A large body of work frames EEG-based analysis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as a supervised classification problem, where hand-crafted spectral or connectivity features (e.g., band power, topographies, and simple graph summaries) are extracted from multichannel recordings and then fed into conventional classifiers ( , ). Recent studies further benchmark alternative feature–classifier combinations and examine protocol choices such as task versus resting-state recordings ( , ). While these pipelines can achieve strong diagnostic accuracy, they typically summarize EEG into static descriptors and do not explicitly model the latent, event-driven dynamics and directed interactions that generate the signals. More recent studies continue to refine supervised AD–EEG pipelines with stronger models and evaluation protocols ( , ).

A complementary line of work seeks to model EEG dynamics more directly from a dynamical-systems perspective, emphasizing rapidly switching, whole-brain patterns and their temporal organization. EEG microstate analysis characterizes ongoing activity as sequences of quasi-stable scalp topographies (typically $\sim$60–120 ms) and provides an interpretable window into transient large-scale network dynamics ( , ). Complementarily, Hidden Markov Modelling has been used to infer fast transient EEG network states and their transition structure ( , ).

Despite this progress, many dynamical approaches still operate on continuous-valued latent trajectories and do not explicitly recover directed, event-level interactions that explain how activity in one region influences future dynamics in others. Generative biophysical models such as dynamic causal modeling (DCM) provide a principled route to infer effective connectivity from EEG/MEG, but they typically require specifying an explicit neural mass model and a priori network structure ( , ). As a result, bridging transient EEG state dynamics with directed, event-driven interaction structure remains an open challenge.

We introduce LERD, a Bayesian neural dynamical system for multichannel sequences that represents each channel with a latent event process and couples channels through a conditional event–relational graph (ERG) driven by the timing and ordering of inferred events. This design targets settings where clinically relevant information lies in when events occur and how they align across channels. In particular, our graph estimation follows the spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) principle that coupling depends on relative spike timing, with near-coincident pre/post spikes inducing stronger interaction ( , ); accordingly, we construct edges as a smooth function of cross-channel event-time lags implied by the inferred event posteriors.

At a high level, LERD has three interacting components. First, an event posterior differential equation (EPDE) encodes per-channel event dynamics by producing posterior event-time distributions (equivalently, an approximate posterior over latent event times $\{Tc(n)\}$) conditioned on the observed sequence $X(n)$. Second, a mean–evolving lognormal mechanism (MELP) uses EPDE outputs as mean parameters to generate stochastic inter-event timing between successive latent event times $t(n)c,k$, ensuring positive and flexible timing statistics. Third, an event–relational graph $G(n)(t)$ is inferred from event co-occurrence and cross-channel lags derived from the EPDE/MELP event posterior, via an STDP-shaped lag-to-edge mapping that specifies how relative event timing modulates effective coupling.

For each labeled sequence $(X(n),Y(n))$, the inferred triple $(X(n),T(n),G(n))$ is passed to a decoder $p\theta (\mid Y(n)X(n),T(n),G(n))$ for downstream prediction (e.g., AD vs. control). Training is end-to-end via variational learning that jointly optimizes EPDE and MELP while learning ERG dynamics under weak regularization; details are provided in the learning subsection.

We train LERD end-to-end via variational inference by minimizing a negative-ELBO-style objective. For labeled data $\{(X(n),Y(n))\}=n1N$, let $=T(n)\{Tc(n)\}=c1C$ collect all latent event times and let $=\tau (n)\{\tau (n)c,k\}$ collect the corresponding inter-event intervals. EPDE produces posterior event-time distributions and thereby induces an approximate posterior $q\varphi (\mid T(n)X(n))$. MELP parameterizes a variational distribution over inter-event intervals $q\varphi (\mid \tau (n)X(n))$ (using EPDE outputs as its mean parameters), which we use to draw reparameterized samples that yield event-time realizations. Given sampled events, we construct an ERG $G(n)\eta$ via the lag-to-edge map $\phi \eta (\cdot )$, and predict labels with the decoder $p\theta (\mid Y(n)X(n),T(n),G(n)\eta )$.

