CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Philosophy and History of ScienceComplex Systems and DynamicsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Causal emergence is widespread across measures of causation

Open access
Comolatti, Renzo, Hoel, Erik·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2202.01854arXiv 2202.01854
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Causal emergence is the theory that macroscales can reduce the noise in causal relationships, leading to stronger causes at the macroscale. First identified using the effective information and later the integrated information in model systems, causal emergence has been analyzed in real data across the sciences since. But is it simply a quirk of these original measures? To answer this question we examined over a dozen popular measures of causation, all independently developed and widely used, and spanning different fields from philosophy to statistics to psychology to genetics. All showed cases of causal emergence. This is because, we prove, measures of causation are based on a small set of related "causal primitives." This consilience of independently-developed measures of causation shows that macroscale causation is a general fact about causal relationships, is scientifically detectable, and is not a quirk of any particular measure of causation. This finding sets the science of emergence on firmer ground, opening the door for the detection of intrinsic scales of function in complex systems, as well as assisting with scientific modeling and experimental interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2202.01854

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • WXYZ, an elementary cellular automaton implementing Wolfram's Rule 110, when placed into state 1101, fragments into two complexes whose cause-effect structures are markedly different from that specified by pQrS.

    “If placed into state 1101, W XyZ fragments into two complexes, whose causeeffect structures are markedly different from that specified by pQrS”

    From Dissociating Artificial Intelligence from Artificial Consciousness (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

    Section 5.1 (p. 14) includes 1101 as a state in a bipartite Markov-chain model, but does not describe a Rule 110 cellular automaton. Searches for WXYZ, pQrS, Rule 110, and two complexes found no passage addressing the claimed fragmentation or comparison of cause-effect structures. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Systems of arbitrary, finite size that implement Rule 110 are Turing complete.

    “Furthermore, systems of arbitrary, finite size that implement Rule 110 are Turing complete”

    From Dissociating Artificial Intelligence from Artificial Consciousness (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

    The passages from §5.1 (p. 14) describe a finite-state bipartite model, not Rule 110. Searches for “Rule 110,” “Turing complete,” and universal computation returned no passage addressing the claim, so our copy does not verify it. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cellular automata of any size can be made to implement Rule 110, which completely specifies that system's causal model and TPM.

    “Cellular automata of any size can be made to implement Rule 110, which completely specifies that system's causal model and TPM.”

