Software in the natural world: A computational approach to hierarchical emergence (2402.09090v2)
Abstract: Understanding the functional architecture of complex systems is crucial to illuminate their inner workings and enable effective methods for their prediction and control. Recent advances have introduced tools to characterise emergent macroscopic levels; however, while these approaches are successful in identifying when emergence takes place, they are limited in the extent they can determine how it does. Here we address this limitation by developing a computational approach to emergence, which characterises macroscopic processes in terms of their computational capabilities. Concretely, we articulate a view on emergence based on how software works, which is rooted on a mathematical formalism that articulates how macroscopic processes can express self-contained informational, interventional, and computational properties. This framework establishes a hierarchy of nested self-contained processes that determines what computations take place at what level, which in turn delineates the functional architecture of a complex system. This approach is illustrated on paradigmatic models from the statistical physics and computational neuroscience literature, which are shown to exhibit macroscopic processes that are akin to software in human-engineered systems. Overall, this framework enables a deeper understanding of the multi-level structure of complex systems, revealing specific ways in which they can be efficiently simulated, predicted, and controlled.
- L. Pessoa, “The entangled brain,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 349–360, 2023.
- Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.” Queue, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 31–57, 2018.
- Y. Zhang, P. Tiňo, A. Leonardis, and K. Tang, “A survey on neural network interpretability,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 726–742, 2021.
- A. K. Seth, “Measuring autonomy and emergence via granger causality,” Artificial Life, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 179–196, 2010.
- E. P. Hoel, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi, “Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 49, pp. 19 790–19 795, 2013.
- F. E. Rosas, P. A. Mediano, H. J. Jensen, A. K. Seth, A. B. Barrett, R. L. Carhart-Harris, and D. Bor, “Reconciling emergences: An information-theoretic approach to identify causal emergence in multivariate data,” arXiv:2004.08220, 2020.
- T. F. Varley and E. Hoel, “Emergence as the conversion of information: a unifying theory,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 380, no. 2227, p. 20210150, 2022.
- L. Barnett and A. K. Seth, “Dynamical independence: discovering emergent macroscopic processes in complex dynamical systems,” Physical Review E, vol. 108, no. 1, p. 014304, 2023.
- B. Klein and E. Hoel, “The emergence of informative higher scales in complex networks,” Complexity, vol. 2020, 2020.
- B. Klein, E. Hoel, A. Swain, R. Griebenow, and M. Levin, “Evolution and emergence: higher order information structure in protein interactomes across the tree of life,” Integrative Biology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 283–294, 2021.
- A. I. Luppi, P. A. Mediano, F. E. Rosas, N. Holland, T. D. Fryer, J. T. O’Brien, J. B. Rowe, D. K. Menon, D. Bor, and E. A. Stamatakis, “A synergistic core for human brain evolution and cognition,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 771–782, 2022.
- A. I. Luppi, P. A. Mediano, F. E. Rosas, J. Allanson, J. D. Pickard, G. B. Williams, M. M. Craig, P. Finoia, A. R. Peattie, P. Coppola et al., “Reduced emergent character of neural dynamics in patients with a disrupted connectome,” Neuroimage, vol. 269, p. 119926, 2023.
- A. M. Proca, F. E. Rosas, A. I. Luppi, D. Bor, M. Crosby, and P. A. Mediano, “Synergistic information supports modality integration and flexible learning in neural networks solving multiple tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02996, 2022.
- C. Shalizi, “Causal architecture,” Complexity, and Self-Organization in Time Series and Cellular Automata PhD thesis (Univ Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI), 2001.
- D. A. Patterson and J. L. Hennessy, “Computer organization and design: the hardware/software interface (the morgan kaufmann series in computer architecture and design),” Paperback, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2013.
- W. Bechtel and J. Mundale, “Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states,” Philosophy of science, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 175–207, 1999.
- N. Bostrom, “Are we living in a computer simulation?” The philosophical quarterly, vol. 53, no. 211, pp. 243–255, 2003.
- R. W. Batterman and C. C. Rice, “Minimal model explanations,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 349–376, 2014.
- N. Block, “The mind as the software of the brain,” New york, vol. 3, pp. 377–425, 1995.
- We remark that a simplistic interpretation of the brain/mind dichotomy in terms of a hardware/software distinction has most likely long outlived its usefulness cobb2020idea . Nonetheless, a computational perspective might still usefully be applied to brains to identify emergent functional architectures.
- J. L. Chandler and G. Van de Vijver, “Emergent organizations and their dynamics,” New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 2000.
- H. H. Pattee, J. Raczaszek-Leonardi, and H. H. Pattee, “Cell psychology: an evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem,” LAWS, LANGUAGE and LIFE: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary, pp. 165–179, 2012.
- J. P. Crutchfield, “The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 75, no. 1-3, pp. 11–54, 1994.
- C. R. Shalizi and J. P. Crutchfield, “Computational mechanics: Pattern and prediction, structure and simplicity,” Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 104, no. 3-4, pp. 817–879, 2001.
- M. Barbaresi, “Computational mechanics: from theory to practice,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universita di Bologna, 2017.
- J. P. Crutchfield, “The origins of computational mechanics: A brief intellectual history and several clarifications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06832, 2017.
- P. Grassberger, “Toward a quantitative theory of self-generated complexity,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 907–938, 1986.
- J. P. Crutchfield and K. Young, “Inferring statistical complexity,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 63, no. 2, p. 105, 1989.
- J. P. Crutchfield and D. P. Feldman, “Regularities unseen, randomness observed: Levels of entropy convergence,” arXiv e-prints, pp. cond–mat, 2001.
- S. L. Bressler and A. K. Seth, “Wiener–Granger causality: A well established methodology,” Neuroimage, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 323–329, 2011.
- Y. Ephraim and N. Merhav, “Hidden markov processes,” IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1518–1569, 2002.
- J. E. Hopcroft, R. Motwani, and J. D. Ullman, “Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation,” Acm Sigact News, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 60–65, 2001.
- For an introduction to automata and their interpretation as computational systems, please see Refs. minsky1967computation ; hopcroft2001introduction .
- This equivalence between hidden Markov models and discrete automatas is not general, but only holds because the Markov dynamics of ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ-machines have the so-called unifilar property: transitions between causal states (e.g. from Etsubscript𝐸𝑡E_{t}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to Et+1subscript𝐸𝑡1E_{t+1}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) are deterministic after the next symbol (in this case Xt+1subscript𝑋𝑡1X_{t+1}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has been emitted.
- N. Bertschinger, E. Olbrich, N. Ay, and J. Jost, “Information and closure in systems theory,” in Explorations in the Complexity of Possible Life. Proceedings of the 7th German Workshop of Artificial Life. IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006, pp. 9–21.
- A. Y. Chang, M. Biehl, Y. Yu, and R. Kanai, “Information closure theory of consciousness,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, p. 1504, 2020.
- More technically, a informationally-close macro-scale is a sufficient statistic casella2021statistical with respect to the micro-scale to predict its own future.
- K. G. Wilson, “Problems in physics with many scales of length,” Scientific American, vol. 241, no. 2, pp. 158–179, 1979.
- J. T. Lizier, M. Prokopenko, and A. Y. Zomaya, “Local measures of information storage in complex distributed computation,” Information Sciences, vol. 208, pp. 39–54, 2012.
- N. H. Bingham, “Fluctuation theory for the ehrenfest urn,” Advances in Applied Probability, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 598–611, 1991.
- R. J. Glauber, “Time-dependent statistics of the ising model,” Journal of mathematical physics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 294–307, 1963.
- M. Aguilera, S. A. Moosavi, and H. Shimazaki, “A unifying framework for mean-field theories of asymmetric kinetic ising systems,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1197, 2021.
- Please note that one could sub-sample the temporal evolution of this process (so to account for updates of k𝑘kitalic_k spins instead of only one), and the arguments that follow still hold.
- A. T. Crooks and A. J. Heppenstall, “Introduction to agent-based modelling,” in Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, 2011, pp. 85–105.
