Using self‐dissimilarity to quantify complexity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For many systems characterized as “complex” the patterns exhibited on different scales differ markedly from one another. For example, the biomass distribution in a human body “looks very different” depending on the scale at which one examines it. Conversely, the patterns at different scales in “simple” systems (e.g., gases, mountains, crystals) vary little from one scale to another. Accordingly, the degrees of self‐dissimilarity between the patterns of a system at various scales constitute a complexity “signature” of that system. Here we present a novel quantification of self‐dissimilarity. This signature can, if desired, incorporate a novel information‐theoretic measure of the distance between probability distributions that we derive here. Whatever distance measure is chosen, our quantification of self‐dissimilarity can be measured for many kinds of real‐world data. This allows comparisons of the complexity signatures of wholly different kinds of systems (e.g., systems involving information density in a digital computer vs. species densities in a rain forest vs. capital density in an economy, etc.). Moreover, in contrast to many other suggested complexity measures, evaluating the self‐dissimilarity of a system does not require one to already have a model of the system. These facts may allow self‐dissimilarity signatures to be used as the underlying observational variables of an eventual overarching theory relating all complex systems. To illustrate self‐dissimilarity, we present several numerical experiments. In particular, we show that the underlying structure of the logistic map is picked out by the self‐dissimilarity signature of time series produced by that map. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 12: 77–85, 2007
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it