MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394805769 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.12.589163

Intrinsic Units: Identifying a system’s causal grain

2024· preprint· en· W4394805769 on OpenAlexafffund
William Marshall, Graham Findlay, Larissa Albantakis, Giulio Tononi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTempleton World Charity FoundationUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)MacroComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Integrated information theory (IIT) aims to account for the quality and quantity of consciousness in physical terms. According to IIT, a substrate of consciousness must be a system of units that is a maximum of intrinsic, irreducible cause-effect power, quantified by integrated information ( φ s ). Moreover, the grain of each unit must be the one— from micro (finer) to macro (coarser)—that maximizes the system’s intrinsic irreducibility (i.e., maximizes φ s ). The units that maximize φ s are called the intrinsic units of the system. This work extends the mathematical framework of IIT 4.0 to assess cause-effect power at different grains and thereby determine a system’s intrinsic units. Using simple, simulated systems, we show that the cause-effect power of a system of macro units can be higher than the cause-effect power of the corresponding micro units. Two examples highlight specific kinds of macro units, and how each kind can increase cause-effect power. The implications of the framework are discussed in the broader context of IIT, including how it provides a foundation for tests and inferences about consciousness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207