifiable parameters [latex] \boldsymbol{\theta^{\*}}=[2,0,0,0]^{T} [/latex] lead to quantifiable uncertainty, as shown by 95% confidence intervals for synthetic data (red/green shaded regions) compared to the true polynomial function (solid line) and an [latex] \epsilon=10^{-3} [/latex] threshold.

Validating the Framework: From HIV to Amyloid-β

The HIV kinetic model, a widely utilized ordinary differential equation-based model describing viral dynamics, functions as a critical validation tool for our parameter identifiability framework. This model, typically parameterized with values representing viral decay rates, infection rates, and immune response parameters, provides a known and extensively studied system against which to assess the accuracy and robustness of our identifiability analysis. By applying our framework to the HIV model and comparing the resulting identifiability classifications with established expectations from prior studies, we can rigorously test and refine the methodology, ensuring its reliability before application to more complex and less understood biological systems. Specifically, the ability to accurately predict known identifiable and non-identifiable parameters within the HIV model serves as a benchmark for the framework’s performance and facilitates iterative improvement of the identifiability assessment process.

Application of the identifiability framework to the Amyloid Beta Model confirms its capacity to analyze biological systems beyond HIV kinetics. The Amyloid Beta Model simulates the distribution of amyloid-β peptides within the brain, a key component of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Successful identifiability analysis of this model’s parameters-including production, clearance, and aggregation rates of amyloid-β-demonstrates the framework’s adaptability to models with differing structures and complexities. This validation extends the scope of the analysis beyond viral dynamics, suggesting broad utility for parameter estimation and model refinement across diverse biological applications, including neurodegenerative disease modeling.

The Key Identifiability (KI) metric utilizes Schur Complement analysis to quantitatively assess parameter identifiability, moving beyond simple identifiable/non-identifiable classifications. This analysis calculates a hierarchy of identifiability order, categorizing parameters as Zero (fully identifiable), First (identifiable given a fixed value for another parameter), or Non-identifiable. The KI metric, derived from the principal diagonal elements of the Schur Complement, provides a numerical value reflecting this order, enabling the precise ranking of parameter estimability. Importantly, this approach has demonstrated the ability to resolve parameters that are not identifiable through traditional profile likelihood or bootstrap methods, providing a more comprehensive understanding of model limitations and potential refinements.

$Higher-order practical identifiability analysis of an HIV virus-host dynamics model, using metrics [latex]\mathcal{K}_{i}[/latex] and profile likelihood methods, demonstrates that model parameters π and [latex]c[/latex] are identifiable, and perturbations of non-identifiable parameters yield 95% confidence intervals (shaded regions) consistent with clinical observations of plasma HIV concentrations.$

Higher-order practical identifiability analysis of an HIV virus-host dynamics model, using metrics [latex]\mathcal{K}_{i}[/latex] and profile likelihood methods, demonstrates that model parameters π and [latex]c[/latex] are identifiable, and perturbations of non-identifiable parameters yield 95% confidence intervals (shaded regions) consistent with clinical observations of plasma HIV concentrations.

Towards Robustness: Quantifying Uncertainty and Embracing Limitations

Recent investigations into model identifiability have revealed predictable relationships – termed scaling laws – between model complexity, data availability, and the ability to reliably estimate parameter values. These laws demonstrate that as models increase in complexity – incorporating more parameters – the amount of data required to uniquely determine those parameters grows disproportionately. Specifically, the precision with which parameters can be estimated often scales with the amount of data according to a power law. This understanding is profoundly impactful, offering a principled approach to model design and experimental planning; researchers can now anticipate identifiability challenges before investing in extensive data collection or building overly complex models. By strategically balancing model structure with anticipated data limitations, these scaling laws enable the construction of more parsimonious, robust, and ultimately more useful predictive models in diverse fields like systems biology and materials science.

