\( \def\RR{\bf R} \def\real{\mathbb{R}} \def\bold#1{\bf #1} \def\d{\mbox{Cord}} \def\hd{\widehat \mbox{Cord}} \DeclareMathOperator{\cov}{cov} \DeclareMathOperator{\var}{var} \DeclareMathOperator{\cor}{cor} \newcommand{\ac}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}} \DeclareMathOperator{\Ex}{\mathbb{E}} \DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag} \)

Community Detection and Clustering for fMRI

Xi (Rossi) LUO

Brown University
Department of Biostatistics
Center for Statistical Sciences
Computation in Brain and Mind
Brown Institute for Brain Science
The ABCD Research Group

The 25th ICSA Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia
June 13, 2016

Funding: NSF/DMS (BD2K) 1557467; NIH P20GM103645, P01AA019072, P30AI042853; AHA


Florentina Bunea

Florentina Bunea
Cornell University

Florentina Bunea

Christophe Giraud
Paris Sud University

Task fMRI

  • Perform tasks while under fMRI scanning
  • Specific parts of the brain responsible for the task
  • Remove task effects, data like "resting-state"

Goal: which parts of the brain function together?

fMRI data: blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signals from each cube/voxel (~millimeters), $10^5$ ~ $10^6$ voxels in total.

Data Matrix

  • Matrix $X_{n \times p}$, all columns standardized
    • $n$ time points but temporal correlation removed, like iid
    • $p$ voxels but with spatial corraltion
  • Interested in big spatial networks
    • Voxel level: $10^6 \times 10^6$ cov matrix but limited interpretability

General Pipeline

This talk: how to do clustering with justification?

Big Picture

  • We are interested in big cov with many variables
    • Global property for certain joint distributions
    • Real-world cov: maybe non-sparse and other structures
  • Clustering successful for > 40 years and for DSDonoho, 2015
    • Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)Tukey, 1977
    • Hierarchical clustering and KmeansHartigan & Wong, 1979
    • Usually based on marginal/pairwise distances
  • Can clustering and big cov estimation be combined?


Example: SP 100 Data

  • Daily returns from stocks in SP 100
    • Stocks listed in Standard & Poor 100 Indexas of March 21, 2014
    • between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008
  • Each stock is a variable
  • Cov/Cor matrices (Pearson's or Kendall's tau)
    • Re-order stocks by clusters
    • Compare cov patterns with different clustering/ordering

Cor after Grouping by Clusters

Our $G$-models

Ours yields stronger off-diagonal, tile patterns. Black = 1.
Color bars: variable groups/clusters
Off-diagonal: correlations across clusters

Clustering Results

Industry Ours Kmeans Hierarchical Clustering
Telecom ATT, Verizon ATT, Verizon, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Bristol-Myers ATT, Verizon
Railroads Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, Du Pont, Dow, Monsanto
Home Improvement Home Depot, Lowe’s Home Depot, Lowe’s, Starbucks Home Depot, Lowe’s, Starbucks, Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, FedEx, United Parcel Service
All methods yield 30 clusters.



  • Let ${X} \in \real^p$ be a zero mean random vector
  • Divide variables into partitions/clusters
    • Example: $\{ \{X_1, X_3, X_7\}, \{X_2, X_5\}, \dotsc \}$
  • Theoretical: define uniquely identifiable partition $G$ such that all $X_a$ in $G_k$ are statistically "similar"
  • DS: find "helpful" partition that show cov patterns

Related Methods

  • Clustering: Kmeans and hierarchical clustering
    • Advantages: fast, general, popular
    • Limitations: low signal-noise-ratio, theory
  • Community detection: huge literature see review Newman, 2003 but start with observed adjacency matrices


Low noise

High noise

  • Cluster points together if pairwise distance small
  • Clustering accuracy depends on the noise

Kmeans: Generative Model

  • Data $X_{n\times p}$: $p$ variables from partition $G$: $$G=\{ \{X_1, X_3, X_7\}, \{X_2, X_5\}, \dotsc \}$$
  • Mixture Gaussian: if variable $X_j \in \real^n$ comes from cluster $G_k$ Hartigan, 1975 $$X_{j} = Z_k + \epsilon_j, \quad Z_k \bot \epsilon_j $$
  • Kmeans minimizes over $G$ (and centroid $Z$): $$\sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j\in G_k} \left\| X_j - Z_k \right\|_2^2 $$
Strictly, Kmeans considers data points in $\real^p$ from $K$ populations

$G$-Latent Cov

  • We call $G$-latent model: $$X_{j} = Z_k + \epsilon_j, \quad Z_k \bot \epsilon_j \mbox{ and } j\in G_k $$
  • WLOG, all variables are standardized
  • Intuition: variables $j\in G_k$ form net communitiesLuo, 2014