Concretely, we minimize

where $:=KLT(n)KL(\parallel q\varphi (\mid T(n)X(n))pdLIF(T))$ compares the EPDE-induced event posterior to the electrophysiology-informed prior $pdLIF(T)$, and $:=KL\tau (n)KL(\parallel q\varphi (\mid \tau (n)X(n))p0(\tau ))$ regularizes MELP against a lognormal(-mixture) prior over inter-event intervals. The term $RLIF(n)$ softly enforces leaky–integrate–and–fire consistency on differentiable rate proxies read out from the EPDE state, with weight $\ge \lambda LIF0$, while $RERG(n)$ weakly nudges ERG edges toward observable statistics computed from $X(n)$ (e.g., correlation-based summaries), with strength $\ge \beta 0$.

Each EEG channel can be viewed as an aggregated response of a population of neurons, where clinically relevant information is often reflected in the timing of latent neuronal events. To inject an electrophysiology-inspired inductive bias of neurons, we place a biophysical prior on event timing by instantiating each channel’s latent events $=Tc(n)\{t(n)c,k\}$ as a renewal process whose hazard is derived from a differentiable leaky–integrate–and–fire (dLIF) abstraction ( , ). This prior regularizes event generation toward physiologically plausible behavior while remaining differentiable for end-to-end learning.

For channel $c$, the (rescaled) membrane potential evolves as

where $bc(t)$ is an effective (learned) input drive. Given this membrane dynamics, the implied instantaneous firing rate is

This rate induces a dLIF inter-event time density

and the resulting dLIF prior for channel $c$ is the renewal law $pdLIF(Tc(n))$ with hazard $rc(t)$. We parameterize $bc(t)$ by a bounded neural mapping from learned embeddings, for example

where $g(.)$ is a neural network; $zc(n)(t)$ denotes features derived from $X(n)$. This construction guarantees $>bc(t)1$ and thus $>rc(t)0$. Refractory effects are incorporated through a smooth gating factor $\in \alpha c(n)(t)(0,1]$ constructed from recent events in $Tc(n)$, using an effective rate $=~rc(t)\alpha c(n)(t)rc(t)$ to suppress implausible near–back–to–back spikes.

Because the hard spike nonlinearity is non–differentiable, we regularize rates rather than spikes. Concretely, the learning objective includes a dLIF consistency term

where $^rc(n)(t)$ is a differentiable rate proxy read from the EPDE state for sequence $n$ over a time horizon $[0,S]$. This encourages the learned rates to follow dLIF membrane dynamics without invoking non–differentiable spike functions ( , ). The variational KL between the EPDE–induced path law $q\varphi (\mid Tc(n)X(n))$ and $pdLIF(Tc(n))$ is intractable in general; we therefore use the following tractable integral–rate bound, which yields a stable surrogate for training while preserving the biophysical semantics of the prior.

The proofs are provided in the Appendix. In training we evaluate the KL term using the computable bound $U\epsilon$ from Eq. () (fixed small $\epsilon$ and an ODE solver for Eq. ()).

For each sequence $(X(n),Y(n))$ and channel $c$, let $qc(n)(\mid txc(n))$ denote the density of the next event time given the observed channel signal $xc(n)$. If $~tc,-k1(n)$ denotes the previous (predicted) event time on that channel, the expected next event time is

To express this update via an initial value problem (IVP), we introduce an auxiliary function $\Phi c(n)(t)$ whose derivative accumulates the contribution of $qc(n)$:

Its initial value encodes the full expectation under $qc(n)$:

With this definition, the expected next event time in () can be written as the IVP solution evaluated at the previous event time:

Directly solving ()– and computing $\Phi c(n)(0)$ is intractable, so we approximate this mapping with a differentiable neural surrogate that updates the predicted next event time:

implemented to ensure $>~tc,k(n)~tc,-k1(n)$, so that latent events remain strictly ordered in time.

Consequently, differentiating the ideal $\Phi c(n)(t)$ with respect to $t$ yields an event-time posterior of the form

which we approximate with the EPDE parameterization. Across channels, the family $\{qc(n)(\mid txc(n))\}=c1C$ provides a parametric approximation to the event-time posteriors $\{pc(n)(t)\}=c1C$ introduced in the problem formulation, and jointly defines the EPDE-induced posterior $q\varphi (\mid T(n)X(n))$ over latent event times $=T(n)\{Tc(n)\}=c1C$ used in the variational objective. The predicted next-event times $~tc,k(n)$ then serve as mean parameters for the mean–evolving lognormal mechanism (MELP) that models stochastic variability in event timing, as detailed in the next subsection.

