4.6 Article

Integrated Information Increases with Fitness in the Evolution of Animats

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002236

关键词

-

资金

  1. Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
  2. National Science Foundation [FIBR-0527023]
  3. NSF's BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action [DBI-0939454]
  4. WCU (World Class University) through the National Research Foundation of Korea
  5. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [R31-10008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the hallmarks of biological organisms is their ability to integrate disparate information sources to optimize their behavior in complex environments. How this capability can be quantified and related to the functional complexity of an organism remains a challenging problem, in particular since organismal functional complexity is not well-defined. We present here several candidate measures that quantify information and integration, and study their dependence on fitness as an artificial agent (animat'') evolves over thousands of generations to solve a navigation task in a simple, simulated environment. We compare the ability of these measures to predict high fitness with more conventional information-theoretic processing measures. As the animat adapts by increasing its fit'' to the world, information integration and processing increase commensurately along the evolutionary line of descent. We suggest that the correlation of fitness with information integration and with processing measures implies that high fitness requires both information processing as well as integration, but that information integration may be a better measure when the task requires memory. A correlation of measures of information integration (but also information processing) and fitness strongly suggests that these measures reflect the functional complexity of the animat, and that such measures can be used to quantify functional complexity even in the absence of fitness data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据