Matrix Representation

$$ X_{n\times p}=\underbrace{Z_{n\times k}}_\text{Source/Factor} \quad \underbrace{G_{k\times p}}_\text{Mixing/Loading} + \underbrace{E_{n\times p}}_{Error} \qquad Z \bot E$$

  • Clustering: $G$ is $0/1$ matrix for $k$ clusters/ROIs
  • Decomposition: under conditions
    • PCA/factor analysis: orthogonality
    • ICA: orthogonality → independence
    • matrix decomposition: e.g. non-negativity

  • Our model identifiable if $\cor(Z_1, Z_2) \ne 0$
    • Two brain clusters red/blue talk to each other
  • Still identifiable if "$\cor(Z_1, Z_2) \gt \var(Z_1)\gt \var(Z_2)$"
  • PCA: $\cor(Z_1, Z_2) = 0$

Principals Behind Other Clustering

  • The Euclidean distance for hierarchical clustering and Kmeans, for two columns/voxles $X_a$ and $X_b$: $$ \|X_a - X_b \|_2^2 = 2(1-\cor(X_a, X_b)) $$
  • Recall $X_i = Z_k + E_i$ $i \in G_k$
  • Cor depends mainly on $\var(E)$ if SNR is low
  • Distance
    • larger even if generated by same $Z$ and large error
    • smaller even if generated by different $Z$ and small error
  • Worse, clusters close because of correlated $Z$


Example: $G$-Block

  • Set $G=\ac{\ac{1,2};\ac{3,4,5}}$, $X \in \real^p$ has $G$-block cov
    $$\Sigma =\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} {\color{red} D_1} & {\color{red} C_{11} }&C_{12} & C_{12}& C_{12}\\ {\color{red} C_{11} }&{\color{red} D_1 }& C_{12} & C_{12}& C_{12} \\ C_{12} & C_{12} &{\color{green} D_{2}} & {\color{green} C_{22}}& {\color{green} C_{22}}\\ C_{12} & C_{12} &{\color{green} C_{22}} &{\color{green} D_2}&{\color{green} C_{22}}\\ C_{12} & C_{12} &{\color{green} C_{22}} &{\color{green} C_{22}}&{\color{green} D_2} \end{array}\right) $$
  • Matrix math: $\Sigma = G^TCG + d$
  • We allow $|C_{11} | \lt | C_{12} |$ or $C \prec 0$
    • Kmeans/HC leads to block-diagonal cor matrices (permutation)
  • Clustering based on $G$-Block
    • Generalizing $G$-Latent which requires $C\succ 0$

Defining Order of Partitions

  • $G\leq G^{\prime}$ if $G^{\prime}$ is a sub-partition of $G$
    • Example: $G^{\prime} =\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}\}$, $G=\{1,2,3\}$
  • Denote $a\stackrel{G(X)}{\sim} b$ by $G(X)$ if $\var(X_{a})=\var(X_{b})$ and $\cov(X_{a},X_{c})=\cov(X_{b},X_{c})$ for all $c\neq a,b$
  • Note that $a\stackrel{G^{\prime}(X)}{\sim} b$ if $G\leq G^{\prime}$
  • Exist multiple partitions that yield $G$-block cov

Minimum $G$ Partition

Theorem: $G^{\beta}(X)$ is the minimal partition induced by $a\stackrel{G^{\beta}}{\sim} b$
iff $\var(X_{a})=\var(X_{b})$ and $\cov(X_{a},X_{c})=\cov(X_{b},X_{c})$ for all $c\neq a,b$. Moreover, if the matrix of covariances $C$ corresponding to the partition $G(X)$ is positive-semidefinite, then this is the unique minimal partition according to which ${X}$ admits a latent decomposition.

The minimal partition is unique under regularity conditions.


New Metric: CORD

  • First, pairwise correlation distance (like Kmeans)
    • Gaussian copula: $$Y:=(h_1(X_1),\dotsc,h_p(X_p)) \sim N(0,R)$$
    • Let $R$ be the correlation matrix
    • Gaussian: Pearson's
    • Gaussian copula: Kendall's tau transformed, $R_{ab} = \sin (\frac{\pi}{2}\tau_{ab})$
  • Second, maximum difference of correlation distances $$\d(a,b) := \max_{c\neq a,b}|R_{ac}-R_{bc}|$$
  • Third, group variables $a$, $b$ together if $\d(a,b) = 0$

The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Image credit: http://sutherland-careers.com/

Algorithm: Main Idea

  • Greedy: one cluster at a time, avoiding NP-hard
  • Cluster variables together if CORD metric $$ \max_{c\neq a,b}|\hat{R}_{ac}-\hat{R}_{bc}| \lt \alpha$$ where $\alpha$ is a tuning parameter
  • $\alpha$ is chosen by theory or CV



Let $\eta \geq 0$ be given. Let ${ X}$ be a zero mean random vector with a Gaussian copula distribution with parameter $R$. $$ \begin{multline} \mathcal{R}(\eta) := \{R: \ \d(a,b) := \max_{c\neq a,b}|R_{ac}-R_{bc}|>\eta\quad \\ \textrm{for all}\ a\stackrel{G(X)}{\nsim}b.\} \end{multline} $$ Group separation condition: $R \in \mathcal{R}(\eta)$.