For each sequence $X(n)$ and channel $c$, given the previous event time $~tc,-i1(n)$, the EPDE produces a $K$-dimensional vector of candidate mean intervals $~\tau c(n)=(~\tau c,1(n),\dots ,~\tau c,K(n))\in R+K$, together with mixture weights $wc(n)=(wc,1(n),\dots ,wc,K(n))\in \Delta -K1$ and scales $sc(n)=(sc,1(n),\dots ,sc,K(n))\in R+K$. MELP draws the inter–event interval $\tau c,i(n)$ from a lognormal mixture:

where $LogN(\cdot ;\mu ,s2)$ denotes a lognormal density with log-mean $\mu$ and log-variance $s2$.

For each component $j$, we choose $\mu c,j(n)$ as a function of $~\tau c,j(n)$ and $sc,j(n)$ so that the mean of the corresponding lognormal distribution matches the EPDE-predicted interval $~\tau c,j(n)$. This ties the mixture components’ average inter-event times directly to the EPDE outputs, while the scales $sc,j(n)$ control uncertainty around these means.

Sampling from MELP is reparameterized to keep gradients pathwise:

During training we use a differentiable variant of () (e.g., Gumbel–Softmax) and take hard samples at test time. MELP guarantees positive inter-event intervals, captures multimodal timing statistics, and yields closed-form component-wise KL terms against a lognormal(-mixture) prior in the learning objective. Moreover, the mixture expectation $=E[\tau c,i(n)]\sum =j1Kwc,j(n)~\tau c,j(n)$ is available in closed form and is used in downstream computations such as computing ERG lags.

For each sequence $n$, we infer an event-driven graph with adjacency $\in A(n)(t)[0,1]\times CC$ conditioned on the EPDE–MELP event posterior $q\varphi (\mid T(n)X(n))$, where $=T(n)\{T(n)c\}=c1C$ and $=T(n)c\{t(n)c,k\}=k1K(n)c$. Given a latent event realization $\sim Tq\varphi (\mid T(n)X(n))$ and time $t$, let $:=~t(n)c(t;T)max\{\le t(n)c,kt\}$ denote the most recent event time on channel $c$ up to $t$ (set $=~t(n)c(t;T)0$ if none). We define the signed lag $:=\Delta ~t(n)ij(t;T)-~t(n)i(t;T)~t(n)j(t;T)$, and map it to an edge score via a smooth function $:\phi \eta \to R[0,1]$ (STDP-shaped in our implementation, e.g., $=\phi \eta (x)exp(-\alpha |x|)$ with $=\eta \{\alpha \}$):

We approximate the posterior edge weight with $SMC$ Monte Carlo samples $\{T(n,s)\}=s1SMC$:

where $\{tm\}=m1M$ is a fixed time grid in the window (used to obtain a single adjacency $¯A(n)$ for downstream graph layers). We set $=¯A(n)ii0$ and optionally symmetrize for undirected GNNs.

To weakly align ERG connectivity with an observable statistic from $X(n)$ (e.g., Pearson correlation $\in s(n)ij(-1,1)$), we use Fisher–$z$ matching:

and define the ERG regularizer

where $>\sigma 0$ is fixed or learned and the term is weighted by $\beta$ in the overall objective.

The implementation details and additional theoretical results are provided in Appendix and , respectively.

The toy dataset experiments evaluated how well LERD and baseline neural ODE methods (NODE ( , ), ODE-RNN ( , ), and STRODE ( , )) recover latent event dynamics across distinct frequency bands ([5–10], [10–15], and [15–20] Hz). As summarized in Table , baseline methods achieved strong cosine similarity (CS) scores across all frequency bands, reflecting good sequence-level prediction performance. However, their intersection-over-union (IoU) scores were uniformly zero, indicating a fundamental limitation in capturing the latent event structure. This outcome highlights the common issue with purely data-driven neural approaches: despite excellent predictive accuracy, they often fail to recover the underlying generative mechanisms of data.

In contrast, LERD maintained similarly high CS scores while notably achieving meaningful IoU values (e.g., 0.473 at [5–10] Hz, 0.289 at [10–15] Hz, and 0.202 at [15–20] Hz). These non-zero IoU scores demonstrate that LERD captures latent structures consistent with the generative process and that its event-rate latents track the underlying oscillatory structure rather than acting as arbitrary embeddings. Moreover, the predicted event rates from LERD showed wider but informative uncertainty intervals, aligning closely with the true frequency band intervals. Such uncertainty quantification highlights LERD’s capacity to provide both accurate predictions and useful latent summaries in noisy and ambiguous settings. Additional data generation protocols are provided in Appendix .

