Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Quantifying system-environment synergistic information by effective information decomposition

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new indicator, flexibility, is the synergistic information between system and environment and tracks adaptive responsiveness across cellular automata, gene regulatory networks, and learned dynamics.

desk verdict A sound formal identity (flexibility = PID synergy under uniform intervention) in search of a valid semantic interpretation; the GRN validation is too weak to carry the load. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16676 v1 pith:DFGDKG2T submitted 2025-01-28 q-bio.MN nlin.AO

Mingzhe Yang , Linli Pan , Jiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.MNnlin.AO MSC 94A1537B1592C42
keywords synergyflexibilityeffectiveinformationpartialdecompositiongeneregulatorynetworkscellularautomatarandomBooleancausalmechanisms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes 'flexibility' as a causal-mechanism-level indicator of how well a system can respond to a changing environment. Flexibility is defined as the difference between the effective information from the joint system-environment state to the next system state and the sum of the two separate effective informations, and the authors prove that under a uniform intervention this difference is exactly the synergistic information of system and environment in the partial information decomposition framework. They then decompose flexibility into expansiveness and introversion, showing that it is controlled by the degree of system-environment entanglement and by noise. Experiments on cellular automata, random Boolean networks, and curated gene regulatory networks support the interpretation: complex cellular automata and feedback loops score high, and the measure can be estimated from learned dynamics.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is effective information (EI), a function of a transition probability matrix defined as mutual information between input and output when the input is forced to a uniform distribution. The paper applies EI to three TPMs: the joint system-and-environment mechanism, the individual mechanism averaged over environments, and the external driving mechanism averaged over system states, and defines flexibility as their difference. The proof mechanism is the cited PID axiom system together with the lemma that redundancy vanishes for independent sources: the uniform intervention makes $\tilde{X}^t$ and $\tilde{E}^t$ independent, so the joint-minus-unique subtraction isolates synergy. A second object, the EI decomposition into determinism and degeneracy, yields the splitting of flexibility into expansiveness and introversion.

What would settle it

Find one Boolean network whose flexibility is high but whose response to a diverse set of environmental shocks is poor, and one with low flexibility that tracks the environment well; if such a pair exists, flexibility is not a reliable indicator of flexible response. A more quantitative version: on the paper's apoptosis gene regulatory network, compute flexibility and response diversity for all three-node subgraphs and test whether the reported positive correlation (r approximately 0.487) holds; a near-zero or negative correlation would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a three-variable partial information decomposition can be made computable through effective information. For a Markovian system $X$ and environment $E$ influencing the next state $X^{t+1}$, the quantity $\mathrm{Syn}(P_{X,E\to X^{t+1}}) = EI(P_{X,E\to X^{t+1}}) - EI(P_{X\to X^{t+1}}) - EI(P_{E\to X^{t+1}})$, computed after $do(X^t, E^t \sim U(\Omega_{X,E}))$, is the synergistic information of $\tilde{X}^t$ and $\tilde{E}^t$ with respect to $\tilde{X}^{t+1}$. The proof uses the independence created by the uniform intervention to make redundant information vanish, leaving synergy as the excess of joint over separate effective information. The authors call this excess flexibility and characterize it as the system's capacity to respond flexibly to environmental changes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that forcing the system and environment to start uniformly across all possible states reveals the same responsiveness the system would show under real, non-uniform conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flexibility can be computed directly from the transition probability matrix, giving a state-distribution-free and initial-condition-free comparison of adaptive capacity across systems.
  • In cellular automata, flexibility increases from Class I to Class IV and peaks in the Langton-parameter range associated with complex dynamics, while introversion is a fixed function of the Langton parameter in noise-free rules.
  • Across expert-curated Boolean gene regulatory networks, feedback-loop subgraphs carry the highest flexibility, tying the measure to biological functions such as dynamical compensation and oscillators.
  • In random Boolean networks, flexibility is maximized at balanced self-versus-environment coupling and at a moderate noise level where expansiveness gains outweigh introversion losses.
  • When dynamics are unknown, a neural network trained on observed transitions can recover the TPM closely enough for flexibility to match the ground-truth curve.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: if flexibility is treated as a design target, its decomposition into expansiveness and introversion suggests two routes to higher responsiveness — diversify state transitions across environments or consolidate internal order — and either route could be tuned by adjusting coupling weights or noise.
  • Editorial extension: because the measure is built on a uniform intervention, it may disagree with responsiveness under strongly non-uniform environmental statistics; comparing flexibility against response diversity in environments with realistic state distributions would test how much this matters.
  • Editorial extension: the same joint-minus-separate EI subtraction could be applied to systems with more than two source variables, but the proof via vanishing redundancy would need new axioms or a new route once the intervening variables are not jointly independent in the required way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new quantity, called flexibility, defined as the difference between the effective information (EI) of a joint system-environment transition mechanism and the EIs of the two marginal mechanisms. The authors prove that, under a uniform do-intervention on the joint system-environment state, this quantity coincides with the synergistic information of the intervened sources with respect to the next system state in the partial information decomposition (PID) framework. They also decompose flexibility into two interpretable components, expansiveness and introversion, and study its behavior in cellular automata, random Boolean networks, and Boolean gene regulatory networks (GRNs). Finally, they show that a trained neural network can approximate the flexibility from simulated data when the underlying dynamics are unknown.