    From Dissociating Artificial Intelligence from Artificial Consciousness (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Model system section (pp. 9–10) describes a bipartite Markov chain and its transition probability matrix, not Rule 110. A search of our copy for Rule 110 and cellular automata found no passage addressing whether cellular automata of any size can implement it or whether it specifies their causal model and TPM. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [1][1] Judea Pearl. Causality . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2 edition, 2009. -
  2. [3][3] Marcello Massimini, Melanie Boly, Adenauer Casali, Mario Rosanova, and Giulio Tononi. A perturbational approach for evaluating the brain's capacity for consciousness. In Progress in Brain Research , volume 177, pages 201-214. Elsevier, 2009. -
  3. [4][4] Selmaan N. Chettih and Christopher D. Harvey. Single-neuron perturbations reveal feature-specific competition in V1. Nature , 567(7748):334-340, March 2019. Bandiera\_abtest: a Cg\_type: Nature Research Journals Number: 7748 Primary\_atype: Research Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject\_term: Computational neuroscience;Neural circuits;Sensory processing;Visual system Subject\_term\_id: computational-neuroscience;neuralcircuit;sensory-processing;visual-system. -
  4. [5][5] Olaf Sporns. Brain connectivity. Scholarpedia , 2(10):4695, October 2007. -
  5. [6][6] Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, and Seppo Kähkönen. Functional connectivity in the brain-Is it an elusive concept? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews , 28(8):827-836, 2005. Place: Netherlands Publisher: Elsevier Science. -
  6. [7][7] Murray Gell-Mann. What is complexity? Remarks on simplicity and complexity by the Nobel Prize-winning author of The Quark and the Jaguar. Complexity , 1(1):16-19, 1995. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -
  7. [8][8] Erik P. Hoel, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi. Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110(49):19790-19795, December 2013. -
  8. [9][9] Pavel Chvykov and Erik Hoel. Causal Geometry. arXiv:2010.09390 [hep-th, physics:physics] , October 2020. arXiv: 2010.09390. - · arXiv
  9. [10][10] Erik Hoel and Michael Levin. Emergence of informative higher scales in biological systems: a computational toolkit for optimal prediction and control. Communicative & Integrative Biology , 13(1):108-118, January 2020. Publisher: Taylor & Francis \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2020.1802914. - · DOI
  10. [12][12] Thomas F. Varley. Causal Emergence in Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. arXiv:2003.13075 [nlin] , March 2020. arXiv: 2003.13075. - · arXiv
  11. [13][13] Jiang Zhang. Neural Information Squeezer for Causal Emergence. arXiv:2201.10154 [physics] , January 2022. arXiv: 2201.10154. - · arXiv
  12. [14][14] Brennan Klein, Erik Hoel, Anshuman Swain, Ross Griebenow, and Michael Levin. Evolution and emergence: higher order information structure in protein interactomes across the tree of life. Integrative Biology , 13(12):283294, 2021. -
  13. [15][15] Rafael Yuste. From the neuron doctrine to neural networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 16(8):487-497, August 2015. Bandiera\_abtest: a Cg\_type: Nature Research Journals Number: 8 Primary\_atype: Reviews Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject\_term: Electrophysiology;Network models;Neural circuits Subject\_term\_id: electrophysiology;network-models;neural-circuit. -
  14. [16][16] Daniel P. Buxhoeveden and Manuel F. Casanova. The minicolumn hypothesis in neuroscience. Brain , 125(5):935951, 2002. -
  15. [17][17] B. T. Thomas Yeo, Fenna M. Krienen, Jorge Sepulcre, Mert R. Sabuncu, Danial Lashkari, Marisa Hollinshead, Joshua L. Roffman, Jordan W. Smoller, Lilla Zöllei, Jonathan R. Polimeni, Bruce Fischl, Hesheng Liu, and Randy L. Buckner. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology , 106(3):1125-1165, September 2011. -
  16. [19][19] Acer Y. C. Chang, Martin Biehl, Yen Yu, and Ryota Kanai. Information Closure Theory of Consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology , 11:1504, July 2020. arXiv: 1909.13045. - · arXiv
  17. [20][20] Erik Hoel. When the Map Is Better Than the Territory. Entropy , 19(5):188, April 2017. -
  18. [21][21] William Marshall, Larissa Albantakis, and Giulio Tononi. Black-boxing and cause-effect power. PLOS Computational Biology , 14(4):e1006114, April 2018. -
  19. [23][23] Joe Dewhurst. Causal emergence from effective information: Neither causal nor emergent? Thought: A Journal of Philosophy , 10(3):158-168, 2021. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -
  20. [24][24] Max Tegmark. Improved Measures of Integrated Information. PLOS Computational Biology , 12(11):e1005123, November 2016. Publisher: Public Library of Science. -
  21. [25][25] Pedro A. M. Mediano, Fernando Rosas, Robin L. Carhart-Harris, Anil K. Seth, and Adam B. Barrett. Beyond integrated information: A taxonomy of information dynamics phenomena. arXiv:1909.02297 [physics, q-bio] , September 2019. arXiv: 1909.02297. - · arXiv
