MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170490279 · doi:10.1103/physreve.108.014304

Dynamical independence: Discovering emergent macroscopic processes in complex dynamical systems

2023· article· en· W3170490279 on OpenAlexaff
Lionel Barnett, Anil K. Seth

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEuropean Research Council
KeywordsDynamical systems theoryLinear dynamical systemStatistical physicsMeasure-preserving dynamical systemComplex systemComputer scienceHamiltonian systemPhase portraitFlocking (texture)Dynamical system (definition)Independence (probability theory)PhysicsMathematicsRandom dynamical systemClassical mechanicsArtificial intelligenceNonlinear systemQuantum mechanicsBifurcation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a notion of emergence for macroscopic variables associated with highly multivariate microscopic dynamical processes. Dynamical independence instantiates the intuition of an emergent macroscopic process as one possessing the characteristics of a dynamical system "in its own right," with its own dynamical laws distinct from those of the underlying microscopic dynamics. We quantify (departure from) dynamical independence by a transformation-invariant Shannon information-based measure of dynamical dependence. We emphasize the data-driven discovery of dynamically independent macroscopic variables, and introduce the idea of a multiscale "emergence portrait" for complex systems. We show how dynamical dependence may be computed explicitly for linear systems in both time and frequency domains, facilitating discovery of emergent phenomena across spatiotemporal scales, and outline application of the linear operationalization to inference of emergence portraits for neural systems from neurophysiological time-series data. We discuss dynamical independence for discrete- and continuous-time deterministic dynamics, with potential application to Hamiltonian mechanics and classical complex systems such as flocking and cellular automata.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207