Significance. The formal identification of the proposed indicator with PID synergy is the paper's main strength. The proofs in Appendix C are correct given the stated axioms and the independence condition imposed by the uniform intervention, and the non-negativity of the synergy follows from the independence of the intervened sources. The decomposition into expansiveness and introversion offers a useful interpretative tool, and the machine-learning experiment provides a plausible path to data-driven application. The paper also generates falsifiable predictions, notably that feedback loops in GRNs exhibit high flexibility. However, the central semantic claim that flexibility measures a system's ability to flexibly respond to environmental changes rests on a single moderate in-sample correlation (r=0.487) on one apoptosis network, and the experimental sections omit crucial details about how the system/environment partition and the transition probability matrices are constructed. If the measure is to be adopted as an indicator of adaptive flexibility, the empirical validation and reproducibility must be substantially strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B and Appendix D] The GRN experiments do not specify how Boolean functions are converted into the transition probability matrices (TPMs) required to compute EI, nor how the system and environment variables are defined for the three-node subgraphs. The paper states that the GRNs are modeled as Boolean networks and refers to the repository of Kadelka et al., but it never describes the mapping from a deterministic Boolean update rule to a stochastic TPM, the treatment of asynchronous or noisy dynamics, or the choice of environmental variables (e.g., direct regulators outside the subgraph versus all remaining nodes). Without these details, the quantitative results in Figure 4 and the correlation in Figure 8 are not reproducible, and it is unclear whether the flexibility values reflect the intrinsic properties of the subgraphs or the arbitrary choices of embedding and TPM construction. Please provide a precise specification of the TPM generation and the partition rule for the GRN experiments.
  2. [Section III.B, Figures 4 and 8] The central claim that flexibility quantifies a system's ability to flexibly respond to environmental changes is supported only by a single in-sample Pearson correlation of r=0.487 (p<0.05) between Syn and a 'mean mutual information' measure computed on subgraphs of one apoptosis network. This is a moderate effect, obtained without out-of-sample validation, without controlling for state-space size, motif complexity, or other confounds, and without varying the distribution of environmental switches. Because this evidence is the main quantitative link between the mathematical quantity and the biological interpretation, I cannot regard the semantic claim as established. The paper should either provide a direct test with synthetic systems of known flexibility (e.g., systems whose responsiveness can be manipulated), randomize over multiple networks, or substantially temper the claims about what the correlation establishes.
  3. [Section II.A, Eq. (7)] The identification of flexibility with PID synergy depends entirely on the do-intervention do(X^t, E^t ~ U(Ω_{X,E})), which forces the system and environmental states to be independent and uniformly distributed. The paper motivates this by the desire to define a mechanism-level, state-independent quantity, but it provides no justification for why a uniform distribution of environmental inputs is the correct idealization for 'flexible response' in real environments. If the relevant environmental disturbances are non-uniform or rare, systems ranked by the uniform-intervention synergy need not be those that respond flexibly in practice. The paper should include a discussion of this modeling choice and ideally a sensitivity analysis showing how Syn changes under alternative input distributions.
  4. [Section III.A, Figure 3] The cellular automaton experiments do not explicitly define the system and environment variables for which flexibility is computed. The text mentions 'flexibility of a specific rule-based cellular automaton' and mutual information of 'a single cell', but it does not state whether the system X is one cell and the environment E is its two neighbors, or whether another partition is used. Since the value of Syn is partition-dependent, this omission makes the CA results ambiguous and prevents independent replication. Please state the partition explicitly and justify it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The base of the logarithm in the EI definition should be stated explicitly. The numerical values and the claimed ranges for Exp and Int (0 to 2 log2 |Ω_X|) suggest base 2, but this is not stated.
  2. [Keywords and text] The keyword list contains a typo: 'flexibilty' should be 'flexibility'.
  3. [Section II.A] The notation for the intervention is inconsistent: the world-level intervention do(U^t ~ U(Ω_U)) is introduced first, but later the intervention is written as do(X^t, E^t ~ U(Ω_{X,E})). The relationship between these two formulations should be clarified.
  4. [Figure 4(c) caption] The gene names in the caption ('BAG4, BAG4 TNFRSF1A, and TNF BAG4 TNFRSF1A') appear garbled or duplicated. Please verify the intended gene identifiers.
  5. [Section III.C] The neural network experiment does not report the number of training samples, the training epochs, or the accuracy of the learned TPM. Adding these details would make the machine-learning validation more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a formal identification theorem, not a fitted prediction; the empirical validation is weak but not circular.

