Back to AI News
arxiv

Finite Experiments Can Certify Integrated Information: Identifiability and Limits

This paper investigates when mechanism-level quantities like integrated information (phi) can be identified from finite, partial, and noisy interventions. Using stochastic networks of four and five units, the authors show that behavior alone can be silent, while internal recordings can separate mechanisms within a few trials. They also identify precision floors and sharp edges that limit certification, yet prove that one-sided lower bounds can be certified from about 10^7 controlled transitions with controlled error probability.

AI Brief

Provides concrete, computable answers to a core question in AI interpretability and auditing, with practical implications for certifying mechanism-level properties from finite data.

arXiv:2611.08469v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interpretability, AI auditing and assessments of machine consciousness increasingly rest on mechanism-level quantities: functionals of a system's causal transition law that describe how it computes, not what it outputs. Experiments see that law only through finite, partial and noisy interventions. We ask when such a quantity is identifiable from an experiment's access, continuous in the mechanism and certifiable from finite data, and answer exactly for a deliberately demanding case - the integrated information $\varphi$ of integrated information theory - in stochastic networks of four and five units with known ground truth. Behavior can be silent: a recurrent and a feed-forward network with identical input-output laws at their response delay carry 0.28 and 0 bits, yet internal recordings separate them within 4-53 trials. Partial access can be just as blind: in our examples, units left out of a one-step recording impose precision floors of 0.30-1.02 bits that no sample size lowers, and in all-but-self parity networks, recordings of any length see several hidden units only through the product of their fidelities - a symmetry that one intervention broke in exact checks. The measure has sharp edges: because $\varphi$ selects a partition, and the cause and effect it specifies, by one criterion and reports another, infinitesimal changes of mechanism that cross an edge change it by 25-100% at 99% of the edges we found in random networks, and about 1% of surrogate models that fit interventional data almost perfectly misreport it by more than 20%. One-sided claims survive: the same data certify a lower bound on both sides of an edge, and we prove $\varphi>1.004$ bits throughout a 64-dimensional region of mechanisms and certify it from about $10^7$ controlled transitions with false-certificate probability at most $\alpha$. Measurability is thus a design question with computable answers.
Be the first to rate this article.

Comments & Questions (0)

Captcha
Please be respectful — let's keep the conversation friendly.

No comments yet

Be the first to comment!