Toward a unified taxonomy of information dynamics via Integrated Information Decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our ability to understand and control complex systems of many interacting parts remains limited. A key challenge is that we still do not know how best to describe-and quantify-the many-to-many dynamical interactions that characterize their complexity. To address this limitation, we introduce the mathematical framework of Integrated Information Decomposition, or [Formula: see text]ID. [Formula: see text]ID provides a comprehensive framework to disentangle and characterize the information dynamics of complex multivariate systems. On the theoretical side, [Formula: see text]ID reveals the existence of previously unreported modes of collective information flow, providing tools to express well-known measures of information transfer, information storage, and dynamical complexity as aggregates of these modes, thereby overcoming some of their known theoretical shortcomings. On the empirical side, we validate our theoretical results with computational models and examples from over 1,000 biological, social, physical, and synthetic dynamical systems. Altogether, [Formula: see text]ID improves our understanding of the behavior of widely used measures for characterizing complex systems across disciplines and leads to new more refined analyses of dynamical complexity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".