full rationale

The paper defines flexibility in Eq. (7) as the difference between the joint effective information of (X,E) on X' and the two marginal effective informations. Theorem 1 proves, via Lemma 1 and the PID axioms in Appendix C, that under the uniform do-intervention the sources are independent, so redundancy is zero and Eq. (C10) equals the PID synergy. This is a mathematical equivalence between a proposed definition and an information atom under stated axioms; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor is it a load-bearing self-citation. The PID axioms are external (Williams; Bertschinger et al.) and the EI formula is standard (Hoel/Tononi); self-citations [14-16] are background on EI and machine-learning reconstruction and are not load-bearing. The GRN validation (Pearson r = 0.487) is a correlational check that flexibility tracks simulated responsiveness, not a quantity produced by that regression, so it is weak evidence but not circular. The main caveats—the idealization do(X,E ~ U) for environmental responsiveness and the in-sample, single-network GRN evidence—bear on external validity and interpretation, not on circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Markovian TPM assumption, the PID axiom system, and the intervention to uniform distributions. No continuous parameters are fitted to data; the free parameters in the RBN experiments (w, T) are varied to probe the measure, not fitted to achieve the claimed result. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Discrete-time, discrete-state Markovian dynamics for the joint system-environment process, described by a TPM P(U^{t+1}|U^t).
    Frames the entire method, introduced in Section II.A, and limits applicability to Markovian discrete systems.
  • standard math PID axiom system (S, I, M, LC, Id) as presented in Appendix A.
    Used in Appendix C to prove Lemma 1 and Theorem 1. These are standard axioms from Williams and Beer, and Bertschinger et al., though the paper acknowledges no measure satisfies all of them simultaneously.
  • ad hoc to paper The do-intervention do(X^t, E^t ~ U(Ω_{X,E})) is the correct operationalization of a mechanism-level, state-independent measure of flexibility.
    Introduced in Section II.A and used throughout. This is the central modeling choice and is not derived from independent evidence, only supported indirectly by the experimental correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying system-environment synergistic information by effective information decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFGDKG2T

@misc{pith2026250116676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying system-environment synergistic information by effective information decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFGDKG2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16676}
}
read the original abstract

What is the most crucial characteristic of a system with life activity? Currently, many theories have attempted to explain the most essential difference between living systems and general systems, such as the self-organization theory and the free energy principle, but there is a lack of a reasonable indicator that can measure to what extent a system can be regarded as a system with life characteristics, especially the lack of attention to the dynamic characteristics of life systems. In this article, we propose a new indicator at the level of dynamic mechanisms to measure the ability of a system to flexibly respond to the environment. We proved that this indicator satisfies the axiom system of multivariate information decomposition in the partial information decomposition (PID) framework. Through further disassembly and analysis of this indicator, we found that it is determined by the degree of entanglement between system and environmental variables in the dynamics and the magnitude of noise. We conducted measurements on cellular automata (CA), random Boolean networks, and real gene regulatory networks (GRN), verified its relationship with the type of CA and the Langton parameter, and identified that the feedback loops have high abilities to flexibly respond to the environment on the GRN. We also combined machine learning technology to prove that this framework can be applied in the case of unknown dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The causal diagram of the system’s interaction with the environment. (a) When a set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic diagrams of expansiveness and introversion. Different colors of the circles rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The trend of expansiveness, introversion and flexibility between the system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The mean and standard deviation of flexibility for all possible three-node subgraph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The schematic illustrates the experimental design framework, where nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The experimental result graph. In (a), it indicates The trend graph of the flexibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The PID framework in considering the information dynamics of the system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. We searched all three-node subgraph structures in the GRN of apoptosis and calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proofs of Theorem 1 In Appendix A, we present the axiomatic system of PID theory. Based on this system, we initially state the following lemma: Lemma 1 Given axioms ( S, I, M, LC, Id), for any arbitrary variables X1, X2, and Y , if X1 ⊥ X2, the redundant information Red(X1, X2; Y ) = 0. Proof 1 From axiom LC, it follows that: Red(X1, X2; (X1, X2, Y)) = Re...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Proof 3 According to the definition of EI, EI (PX t→X t+1) = I( ˜X t; ˜X t+1), (C11) 22 while still satisfying do(X t, Et ∼ U(ΩX,E))

    Proofs of the Upper Bound of Synergy We restate the property as follows: The upper bound ofSyn( ˜X t, ˜Et; ˜X t+1) is min{I( ˜X t; ˜X t+1| ˜Et), I( ˜Et; ˜X t+1| ˜X t)}. Proof 3 According to the definition of EI, EI (PX t→X t+1) = I( ˜X t; ˜X t+1), (C11) 22 while still satisfying do(X t, Et ∼ U(ΩX,E)). Therefore, by the chain rule of mutual informa- tion, ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    7, Syn(PX t,Et→X t+1) = EI (PX t,Et→X t+1) − EI (PX t→X t+1) − EI (PEt→X t+1)

    Proofs of Corollary 1 We first restate the definition of flexibility, namely Eq. 7, Syn(PX t,Et→X t+1) = EI (PX t,Et→X t+1) − EI (PX t→X t+1) − EI (PEt→X t+1). (C13) as well as the expression for EI, namely Eq. 10, EI (PX→Y ) = − 1 N NX i=1 H(Pi) ! + H 1 N NX i=1 Pi ! (C14) Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (7), we have Syn(PX t,Et→X t+1) = − 1 |ΩX,E| X x∈ΩX...

    work page

  4. [4]

    S. A. Kauffman, The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution (Oxford University Press, 1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    C. G. Langton, Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computa- tion, Physica D: nonlinear phenomena 42, 12 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    J. S. Lansing, Complex adaptive systems, Annual review of anthropology 32, 183 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    K. J. Friston and K. E. Stephan, Free-energy and the brain, Synthese 159, 417 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    J. H. Holland and J. H. Miller, Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory, The American economic review 81, 365 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    J. H. Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence (MIT press, 1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    J. H. Holland, Complex adaptive systems, Daedalus 121, 17 (1992). 24 FIG. 8. We searched all three-node subgraph structures in the GRN of apoptosis and calculated their flexibility (Syn) as well as the mean mutual information (MIs) between consecutive moments when environmenta...

    1992

  3. [11]

    Rosas, P

    F. Rosas, P. A. Mediano, M. Ugarte, and H. J. Jensen, An information-theoretic approach to self-organisation: Emergence of complex interdependencies in coupled dynamical systems, Entropy 20, 793 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gershenson and N

    C. Gershenson and N. Fern´ andez, Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self- organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales, Complexity 18, 29 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Krakauer, N

    D. Krakauer, N. Bertschinger, E. Olbrich, J. C. Flack, and N. Ay, The information theory of individuality, Theory in Biosciences 139, 209 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    E. P. Hoel, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi, Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 19790 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Oizumi, L

    M. Oizumi, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi, From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: integrated information theory 3.0, PLoS computational biology 10, e1003588 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    E. P. Hoel, When the map is better than the territory, Entropy 19, 188 (2017). 25

    2017

  9. [17]

    B. Yuan, J. Zhang, A. Lyu, J. Wu, Z. Wang, M. Yang, K. Liu, M. Mou, and P. Cui, Emergence and causality in complex systems: A survey of causal emergence and related quantitative studies, Entropy 26, 108 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Zhang, R

    J. Zhang, R. Tao, K. H. Leong, M. Yang, and B. Yuan, Dynamical reversibility and a new theory of causal emergence, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15054 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. Yang, Z. Wang, K. Liu, Y. Rong, B. Yuan, and J. Zhang, Finding emergence in data by maximizing effective information, National Science Review , nwae279 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    T. F. Varley, Flickering emergences: The question of locality in information-theoretic ap- proaches to emergence, Entropy 25, 54 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Pearl and D

    J. Pearl and D. Mackenzie, The book of why: the new science of cause and effect (Basic books, 2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    P. L. Williams and R. D. Beer, Nonnegative decomposition of multivariate information, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.2515 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. T. Lizier, N. Bertschinger, J. Jost, and M. Wibral, Information decomposition of target effects from multi-source interactions: Perspectives on previous, current and future work (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Bertschinger, J

    N. Bertschinger, J. Rauh, E. Olbrich, and J. Jost, Shared information—new insights and problems in decomposing information in complex systems, in Proceedings of the European conference on complex systems 2012 (Springer, 2013) pp. 251–269

    2012

  17. [25]

    Alon, An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2019)

    U. Alon, An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Albantakis, L

    L. Albantakis, L. Barbosa, G. Findlay, M. Grasso, A. M. Haun, W. Marshall, W. G. Mayner, A. Zaeemzadeh, M. Boly, B. E. Juel,et al., Integrated information theory (iit) 4.0: formulating the properties of phenomenal existence in physical terms, PLoS computational biology 19, e10...

    2023

  19. [27]

    P. L. Williams, Information dynamics: Its theory and application to embodied cognitive sys- tems, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Wolfram, Statistical mechanics of cellular automata, Reviews of modern physics 55, 601 (1983)

    S. Wolfram, Statistical mechanics of cellular automata, Reviews of modern physics 55, 601 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    Kadelka, T.-M

    C. Kadelka, T.-M. Butrie, E. Hilton, J. Kinseth, A. Schmidt, and H. Serdarevic, A meta- analysis of boolean network models reveals design principles of gene regulatory networks, 26 Science Advances 10, eadj0822 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    P. Orio, P. A. Mediano, and F. E. Rosas, Dynamical noise can enhance high-order statistical structure in complex systems, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Watanabe, Information theoretical analysis of multivariate correlation, IBM Journal of research and development 4, 66 (1960)

    S. Watanabe, Information theoretical analysis of multivariate correlation, IBM Journal of research and development 4, 66 (1960)

    1960

  24. [32]

    Te Sun, Multiple mutual informations and multiple interactions in frequency data, Inf

    H. Te Sun, Multiple mutual informations and multiple interactions in frequency data, Inf. Control 46, 26 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    Yeung, Information theory and network coding (Springer, 2008)

    R. Yeung, Information theory and network coding (Springer, 2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Harder, C

    M. Harder, C. Salge, and D. Polani, Bivariate measure of redundant information, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 87, 012130 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Finn and J

    C. Finn and J. T. Lizier, Pointwise partial information decompositionusing the specificity and ambiguity lattices, Entropy 20, 297 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Tononi and O

    G. Tononi and O. Sporns, Measuring information integration, BMC neuroscience 4, 1 (2003). 27

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.