We extensively evaluated LERD on two diverse EEG datasets covering Alzheimer’s disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy controls, as shown in Table . Across both datasets, LERD outperformed state-of-the-art baselines such as CNNs, RNNs, and transformers. In Dataset AD cohort A, LERD showed a clear ability to distinguish AD, FTD, and healthy participants, with consistently lower performance variability across runs. This stability highlights its effectiveness in capturing subtle neural dynamics despite EEG heterogeneity. In the more unbalanced Dataset AD cohort B, where distinctions between moderate AD, MCI, and healthy controls are subtler, LERD still achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy. While some baselines showed significant performance fluctuations, LERD remained robust, balancing sensitivity and specificity—demonstrating resilience to noise and distribution shifts common in real-world EEG data. Overall, LERD yields physiology-aligned latent summaries alongside strong predictive performance, supporting analyses of group-level spectral/connectivity differences under a strict cross-subject protocol. Additional dataset descriptions and baseline methods are presented in Appendix .

We evaluate LERD under a five–fold cross–subject protocol to ensure that generalization is assessed on previously unseen participants rather than unseen windows from the same individuals. For each cohort, subjects are partitioned into five disjoint folds with stratification at the subject level so that the class proportions of Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia/mild cognitive impairment, and healthy controls are approximately preserved in every split. In each round, four folds are used for training, and one for testing; the roles of the folds are rotated until every fold serves exactly once in the held–out test set.

EEG is segmented into non–overlapping two–second windows (1,000 samples at 500 Hz) per subject and channel, followed by channel–wise $z$–normalization computed within the training portion of the active fold and then applied to validation and test windows of that fold.

Evaluation is conducted at subject levels. Subject–level predictions aggregate a subject’s windows by majority vote over window–wise labels. We report accuracy, macro–F1, and summarize performance as the mean and standard deviation across the five test folds.

We ablated LERD to assess each prior’s impact on predictive performance (Table ). On AD Cohort A, the no-prior baseline is moderate; adding the dLIF prior boosts accuracy, while the ERG prior improves accuracy and F1 via inter-channel modeling. Combining both yields the best scores. On AD Cohort B, the pattern holds with larger gains: the dLIF prior gives the biggest accuracy lift under subtler classes, and the ERG prior raises F1. Their combination again performs best. Overall, each prior helps, and together they provide robust predictions on realistic EEG.

To further analyze the latent neural dynamics captured by LERD, we visualized the inferred frequency distributions derived from the differentiable leaky-integrate-and-fire (dLIF) prior across several key EEG channels associated with Alzheimer’s disease progression, including channels F3, O2, Pz, and T3. Figure  exemplifies the frequency distributions at channel F3 for the Alzheimer’s disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy control (HC) groups. The distributions illustrate a trend of decreasing frequency with increasing disease severity. Specifically, healthy controls exhibit the highest central frequency, indicating typical neural oscillatory activity. Subjects with MCI show slightly reduced frequency values, signifying the onset of neural slowing, while the AD group displays the lowest central frequencies, reflecting neural slowing commonly reported in Alzheimer’s pathology. This consistent pattern across multiple channels indicates that the learned latent rate variables align with established EEG band-shift phenomena and can support group-level analyses.

We also visualized LERD’s inferred event-relational graphs (ERGs) against Pearson correlation-based connectivity graphs (Figure ). Chord diagrams revealed distinct connectivity patterns across healthy controls (HC), FTD, and AD groups. LERD’s ERGs captured trends consistent with prior dementia EEG findings: HC showed denser connectivity, while FTD and AD exhibited sparser and weaker links. Some similarity to Pearson graphs is expected because we include a weak Fisher–$z$ alignment term that encourages (but does not enforce) agreement with correlation-based summaries. Overall, the ERG provides a timing-derived connectivity summary that can be compared alongside standard measures.

Figure  visually compares the predicted versus ground-truth boundary times for STRODE and LERD across three distinct frequency bands ([5–10 Hz], [10–15 Hz], and [15–20 Hz]). STRODE demonstrates noticeable deviations from the ideal diagonal alignment, suggesting challenges in accurately recovering true boundary timings, particularly at higher frequency bands. In contrast, LERD consistently maintains a tighter diagonal alignment across all frequency ranges, indicating superior accuracy and robustness in capturing underlying temporal structures. This visualization clearly illustrates LERD’s effectiveness in accurately inferring latent event boundaries in the toy dataset, reinforcing its suitability for precise temporal modeling in EEG data.