MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110053102 · doi:10.1162/isal.a.834

Using Dynamical Systems Theory to Quantify Complexity in Asymptotic Lenia

2025· article· W7110053102 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueALIFE · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsDynamical systems theoryAttractorLyapunov exponentCovariant transformationFractalChaoticDynamical system (definition)Measure (data warehouse)Fractal dimension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous cellular automata (CCAs) have evolved from discrete lookup tables to continuous partial differential equation (PDE) formulations in the search for novel forms of complexity. Despite innovations in qualitative behavior, analytical methods have lagged behind, reinforcing the notion that emergent complexity defies simple explanation. In this paper, we demonstrate that the PDE formulation of Asymptotic Lenia enables rigorous analysis using dynamical systems theory. We apply the concepts of symmetries, attractors, Lyapunov exponents, and fractal dimensions to characterize complex behaviors mathematically. Our contributions include: (1) a mathematical explanation for the four distinct solution classes (solitons, rotators, periodic and chaotic patterns), (2) conditions for the existence of a global attractor with fractal dimension > 4, (3) identification of Kaplan-Yorke dimension as an effective complexity measure for CCAs, and (4) an efficient open-source implementation for calculating Lyapunov exponents and the covariant Lyapunov vectors for CCAs. We conclude by identifying the minimal set of properties that enable complex behavior in a broader class of CCAs. This framework provides a foundation for understanding and measuring complexity in artificial life systems.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueALIFESame topicCellular Automata and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207