Predictive landscapes hidden beneath biological cellular automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To celebrate Hans Frauenfelder's achievements, we examine energy(-like) "landscapes" for complex living systems. Energy landscapes summarize all possible dynamics of some physical systems. Energy(-like) landscapes can explain some biomolecular processes, including gene expression and, as Frauenfelder showed, protein folding. But energy-like landscapes and existing frameworks like statistical mechanics seem impractical for describing many living systems. Difficulties stem from living systems being high dimensional, nonlinear, and governed by many, tightly coupled constituents that are noisy. The predominant modeling approach is devising differential equations that are tailored to each living system. This ad hoc approach faces the notorious "parameter problem": models have numerous nonlinear, mathematical functions with unknown parameter values, even for describing just a few intracellular processes. One cannot measure many intracellular parameters or can only measure them as snapshots in time. Another modeling approach uses cellular automata to represent living systems as discrete dynamical systems with binary variables. Quantitative (Hamiltonian-based) rules can dictate cellular automata (e.g., Cellular Potts Model). But numerous biological features, in current practice, are qualitatively described rather than quantitatively (e.g., gene is (highly) expressed or not (highly) expressed). Cellular automata governed by verbal rules are useful representations for living systems and can mitigate the parameter problem. However, they can yield complex dynamics that are difficult to understand because the automata-governing rules are not quantitative and much of the existing mathematical tools and theorems apply to continuous but not discrete dynamical systems. Recent studies found ways to overcome this challenge. These studies either discovered or suggest an existence of predictive "landscapes" whose shapes are described by Lyapunov functions and yield "equations of motion" for a "pseudo-particle." The pseudo-particle represents the entire cellular lattice and moves on the landscape, thereby giving a low-dimensional representation of the cellular automata dynamics. We outline this promising modeling strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".