- R. Lamarche-Perrin, S. Banisch, and E. Olbrich, “The information bottleneck method for optimal prediction of multilevel agent-based systems,” Adv. Complex Syst., vol. 19, no. 01n02, p. 1650002, 2016.
- B. C. Geiger, A. Jahani, H. Hussain, and D. Groen, “Markov aggregation for speeding up agent-based movement simulations,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), London, United Kingdom, 2023, p. 1877–1885, open-access.
- For a comprehensive review on the state of the art of the neuroscience of memory, see Ref. kandel2014molecular .
- S.-I. Amari, “Learning patterns and pattern sequences by self-organizing nets of threshold elements,” IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 100, no. 11, pp. 1197–1206, 1972.
- W. A. Little, “The existence of persistent states in the brain,” Mathematical biosciences, vol. 19, no. 1-2, pp. 101–120, 1974.
- J. J. Hopfield, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 79, no. 8, pp. 2554–2558, 1982.
- S. Ramón y Cajal, “La fine structure des centres nerveux. the croonian lecture,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond, vol. 55, pp. 443–468, 1894.
- D. J. Amit, H. Gutfreund, and H. Sompolinsky, “Storing infinite numbers of patterns in a spin-glass model of neural networks,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 55, no. 14, p. 1530, 1985.
- ——, “Statistical mechanics of neural networks near saturation,” Annals of physics, vol. 173, no. 1, pp. 30–67, 1987.
- F. E. Rosas, P. A. Mediano, A. I. Luppi, T. F. Varley, J. T. Lizier, S. Stramaglia, H. J. Jensen, and D. Marinazzo, “Disentangling high-order mechanisms and high-order behaviours in complex systems,” Nature Physics, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 476–477, 2022.
- D. P. Feldman, C. S. McTague, and J. P. Crutchfield, “The organization of intrinsic computation: Complexity-entropy diagrams and the diversity of natural information processing,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 18, no. 4, 2008.
- J. P. Crutchfield, W. L. Ditto, and S. Sinha, “Introduction to focus issue: intrinsic and designed computation: information processing in dynamical systems—beyond the digital hegemony,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 20, no. 3, 2010.
- D. Horsman, S. Stepney, R. C. Wagner, and V. Kendon, “When does a physical system compute?” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 470, no. 2169, p. 20140182, 2014.
- J. C. Flack, “Coarse-graining as a downward causation mechanism,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 375, no. 2109, p. 20160338, 2017.
- A. C. Costa, T. Ahamed, D. Jordan, and G. J. Stephens, “Maximally predictive states: From partial observations to long timescales,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 33, no. 2, 2023.
- P. Auger, R. B. de La Parra, J.-C. Poggiale, E. Sánchez, and L. Sanz, “Aggregation methods in dynamical systems and applications in population and community dynamics,” Physics of Life Reviews, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 79–105, 2008.
- H. A. Simon and A. Ando, “Aggregation of variables in dynamic systems,” Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 111–138, 1961.
- L. B. White, R. Mahony, and G. D. Brushe, “Lumpable hidden markov models-model reduction and reduced complexity filtering,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2297–2306, 2000.
- B. Munsky and M. Khammash, “The finite state projection algorithm for the solution of the chemical master equation,” The Journal of chemical physics, vol. 124, no. 4, 2006.
- J. Garcıa and V. A. González-López, “Minimal markov models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.0729, 2010.
- D. H. Wolpert, J. A. Grochow, E. Libby, and S. DeDeo, “Optimal high-level descriptions of dynamical systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.7403, 2014.
- O. Pfante, N. Bertschinger, E. Olbrich, N. Ay, and J. Jost, “Comparison between different methods of level identification,” Adv. Complex Syst., vol. 17, no. 02, p. 1450007, 2014.
- D. Janzing, D. Balduzzi, M. Grosse-Wentrup, and B. Schölkopf, “Quantifying causal influences,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 2324–2358, 2013.
- M. Kocaoglu, A. Dimakis, S. Vishwanath, and B. Hassibi, “Entropic causal inference,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017.
- L. Albantakis, W. Marshall, E. Hoel, and G. Tononi, “What caused what? a quantitative account of actual causation using dynamical causal networks,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 459, 2019.