The signal strength $\eta$ need to be large.


Theorem: Define $\tau=|\widehat R-R|_{\infty}$ and we consider two parameters $(\alpha,\eta)$ fulfilling $$\begin{equation} \alpha\geq 2\tau\quad\textrm{and}\quad \eta\geq2\tau+\alpha. \end{equation}$$ Then, applying our algorithm we have $\widehat G=G(X)$ whp.

Ours recovers exact clustering with high probability.


Theorem: $P_{\Sigma}$ the likelihood based on $n$ independent observations of ${ X} \stackrel{d}{=} \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma)$. For any \begin{equation}\label{etamin} 0\leq \eta \lt \eta^{*}:={\sqrt{\log(p(p-1)/2)}\over \sqrt{(2+e^{-1})n} +\sqrt{\log(p(p-1)/2)}}\,, \end{equation} we have $$\inf_{\widehat G}\sup_{R \in \mathcal{R}(\eta)} P_{\Sigma}(\widehat G\neq G^{\beta}(X))\geq {1\over 2e+1}\geq {1\over 7} \,,$$ where the infimum is taken over all possible estimators.

Our method is minimax optimal.



  • Generate from various $C$: block, sparse, negative
  • Compare:
    • Exact recovery of groups (theoretical tuning parameter)
    • Cross validation (data-driven tuning parameter)
    • Cord metric vs (semi)parametetric cor (regardless of tuning)

Exact Recovery


Different models for $C$="$\cov(Z)$" and $\alpha = 2 n^{-1/2} \log^{1/2} p$

Vertical lines: theoretical sample size based on our lower bound

HC and Kmeans fail even if inputting the true $K$.

Data-driven choice of $\alpha$: Averaging

  • Introduce block averaging operator $\left[\varUpsilon\left(R,G\right)\right]_{ab} =$ $$\begin{cases} \left|G_{k}\right|^{-1}\left(\left|G_{k}\right|-1\right)^{-1}\sum_{i,j\in G_{k},i\ne j}R_{ij} & \mbox{if } a\ne b \mbox{ and } k=k^{\prime}\\ \left|G_{k}\right|^{-1}\left|G_{k^{\prime}}\right|^{-1}\sum_{i\in G_{k},j\in G_{k^{\prime}}}R_{ij} & \mbox{if } a\ne b \mbox{ and } k\ne k^{\prime}\\ 1 & \mbox{if }a=b. \end{cases} $$

Data-driven choice of $\alpha$: Prediction

  • Choose $\alpha$ via cross validation using minimization over a grid of $\alpha$: $$\min_\alpha \| \varUpsilon\left(\hat R,G_\alpha \right) - \hat{R}_{test}\|_F^2 $$

Cross Validation

Recovery % in red and CV loss in black.

CV selects the tuning to yield close to 100% recovery

Metric Comparison: Without Threhold

HC and Kmeans metrics yield more false discoveries (FD) as the threshold (or $K$) varies.

Better metric for clustering regardless of threshold

Real Data

fMRI Studies

Sub 1, Sess 1

Time 1



Sub i, Sess j

Sub ~100, Sess ~4

This talk: one subject, two sessions (to test replicability)

Functional MRI

  • fMRI matrix: BOLD from different brain regions
    • Variable: different brain regions
    • Sample: time series (after whitening or removing temporal correlations)
    • Clusters of brain regions
  • Two data matrices from two scan sessions OpenfMRI.org
  • Use Power's 264 regions/nodes

Test Prediction/Reproducibilty

  • Find partitions using the first session data
  • Average each block cor to improve estimation
  • Compare with the cor matrix from the second scan $$ \| Avg_{\hat{G}}(\hat{\Sigma}_1) - \hat{\Sigma}_2 \|$$
  • Difference is smaller if clustering $\hat{G}$ is better

Vertical lines: fixed (solid) and data-driven (dashed) thresholds

Smaller replication difference for almost all $K$

Our visual-motor task!


  • Cov + clustering = Connectivity + ROI
    • Identifiability, accuracy, optimality
  • $G$-models: $G$-latent, $G$-block, $G$-exchangeable
  • New metric, method, and theory
  • Paper: google "cord clustering"(arXiv 1508.01939)
  • R package: cord on CRAN

Thank you!

Slides at: bit.ly/XLICSA16

Website: Big ComplexData.com