Dataset Information

Upper bounds for integrated information.

ABSTRACT: Originally developed as a theory of consciousness, integrated information theory provides a mathematical framework to quantify the causal irreducibility of systems and subsets of units in the system. Specifically, mechanism integrated information quantifies how much of the causal powers of a subset of units in a state, also referred to as a mechanism, cannot be accounted for by its parts. If the causal powers of the mechanism can be fully explained by its parts, it is reducible and its integrated information is zero. Here, we study the upper bound of this measure and how it is achieved. We study mechanisms in isolation, groups of mechanisms, and groups of causal relations among mechanisms. We put forward new theoretical results that show mechanisms that share parts with each other cannot all achieve their maximum. We also introduce techniques to design systems that can maximize the integrated information of a subset of their mechanisms or relations. Our results can potentially be used to exploit the symmetries and constraints to reduce the computations significantly and to compare different connectivity profiles in terms of their maximal achievable integrated information.

SUBMITTER: Zaeemzadeh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11326638 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Upper bounds for integrated information.

Zaeemzadeh Alireza A Tononi Giulio G

PLoS computational biology 20240805 8

Originally developed as a theory of consciousness, integrated information theory provides a mathematical framework to quantify the causal irreducibility of systems and subsets of units in the system. Specifically, mechanism integrated information quantifies how much of the causal powers of a subset of units in a state, also referred to as a mechanism, cannot be accounted for by its parts. If the causal powers of the mechanism can be fully explained by its parts, it is reducible and its integrate ...[more]

PMID: 39102449

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPremature discontinuation and other forms of noncompliance with treatment assignment can complicate causal inference of treatment effects in randomized trials. The intent-to-treat analysis gives unbiased estimates for causal effects of treatment assignment on outcome, but may understate potential benefit or harm of actual treatment. The corresponding upper confidence limit can also be underestimated.PurposeTo compare estimates of the hazard ratio and upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval from causal inference methods that account for noncompliance with those from the intent-to-treat analysis.MethodsWe used simulations with parameters chosen to reflect cardiovascular safety trials of diabetes drugs, with a focus on upper bound estimates relative to 1.3, based on regulatory guidelines. A total of 1000 simulations were run under each parameter combination for a hypothetical trial of 10,000 total subjects randomly assigned to active treatment or control at 1:1 ratio. Noncompliance was considered in the form of treatment discontinuation and cross-over at specified proportions, with an assumed true hazard ratio of 0.9, 1, and 1.3, respectively. Various levels of risk associated with being a non-complier (independent of treatment status) were evaluated. Hazard ratio and upper bound estimates from causal survival analysis and intent-to-treat were obtained from each simulation and summarized under each parameter setting.ResultsCausal analysis estimated the true hazard ratio with little bias in almost all settings examined. Intent-to-treat was unbiased only when the true hazard ratio = 1; otherwise it underestimated both benefit and harm. When upper bound estimates from intent-to-treat were ≥1.3, corresponding estimates from causal analysis were also ≥1.3 in almost 100% of the simulations, regardless of the true hazard ratio. When upper bound estimates from intent-to-treat were <1.3 and the true hazard ratio = 1, corresponding upper bound estimates from causal analysis were ≥1.3 in up to 66% of the simulations under some settings.LimitationsSimulations cannot cover all scenarios for noncompliance in real randomized trials.ConclusionCausal survival analysis was superior to intent-to-treat in estimating the true hazard ratio with respect to bias in the presence of noncompliance. However, its large variance should be considered for safety upper bound exclusion especially when the true hazard ratio = 1. Our simulations provided a broad reference for practical considerations of bias-variance trade-off in dealing with noncompliance in cardiovascular safety trials of diabetes drugs. Further research is warranted for the development and application of causal inference methods in the evaluation of safety upper bounds.

Dataset Information

Upper bounds for integrated information.

Publications

Upper bounds for integrated information.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets