Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory

Biswa Sengupta 1 2 3 Karl Friston 4

arXiv:1705.06614v2 [q-bio.NC] 12 Nov 2017

Abstract
In a published paper (Sengupta et al., 2016),
we have proposed that the brain (and other selforganized biological and artificial systems) can
be characterized via the mathematical apparatus
of a gauge theory. The picture that emerges from
this approach suggests that any biological system (from a neuron to an organism) can be cast
as resolving uncertainty about its external milieu, either by changing its internal states or its
relationship to the environment. Using formal
arguments, we have shown that a gauge theory
for neuronal dynamics – based on approximate
Bayesian inference – has the potential to shed
new light on phenomena that have thus far eluded
a formal description, such as attention and the
link between action and perception. Here, we describe the technical apparatus that enables such a
variational inference on manifolds. Particularly,
the novel contribution of this paper is an algorithm that utlizes a Schild’s ladder for parallel
transport of sufficient statistics (means, covariances, etc.) on a statistical manifold.

1. Introduction
A gauge theory is a physical theory that predicts how one or
more physical fields interact with matter. Every gauge theory has an associated Lagrangian (i.e., a function that summarizes the dynamics of the system in question), which is
invariant under a group of local transformations. Consider
Newton’s laws of motion in an inertial frame of reference
(e.g. a ball in an empty room). These laws are valid at every point in the room. This means that the dynamics and
the Lagrangian do not depend on the position of the ball.
In this system, the dynamics will be invariant under translations in space. These transformations – that preserve the
1
Dept. of Bioengineering, Imperial College London 2 Dept.
of Engineering, University of Cambridge 3 Cortexica Vision Systems, UK 4 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London. Correspondence to: Biswa Sengupta
<b.sengupta@imperial.ac.uk>.

ICML 2017 Computational Biology Workshop, Sydney, Australia,
2017. Copyright 2017 by the author(s).

Lagrangian – are said to be equipped with gauge symmetry.
In short, a symmetry is simply an invariance or immunity
to changes in the frame of reference.
Gauge theories originate from physics; however, they could
be applied to countless fields of biology: cell structure,
morphogenesis, and so on. Examples that lend themselves to a gauge theoretic treatment include recent simulations of embryogenesis (Friston et al., 2015) and the selforganisation of dendritic spines (Kiebel & Friston, 2011).
Although these examples appear unrelated, both can be formulated in terms of a gradient ascent on variational free
energy. In other words, we may be looking at the same
fundamental behaviour in different contexts. Here, we focus on the central nervous system (CNS). Can we sketch a
gauge theory of brain function?
When attempting to establish what aspect of CNS function
might be understood in terms of a Lagrangian, the variational free energy looks highly plausible (Friston, 2010).
The basic idea is that any self-organizing system, at nonequilibrium steady-state with its environment, will appear
to minimize its (variational) free energy, thus resisting a
natural tendency to disorder. This formulation reduces
the physiology of biological systems to their homeostasis
(and allostasis); namely, the maintenance of their states and
form, in the face of a constantly changing environment.
If the minimisation of variational free energy is a ubiquitous aspect of biological systems could it be the Lagrangian
of a gauge theory? This (free energy) Lagrangian has
proved useful in understanding many aspects of functional
brain architectures; for example, its hierarchical organisation and the asymmetries between forward and backward
connections in cortical hierarchies. In this setting, the system stands for the brain (with neuronal or internal states),
while the environment (with external states) is equipped
with continuous forces and produces local sensory perturbations that are countered through action and perception
(that are functionals of the gauge field).
In summary, the free energy formalism rests on a statistical
separation between the agent (the internal states) and the
environment (the external states). Agents suppress free energy (or surprise) by changing sensory input, by acting on
external states, or by modifying their internal states through
perception. In what follows, we show that the need to

Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory

minimize variational free energy (and hence achieve homeostasis) acquires a useful logical-mathematical formalism,
when framed as a gauge theory.

2. Methods
Variational free-energy formalism
The variational free energy formalism assumes that an
agent minimizes the entropy of its sensory states s ∈ S.
Only through its sensory receptors can a biological system access the states of its environment; in other words,
sensory states form a veil (technically, a Markov blanket)
between the system’s internal states θ ∈ Θ and its environment (external states) ψ ∈ Ψ. By bounding the entropy of its sensory states, the system confines the entropy
of its environment. Under the assumption of ergodicity,
this entropy is the long-term average of surprise. Crucially,
the system cannot calculate this quantity directly because
it has to marginalize over the external states that cause sensory input. The objective then becomes to obtain a lower
bound on the marginal likelihood ln p(s) by approximating it using a parametric probability distribution (for example, a Gaussian distribution) q(ψ) over the (unknown)
external states that are hidden behind the Markov blanket
(i.e., hidden causes of sensations). In short, the Lagrangian
L = − ln p(s) is minimised by bounding the surprise using the variational free energy F(s, θ) , F(s, q) of the
distribution q(ψ|θ) where θ are the sufficient statistics or
parameters of the variational distribution. In the case of a
Gaussian distribution the sufficient
P statistics are simply the
mean and the co-variances {µ, } ⊂ θ.
The variational distribution that minimises free energy
can be expressed in terms of an Euler-Lagrange action
δS(F(s, q)) = 0 ⇔ ∇F = 0, implying that the gradient
descent on the variational free-energy manifold leads us

KLsym (θ, θ0 )

=

to the most optimal representation of the external states.
A numerical scheme to solve such a variational problem
is generalised (Bayesian) filtering (Friston et al., 2008).
The Bayesian perspective follows because our Lagrangian
is also known as (the negative logarithm of) Bayesian
model evidence. In other words, minimising free energy is
equivalent to maximising model evidence.

Variational inference on manifolds
The evolution of the variational free-energy could be described on a Riemann manifold by augmenting the first order gradient flow using a Fisher information metric (Amari,
1995; Tanaka, 2001). On a Euclidean manifold, the minimization of variational free-energy involves
1
−∇F
= lim arg min F(θ + dθ)
k∇Fk ε→0 ε dθ:kdθk6ε

(1)

This simply says that the flow of parameters (e.g. means
and co-variance of a Normal distribution; {µ, σ, . . .} ∈ θ)
will induce the largest change in free-energy under a unit
change in parameters. Notice that the inner products are
defined on a Euclidean manifold.
Classical results from information geometry (Cencov’s
characterisation theorem) tell us that, for manifolds based
on probability measures, a unique Riemannian metric exists – the Fisher information metric. In statistics, Fisherinformation is used to measure the expected value of the
observed information. Whilst the Fisher-information becomes the metric for curved probability spaces, the distance
between two distributions is provided by the KullbackLeibler (KL) divergence. It turns out that if the KLdivergence is viewed as a curve on a curved surface, the
Fisher-information becomes its curvature:





q(ψ |θ)
q(ψ |θ0 )
0
Eθ log
+
E
log
θ
q(ψ |θ0 )
q(ψ |θ)

= dθT g(θ)dθ + O(dθ3 )
+∞
Z
∂ ln q(ψ, θ) ∂ ln q(ψ, θ)
dψ
gij (θ) =
q(ψ, θ)
∂θi
∂θj
−∞

.
KL[θ0 + δθ : θ0 ] =

1
gij (θ0 )(δθ)2
2
(2)

Gradient descent on such a manifold then becomes the solution of arg min F(θ + dθ), subject to KLsym (θ, θ +
dθ

dθ) < ε; i.e., the direction of the highest decrease in the

free-energy, for the smallest change in the KL divergence.
The solution of this optimization problem yields Amari’s
natural gradient that replaces the Euclidean gradient ∇F
˜ = g (θ) - 1 ∇F. This
by its Riemannian counterpart ∇F
ij

Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory
A

B

C

A

Levi-Civita connection
(gauge field)

B

Exp (Hi-1)
Ө

Өi

H i-1

Hi-1

Өi

Өi-1
Gi

Ө i-1

Hi

H i-1

Log (Hgi-1)
Ө

θ1

θI

TM
H i-1

θ2

θ3

θF

H i-1

Hi

Gi

Ө

M

Ө i+1

H

n1

Өi+1

Figure 1. . Conjugate gradient-descent algorithm on manifolds.
(A) New parameters (θ) are selected by performing gradient descent on orthogonal sub-spaces with gradient G and the descent
direction H. (B) On a Riemannian manifold, minimization along
lines (as in a Euclidean sub-space described in A) is replaced by
minimization along geodesics. This creates a problem, in that Hi
and Hi−1 are in two different tangent spaces and thus cannot be
added together. (C) Vector addition as in Eqn. 3 is undefined on a
Riemannian manifold. Addition is replaced by exponential mapping followed with parallel transport described using a co-variant
gauge field (Levi-Civita connection; see text)

derivative is invariant under re-parameterisation of the approximate probability distribution, thereby helping us to
break symmetries on the variational free-energy manifold.
This formulation has two important consequences – (a)
from classical results in statistics, pre-conditioning of the
free-energy gradient by the Fisher-information tells us that
the variance of the estimator is bounded from below by
the Fisher-information (Cramér-Rao bound) and (b) under
a Normal distribution approximation of the posterior distribution, precision-weighted prediction errors under a Euclidean manifold are replaced by asymptotic dispersion and
precision-weighted prediction errors under a Riemannian
manifold.

m1

m2
n2

H

m3
n3

n4

M

Figure 2. Parallel transport on Riemannian manifolds. (A) The
Riemann exponential map is used to map a vector field H from
T M → M whilst a logarithmic map is used to map the vector field from M → T M. (B) Graphical illustration of parallel
transporting a vector field H using a Schild’s ladder (see text for
details).

tions. Such Krylov sub-spaces are well-known in numerical analysis with the conjugate gradient-descent algorithm
providing one such example (Figure 3). Routinely used
in optimization, conjugate gradient descent methods have
been used for gradient descent on manifolds traced out by
energy functions such as the variational free-energy (Hensman et al.; Honkela et al., 2010). Simply such a scheme
amounts to,

θi
Hi
β

= θi−1 + αHi
= −Gi + βHi−1
=

∇Ti ∇i Riemannize
→
T
∇i−1 ∇i−1

˜T∇
∇
i
i
˜T ∇
∇
i−1 i−1
(3)

Such constructs are already instantiated in advanced
Bayesian filtering schemes, such as the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) code-base (available from http:
//www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/) using Fisherscoring – the gradient of variational free-energy is premultiplied by the inverse Fisher information metric. Notice
that the metric in Fisher-scoring is simply the variance of
the score function, while our derivation of the metric includes not only the metric for the likelihood but also that of
the prior (instantiated as the Hessian of the prior).

For β we have used the Fletecher-Reeves instantiation on a
curved manifold; other update rules such as Polak-Ribière,
Hestenes-Stiefel or Dai-Yuan can be similarly lifted to a
Riemannian manifold by altering the implicit norm. All of
these conjugate gradient descent formulas have a problem
– one cannot add two vector fields Hi and Hi−1 on a Riemannian manifold. This is because they exist on different
tangent manifolds. Hi−1 should undergo parallel transport
to the tangent manifold containing Hi using a connection (a
gauge) field. In our case, this is the Levi-Civita connection
described in Section S2 in (Sengupta et al., 2016).

The question that we now ask is whether we can deduce
an optimization scheme that enables us to traverse the freeenergy landscape? In other words, find the geodesic to local
minima in the sub-manifold. There are two routes one can
take to increase the statistical efficiency of the implicit optimisation – first, we can formulate the Hessian operator on
the Riemannian manifold in terms of the Laplace-Beltrami
operator (Section S3.1 in (Sengupta et al., 2016)) or we can
retain a first-order approximation and formulate descent directions that are orthogonal to the previous descent direc-

Parallel-transport requires the solution of a second-order
differential equation. Analysis shows us that the natural gradient is the first order approximation of the parallel transport – that we pursue in terms of solving geodesic
equations for the sufficient statistics. For the Laplace approximation, we could derive the Christoffel symbols analytically (Section S4 in (Sengupta et al., 2016)), while for
more complicated probability distributions we need to resort to a generic transport procedure (Figure 2). Namely,
we use the Riemann exponential map for mapping the vec-

Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory

tor field on the tangent manifold to the geodesic described
on the manifold (T M → M), whereas a Riemann logarithmic map represents the transformations of vector-fields
from the manifold to the tangent manifold (M → T M),

expθ (A) = θ1/2 exp(θ−1/2 Aθ−1/2 )θ1/2
logθ (A) = θ

1/2

log(θ

−1/2

Aθ

−1/2

)θ

1/2

(4)
The geodesic is first approximated using standard projection method (Hairer et al., 2004). Then using the exponential and logarithm maps a Schild’s ladder (Misner et al.,
1973) is instantiated as following: Let θI and θF denote
the initial and final points on the geodesic that the vector field is to be transported to. We start by calculating
n1 = expθI (H) and the midpoint m1 between the geodesic
segment joining n1 and θ1 . We then trace out the geodesic
from θI through m1 for twice its length, tracing out a new
point n2 . This scheme is repeated until we reach θF . After the vector field H has been parallel transported to θF ,
we are in a position to use parameter updates as detailed in
Eqn. 3. This scheme will be made available in upcoming
versions of SPM for a variety of dynamical systems.

3. Results
Sensory entropy as a Lagrangian
The variational free energy formalism uses the fact that biological systems must resist the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. a tendency to disorder), so that they do not decay to equilibrium. In a similar vein to Maxwell’s demon,
an organism reduces its entropy through sampling the environment – to actively minimise the self information or surprise of each successive sensory sample (this surprise is upper bounded by free energy). By doing so, it places a bound
on the entropy of attributes of the environment in which it
is immersed. Variational free energy operationalises this
bound by ensuring internal states of the system become a
replica (i.e., a generative model) of its immediate environment. This can be regarded as a formulation of the good
regulator hypothesis, which states that every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system.
We know that a gauge theory would leave the Lagrangian invariant under continuous symmetry transformations. Therefore, a gauge theory of the brain requires the interaction among three ingredients: a system equipped with
symmetry, some local forces applied to the system and one
or more gauge fields to compensate for the local perturbations that are introduced. The first ingredient is a system
equipped with symmetry: for the purposes of our argument, the system is the nervous system and the Lagrangian

is the entropy of sensory samples (which is upper-bounded
by variational free energy, averaged over time). The local forces are mediated by the external states of the world
(i.e., through sensory stimuli). The gauge fields can then
be identified by considering the fact that variational freeenergy is a scalar quantity based on probability measures.
How does neuronal activity follow the steepest descent direction to attain its free energy minimum? In other words,
how does it find the shortest path to the nearest minimum?
As the free energy manifold is curved there are no orthonormal linear co-ordinates to describe it. This means the distance between two points on the manifold can only be determined with the help of the Fisher information metric that
accounts for the curvature. Algebraic derivations (S3 in
(Sengupta et al., 2016)) tell us that, in such free-energy
landscapes, a Euclidean gradient descent is replaced by
a Riemann gradient, which simply weights the Euclidean
gradient by its asymptotic variance.
In the free energy framework, when the posterior probability is approximated with a Gaussian distribution (the
Laplace approximation; S4 in (Sengupta et al., 2016)), perception and action simply become gradient flows driven by
precision-weighted prediction errors. Here, prediction errors are simply the difference between sensory input (local
perturbations) and predictions of those inputs based upon
the systems internal states (that encode probability distributions or Bayesian beliefs about external states that cause
sensory input). Mathematically, precision-weighted prediction errors emerge when one computes the Euclidean
gradient of the free energy with respect to the sufficient
statistics. In a curvilinear space, the precision-weighted
prediction errors are replaced by dispersion and precision
weighted prediction errors. This says something quite fundamental – perception cannot be any more optimal than
the asymptotic dispersion (inverse Fisher information) regardless of the generative model. In statistics, this result is
known as the Cramér-Rao bound of an estimator. In other
words, the well-known bound (upper limit) on the precision
of any unbiased estimate of a model parameter in statistics
emerges here as a natural consequence of applying information geometry. In the context of the Bayesian brain, this
means there is a necessary limit to the certainty with which
we can estimate things. We will see next, that attaining this
limit translates into attention.
Notice that the definition of a system immersed in its environment can be extended hierarchically, wherein the gauge
theory can be applied at a variety of nested levels. At every
step, as the Lagrangian is disturbed (e.g., through changes
in forward or bottom-up sensory input), the precisionweighted compensatory forces change to keep the Lagrangian invariant via (backward or top-down) messages.
In the setting of predictive coding formulations of varia-

Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory

tional free energy minimisation, the bottom-up or forward
messages are assumed to convey prediction error from a
lower hierarchical level to a higher level, while the backward messages comprise predictions of sufficient statistics
in the level below. These predictions are produced to explain away prediction errors in the lower level. From the
perspective of a gauge theory, one can think of the local
forces as prediction errors that increase variational free energy, thereby activating the gauge fields to explain away
local forces.
In this geometrical interpretation, perception and action
are educed to form cogent predictions, whereby minimization of prediction errors is an inevitable consequence of
the nervous system minimising its Lagrangian. Crucially,
the cognitive homologue of precision-weighting is attention, which suggests gauge fields are intimately related to
(exogenous) attention. In other words, attention is a force
that manifests from the curvature of information geometry,
in exactly the same way that gravity is manifest when the
space-time continuum is curved by massive bodies. In summary, gauge theoretic arguments suggest that attention (and
its neurophysiological underpinnings) constitutes a necessary weighting of prediction errors (or sensory evidence)
that arises because the manifolds traced out by the path of
least free energy (or least surprise) are inherently curved.

4. Discussion
Complementary to our work in (Sengupta et al., 2016), this
paper advances the sketch of an algorithm that utilizes parallel transport for statistical manifolds governed by variational free-energy. It is well known that Riemann conjugate gradient method differs from its Euclidean counterpart
(i.e., for small step-sizes where the geometry is close to being Euclidean) only by third order terms (Edelman et al.,
1998; Bonnabel, 2013; Raskutti & Mukherjee, 2015) – enabling these algorithms to converge quadratically near the
extremum point. Nevertheless, our algorithm facilitates us
to compute discrete approximations of the parallel transport, without requiring us to have any knowledge of the
tangent structure of the manifold. This makes it tractable
for those manifolds where one need not assume the presence of an ambient space.
From the point of neuroscience, we consider the principle
of free energy minimization as a candidate gauge theory
that prescribes neuronal dynamics in terms of a Lagrangian.
Here, the Lagrangian is the variational free energy, which
is a functional of a probability distribution encoded by neuronal activity. This probabilistic encoding means that neuronal activity can be described by a path or trajectory on
a manifold in the space of sufficient statistics (variables
that are sufficient to describe a probability distribution). In
other words, if one interprets the brain as making infer-

ences, the underlying beliefs must be induced by biophysical representations that play the role of sufficient statistics. This is important because it takes us into the realm
of differential geometry (see S2 in (Sengupta et al., 2016)),
where the metric space – on which the geometry is defined
– is constituted by sufficient statistics (like the mean and
variance of a Gaussian distribution). Crucially, the gauge
theoretic perspective provides a rigorous way of measuring
distance on a manifold, such that the neuronal dynamics
transporting one distribution of neuronal activity to another
is given by the shortest path. Such a free energy manifold
is curvilinear and finding the shortest path is a non-trivial
problem – a problem that living organisms appear to have
solved. It is at this point that the utility of a gauge theoretic
approach appears; suggesting particular solutions to the
problem of finding the shortest path on curved manifolds.
The nature of the solution prescribes a normative theory for
self-organized neuronal dynamics. In other words, solving
the fundamental problem of minimizing free energy – in
terms of its path integrals – may illuminate not only how
the brain works but may provide efficient schemes in statistics and machine learning
Variational or Monte Carlo formulations of the Bayesian
brain require the brain to invert a generative model of the
latent (unknown or hidden) causes of sensations (see S3
in (Sengupta et al., 2016)). The implicit normative theory means that neuronal activity (and connectivity) maximises Bayesian model evidence or minimises variational
free energy (the Lagrangian) – effectively fitting a generative model to sensory samples. This entails an encoding of
beliefs (probability distributions) about the latent causes, in
terms of biophysical variables whose trajectories trace out
a manifold. In (deterministic) variational schemes, the coordinates on this manifold are the sufficient statistics (like
the mean and covariance) of the distribution or belief while
for a (stochastic) Monte Carlo formulation, the coordinates
are the latent causes themselves. The inevitable habitat of
these sufficient statistics (e.g., neuronal activity) is a curved
manifold.
This curvature (and associated information geometry) may
have profound implications for neuronal dynamics and
plasticity. As the Lagrangian is a function of beliefs (probabilities), the manifold that contains this motion is necessarily curved. This means, neuronal dynamics, in a local
frame of reference, will (appear to) be subject to forces
and drives (i.e., Levi-Civita connections). For example, the
motion of synaptic connection strengths (sufficient statistics of the parameters of generative models) depends upon
the motion of neural activity (sufficient statistics of beliefs
about latent causes), leading to experience-dependent plasticity. A more interesting manifestation may be attention
that couples the motion of different neuronal states in a way
that depends explicitly on the curvature of the manifold (as

Approximate Bayesian inference as a gauge theory

References
Amari, S. Information geometry of the EM and EM algorithms
for neural networks. Neural Networks, 8(9):1379–1408, 1995.
Bonnabel, Silvere. Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian
manifolds. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(9):
2217–2229, 2013.
Edelman, A., Arias, T.A., and Smith, S.T. The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM Journal on Matrix
Analysis and Applications, 1998.
Friston, K. J., Trujillo-Barreto, N., and Daunizeau, J. DEM: a
variational treatment of dynamic systems. Neuroimage, 41(3):
849–885, 2008.
Friston, Karl, Levin, Michael, Sengupta, Biswa, and Pezzulo,
Giovanni. Knowing one’s place: a free-energy approach to
pattern regulation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12
(105):20141383, 2015.
Friston, K.J. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Nat Rev Neurosci, 11(2):127–38, 2010.
Hairer, E., Lubich, C., and Wanner, G. Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer, 2004.
Figure 3. Screenshot of the SPM toolbox that primarily uses variational free energy minimization for a wide-variety of problems
in neuroscience, non-linear dynamics, reinforcement learning,
amongst others.

Hensman, J., Rattray, M., and Lawrence, N. D. Fast variational
inference in the conjugate exponential family. In NIPS.
Honkela, Antti, Raiko, Tapani, Kuusela, Mikael, Tornio, Matti,
and Karhunen, Juha. Approximate Riemannian conjugate gradient learning for fixed-form variational bayes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:32353268, 2010.
Kiebel, Stefan J and Friston, Karl J. Free energy and dendritic
self-organization. 2011.

measured by Fisher information).
In brief, a properly formulated gauge theory should, in
principle, provide the exact form of neuronal dynamics and
plasticity. These forms may reveal the underlying simplicity of many phenomena that we are already familiar with,
such as event-related brain responses, associative plasticity,
attentional gating, adaptive learning rates and so on.

A. Software
Variational algorithms for (nonlinear) regression, probabilistic graphic models of varying complexity and variational reinforcement learning (active inference; Markov
Decision Processes) have been released via the statistical
parametric mapping (SPM) toolbox http://www.fil.
ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/. Figure 3 provides a screenshot
of a wide variety of demos that detail a variety of problems.
Along with variational methods the SPM suite also includes stochastic methods (mci toolbox) such as Langevin
Monte Carlo, Manifold Monte Carlo, Riemannian Markov
Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), Hamiltonian MCMC (Sengupta et al., 2015a), population MCMC (Sengupta et al.,
2015b), geometric Annealed Importance Sampling algorithms (Penny & Sengupta, 2016), amongst others. Parallel
transport for variational models shall be made available in
subsequent releases.

Misner, C., Thorne, K., and Wheeler, J. Gravitation. W.H. Freeman, 1973.
Penny, Will and Sengupta, Biswa. Annealed importance sampling
for neural mass models. PLoS Comput Biol, 12(3):e1004797,
2016.
Raskutti, Garvesh and Mukherjee, Sayan. The information geometry of mirror descent. IEEE Trans. Information Theory, 61(3):
1451–1457, 2015.
Sengupta, B., Friston, K. J., and Penny, W. D. Gradient-based
MCMC samplers for dynamic causal modelling. Neuroimage,
2015a.
Sengupta, B., Friston, K. J., and Penny, W. D. Gradient-free
MCMC methods for dynamic causal modelling. Neuroimage,
112:375–81, 2015b.
Sengupta, Biswa, Tozzi, Arturo, Cooray, Gerald K., Douglas,
Pamela K., and Friston, Karl J. Towards a neuronal gauge theory. PLoS Biology, 14(3):1–12, 03 2016.
Tanaka, T. Information geometry of mean-field approximation,
pp. 259–273. The MIT Press, 2001.