- R. Comolatti and E. Hoel, “Causal emergence is widespread across measures of causation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01854, 2022.
- P. Tino and G. Dorffner, “Predicting the future of discrete sequences from fractal representations of the past,” Machine Learning, vol. 45, pp. 187–217, 2001.
- C. Shalizi and K. L. Klinkner, “Blind construction of optimal nonlinear recursive predictors for discrete sequences,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.2025, 2014.
- S. Marzen and J. P. Crutchfield, “Circumventing the curse of dimensionality in prediction: causal rate-distortion for infinite-order markov processes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.2859, 2014.
- N. Tishby, F. C. Pereira, and W. Bialek, “The information bottleneck method,” arXiv preprint physics/0004057, 2000.
- A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023.
- A. M. Turing et al., “On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem,” J. of Math, vol. 58, no. 345-363, p. 5, 1936.
- An illustrative example is the old but still ongoing debate in neuroscience of whether the brain ought to be conceived as a computer fodor1975language ; pylyshyn1986computation ; rescorla2017ockham ; milkowski2013explaining ; richards2022brain or not van1995might ; van1998dynamical ; smith2005cognition : while under some definitions the brain is clearly a computer and under others it is not, it is not entirely evident how any of these outcomes advances our actual understanding of how the brain works.
- B. McLaughlin and K. Bennett, “Supervenience,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta, Ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021.
- L. Gurvits and J. Ledoux, “Markov property for a function of a Markov chain: a linear algebra approach,” Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 404, pp. 85–117, 2005.
- B. C. Geiger and C. Temmel, “Lumpings of Markov chains, entropy rate preservation, and higher-order lumpability,” J. Appl. Probab., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1114–1132, Dec. 2014, extended version: arXiv:1212.4375 [cs.IT].
- S. Derisavi, H. Hermanns, and W. H. Sanders, “Optimal state-space lumping in markov chains,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 309–315, 2003.
- D. R. Barr and M. U. Thomas, “Technical note—an eigenvector condition for markov chain lumpability,” Operations Research, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1028–1031, 1977.
- M. N. Jacobi and O. Görnerup, “A dual eigenvector condition for strong lumpabilit of Markov chains,” 2008, arXiv:0710.1986.
- M. N. Katehakis and L. C. Smit, “A successive lumping procedure for a class of Markov chains,” Probability in the Engineering and Information Sciences, vol. 26, pp. 483–508, 2012.
- M. N. Jacobi, “A robust spectral method for finding lumpings and meta stable states of non-reversible Markov chains,” 2010, arXiv:0810.1127.
- B. C. Geiger, T. Petrov, G. Kubin, and H. Koeppl, “Optimal Kullback-Leibler aggregation via information bottleneck,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1010–1022, Apr. 2015, open-access: arXiv:1304.6603 [cs.SY].
- R. A. Amjad, C. Blöchl, and B. C. Geiger, “A generalized framework for Kullback-Leibler Markov aggregation,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 3068–3075, Jul. 2020.
- Code for this kind of approaches can be found at https://github.com/stegsoph/Constrained-Markov-Clustering.
- M. Bondaschi and M. Gastpar, “Alpha-NML universal predictors,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 468–473.
- E. R. Kandel, Y. Dudai, and M. R. Mayford, “The molecular and systems biology of memory,” Cell, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 163–186, 2014.
- Z. Pylyshyn and W. Turnbiull, “Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science,” Canadian Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 85–87, 1986.
- M. Rescorla, “From Ockham to Turing – and back again,” in Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing. Springer, 2017, pp. 279–304.
- B. A. Richards and T. P. Lillicrap, “The brain-computer metaphor debate is useless: A matter of semantics,” Frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 4, p. 810358, 2022.
- T. Van Gelder, “What might cognition be, if not computation?” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 345–381, 1995.
- ——, “The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 615–628, 1998.
- L. B. Smith, “Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment,” Developmental Review, vol. 25, no. 3-4, pp. 278–298, 2005.
- P. Buchholz, “Exact and ordinary lumpability in finite markov chains,” Journal of Applied Probability, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 59–75, 1994.