  22. [27][27] Thomas Varley and Erik Hoel. Emergence as the conversion of information: A unifying theory. arXiv:2104.13368 , April 2021. arXiv: 2104.13368. - · arXiv
  23. [28][28] Pedro A. M. Mediano, Fernando E. Rosas, Andrea I. Luppi, Henrik J. Jensen, Anil K. Seth, Adam B. Barrett, Robin L. Carhart-Harris, and Daniel Bor. Greater than the parts: A review of the information decomposition approach to causal emergence. arXiv:2111.06518 [nlin, q-bio] , November 2021. arXiv: 2111.06518. - · arXiv
  24. [29][29] Fernando E. Rosas, Pedro A. M. Mediano, Henrik J. Jensen, Anil K. Seth, Adam B. Barrett, Robin L. CarhartHarris, and Daniel Bor. Reconciling emergences: An information-theoretic approach to identify causal emergence in multivariate data. PLOS Computational Biology , 16(12):e1008289, December 2020. Publisher: Public Library of Science. -
  25. [30][30] Prerna Nadathur and Sven Lauer. Causal necessity, causal sufficiency, and the implications of causative verbs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics , 5(1):49, June 2020. Number: 1 Publisher: Ubiquity Press. -
  26. [32][32] Phyllis Illari and Federica Russo. Causality: Philosophical Theory meets Scientific Practice . Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, December 2014. -
  27. [33][33] Ellery Eells. Probabilistic Causality . Cambridge University Press, 1991. -
  28. [34][34] Larissa Albantakis, William Marshall, Erik Hoel, and Giulio Tononi. What Caused What? A Quantitative Account of Actual Causation Using Dynamical Causal Networks. Entropy , 21(5):459, May 2019. -
  29. [36][36] Christopher Hitchcock. Probabilistic Causation. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2021 edition, 2018. -
  30. [37][37] Patricia W. Cheng and Laura R. Novick. Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition , 40(1):83-120, August 1991. -
  31. [38][38] David Lewis. Causation. Journal of Philosophy , 70(17):556-567, 1973. -
  32. [40][40] Luciano Floridi. Information, possible worlds and the cooptation of scepticism. Synthese , 175:63-88, 2010. Publisher: Springer. -
  33. [41][41] Bryan C. Daniels, Hyunju Kim, Douglas Moore, Siyu Zhou, Harrison B. Smith, Bradley Karas, Stuart A. Kauffman, and Sara I. Walker. Criticality Distinguishes the Ensemble of Biological Regulatory Networks. Physical Review Letters , 121(13):138102, September 2018. Publisher: American Physical Society. -
  34. [43][43] Paul E. Griffiths, Arnaud Pocheville, Brett Calcott, Karola Stotz, Hyunju Kim, and Rob Knight. Measuring Causal Specificity. Philosophy of Science , 82(4):529-555, 2015. Publisher: The University of Chicago Press. -
  35. [44][44] J. L. Mackie. Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly , 2(4):245-264, 1965. Publisher: University of Illinois Press. -
  36. [45][45] Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect . Basic Books, New York, 1° edizione edition, 2017. -
  37. [46][46] Masafumi Oizumi, Larissa Albantakis, and Giulio Tononi. From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0. PLoS Computational Biology , 10(5):e1003588, May 2014. -
  38. [47][47] David Balduzzi and Giulio Tononi. Integrated Information in Discrete Dynamical Systems: Motivation and Theoretical Framework. PLoS Computational Biology , 4(6):e1000091, June 2008. -
  39. [48][48] Joseph Y. Halpern. Actual Causality . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, August 2016. -
  40. [49][49] Bjørn Erik Juel, Renzo Comolatti, Giulio Tononi, and Larissa Albantakis. When is an action caused from within? Quantifying the causal chain leading to actions in simulated agents. pages 477-484. MIT Press, July 2019. -
  41. [50][50] Christoph Adami. The use of information theory in evolutionary biology: Information theory in evolutionary biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1256(1):49-65, May 2012. -
  42. [52][52] Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory 2nd Edition . Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, N.J, 2nd edition edition, July 2006. -
  43. [53][53] Steven Strogatz. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, 2nd Edition: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Second Edition . Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2° edizione edition, 2014. -
  44. [54][54] Stephen Wolfram. A New Kind of Science . Wolfram Media Inc, Champaign, IL, first edition edition, 2002. -
  45. [55][55] M. E. J. Newman. Resource Letter CS-1: Complex Systems. American Journal of Physics , 79(8):800-810, 2011. Publisher: American Association of Physics Teachers. -
  46. [56][56] J. P. Crutchfield and M. Mitchell. The evolution of emergent computation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 92(23):10742-10746, November 1995. Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Research Article.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Comolatti, R., & Hoel, E.
ORCID
Comolatti, Renzo
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2202.01854
arXiv
2202.01854
OpenAlex
W4221142933
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Systems and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
causal emergence, integrated information, effective information, complex systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review