Advanced Uncertainty Quantification methods move beyond simply identifying identifiable parameters within a model; they actively incorporate the influence of those parameters that cannot be uniquely determined from available data. This is crucial because even non-identifiable parameters can significantly contribute to predictive uncertainty, particularly during the initial, transient phases of complex dynamic processes. Studies on HIV dynamics and the progression of Aβ plaques – hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease – demonstrate that acknowledging these contributions drastically improves the accuracy of model predictions. By treating non-identifiable parameters not as fixed unknowns, but as sources of uncertainty, these techniques provide a more realistic and robust assessment of model reliability, especially when dealing with limited or noisy experimental data. The result is a more nuanced understanding of the system’s behavior and a more dependable basis for informed decision-making.

Acknowledging and quantifying uncertainty in model parameters is paramount to generating dependable predictions, particularly when experimental data is scarce. Traditional modeling often focuses on finding single ‘best-fit’ values, neglecting the inherent ambiguity when complex systems are described with limited observations. However, a rigorous uncertainty quantification-through techniques like Bayesian inference or frequentist methods-doesn’t attempt to eliminate uncertainty, but rather to describe its influence on model outputs. This approach yields not a single prediction, but a probability distribution of possible outcomes, providing a measure of confidence and enabling more realistic assessments of risk. Consequently, models become more robust, capable of guiding decisions even with imperfect knowledge, and fostering trust in their predictive power across various scientific domains.

Practical identifiability analysis, using eigenvalues and metrics [latex]\mathcal{K}_{i}[/latex], confirms the accuracy of polynomial fitting for validating model parameters, with a threshold of [latex]\epsilon=10^{-3}[/latex].

The study meticulously details how scaling laws govern parameter identifiability, revealing a fundamental connection between model complexity and the reliability of derived insights. This echoes John Dewey’s assertion that “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” The work isn’t simply building models for understanding biological systems; the process of uncovering these scaling laws, of quantifying uncertainty, is the advancement of knowledge. Scaling without acknowledging the limits of identifiability-without rigorously quantifying the inherent uncertainties-risks building elaborate structures on shaky foundations. The framework offers a method for ensuring that each algorithmic step embodies a commitment to truthful representation, acknowledging that the pursuit of knowledge is inextricably linked to responsible practice.

Beyond the Scaling Laws

The demonstrated scaling laws of parameter identifiability offer a crucial, if sobering, perspective. The ability to predict the limits of model refinement before exhaustive computation is a valuable tool, but it also highlights a fundamental tension. Increasing model complexity does not necessarily equate to increased understanding; indeed, the framework suggests diminishing returns, and a potential for overconfidence in parameters that are, in principle, unidentifiable. The field must now confront the implications of this ‘identifiability bottleneck’ for biological inference, shifting emphasis from parameter estimation to the careful design of experiments that actively reduce uncertainty.

Future work should extend these analyses beyond the asymptotic regimes considered here. Real-world data are invariably finite, noisy, and subject to biases. Exploring the interplay between data quality, model structure, and identifiability will be essential. Furthermore, the current focus on parameter uncertainty can obscure other critical sources of model error – structural assumptions, for instance. A truly robust framework will require integrating uncertainty quantification with model selection criteria, acknowledging that the most ‘accurate’ parameter estimate is meaningless if built upon a flawed conceptual foundation.

Technology without care for people is techno-centrism. Ensuring fairness is part of the engineering discipline. The pursuit of increasingly complex biological models demands a parallel commitment to transparency, interpretability, and a critical awareness of the limitations inherent in any data-driven representation of life’s intricate systems. The next phase should emphasize what can be reliably known, not simply how much.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.20495.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

The Limits of Observation: Identifying the Unknowable in Complex Systems

Beyond First-Order Approximations: Unveiling Parameter Sensitivity

Validating the Framework: From HIV to Amyloid-β

Towards Robustness: Quantifying Uncertainty and Embracing Limitations

Beyond the Scaling Laws

See also: