abstract: In this article, I develop a formal model of free will for complex systems based on emergent properties and adaptive selection. The model is based on a process ontology in which a free choice is a singular process that takes a system from one macrostate to another. I quantify the model by introducing a formal measure of the 'freedom' of a singular choice. The 'free will' of a system, then, is emergent from the aggregate freedom of the choice processes carried out by the system. The focus in this model is on the actual choices themselves viewed in the context of processes. That is, the nature of the system making the choices is not considered. Nevertheless, my model does not necessarily conflict with models that are based on internal properties of the system. Rather it takes a behavioral approach by focusing on the externalities of the choice process.
author: Ian T. Durham
bibliography: ModelFreeWill.bib
date: 2024-10-02
title: A Formal Model for Adaptive Free Choice in Complex Systems

# Introduction

What is it that we mean when we ask if a system possesses free will? In most discussions of free will, the nature of what freedom entails is often taken for granted; if we ask if a given choice is free, we are assuming that it is a well-formed question to begin with. Rather than asking if a given choice is free, we might instead ask what, in general, a free choice *is*. In other words, a more formal and rigorous definition of freedom of choice ought to be a prerequisite to any deeper understanding of free will.

This is not merely academic. In EPR tests in quantum mechanics, it is often assumed that the experimenters have free will (see  for an overview). On the other hand, as Bell suggested, one could replace the experimenters with a pair of machines capable of making suitably random measurements . The variables measured by the machine are the same as the variables measured by the experimenters, but do machines carrying out pre-programmed algorithms to produce random measurements count as having free will? While they might produce measurements that are provably more randomly chosen than those chosen by experimenters, it is hard to say if a presumably non-conscious entity can possess free will. Therein lies the problem. Does it even make sense to refer to the machine's actions, which are guided by a pre-programmed algorithm, as making a choice? As Nozick has rightly pointed out, "\[a\]n action's being non-determined is not sufficient for it to be free–it might just be a random act" . A random act is no more free than a fully determined one.

Thus, it is that freedom of choice has a bearing on the nature of consciousness. Does our conception of consciousness drive our definition of free will or is it the other way around? Explicating the relationship between consciousness and volition has moved well beyond the theoretical. Famously, the Libet experiments suggest to some that volition can be an unconscious act . Additional experiments have built on Libet's work . On the other hand, our judgment of what this means appears to be driven by the outcomes. Specifically, experimental work by Shepherd suggests that the conscious causation of behavior tends to be judged as being free even when the causation is explicitly deterministic .

The question of whether free will is compatible or incompatible with (causal) determinism has long been central to the nature of free will, at least in the Western perspective . However, the indeterminacy of quantum systems raises similar issues for seemingly opposite reasons . In other words, one could argue that both causal determinism as well as quantum indeterminacy are incompatible with free will. On the one hand, one can deny the existence of free will on the grounds that all choices are pre-determined in some way. On the other hand, one can deny the existence of free will on the grounds that all choices are simply macro-manifestations of random quantum processes, i.e., the universe is nothing but a collection of randomly fluctuating quantum fields. However, this misses a deeper point captured succinctly by O'Connor when he notes that "though freedom of will requires a baseline capacity of choice …the *freedom* this capacity makes possible is, nevertheless, a property that comes in *degrees* and can vary over time within an individual"  p. 183 (original emphasis). The usual debate over the existence of free will is thus really a debate over the capacity of choice. Less attention is paid to the nature of the freedom that this capacity makes possible. It is this freedom that is the motivation for the model described in this article.

In order to build a model of the freedom engendered by the existence of a capacity of choice, it is necessary to assume that such a capacity exists. As such, the model that follows sidesteps the question of whether or not free will actually exists. Rather, it proceeds from the assumption that capacity of choice exists for some systems and develops a measure for the freedom that follows from this assumption. The model is based on a process ontology in which a *free choice* is a process that takes a system from one macrostate to another. I lay the groundwork for this by first describing the self-evident characteristics of what I will call *adaptive* free choices. This very roughly corresponds to what O'Connor calls "willing" or the "conscious forming of an intention to act" (see , p. 178) though it does not explicitly presume an agent or system is conscious. I then develop the process ontology on which the formal model is constructed where I show that both determinism and indeterminism have a role to play in the nature of free choices. The formal model is then quantified by the $\zeta$-function as a measure of free choice and the $Z$-function as a corresponding measure of free will which is taken to be an aggregation of free choices. Free will in this model, then, is not taken to be the capacity of choice, but rather is viewed as an aggregation of the freedoms that a capacity of choice, if it exists, would make possible. Finally, I discuss methods for assessing certain aspects of the model and for assigning values to certain variables within the model.

# Adaptive Free Choice

What do we generally think of when we think of free will? O'Connor claims that systems that possess free will should generally be possessed of three capacities: (1) an awareness and sensitivity to reasons for actions; (2) an ability to weigh and critically probe desires and intentions, and possibly to reevaluate goals; and (3) the ability to choose, based on reasons, which action to take on a given occasion . While O'Connor claims that those are necessary for a system to possess free will, are they sufficient?

Suppose that I open my refrigerator with the intent of having something to eat and am presented with a variety of options. It is immediately obvious that, if my refrigerator only contained one thing, then I wouldn't have much of a choice. It seems clear, then, that, aside from any internal capacities that I might possess, one very clear external factor in assessing the freedom of a choice is the number of options that are available to choose from. By its very nature, the word "choice" implies that there must be a minimum of two options to choose from. However, it is also necessary that I be able to read those options (or a certain subset of them) into my memory and then process them, all in a finite amount of time (it wouldn't really be much of a choice if it took me an infinite amount of time to read in all the options). As such, there is a computational aspect to free choice. Indeed, several computational models of free will exist . However, we also assume that, for free will to exist, the system or agent experiencing it must have enough time to assign meaning or a value judgment (i.e., a weight) to each possible choice. In other words, if the possible choices are read into the system's memory too quickly, one could easily attribute any subsequent choice to mere instinct. O'Connor identifies three types of "will" or "desire": (1) minimally voluntary action, (2) willing or the conscious formation of an intention to act (briefly mentioned above) and (3) an urge or want . It seems clear, then, that the capacity to weigh and probe desires and intentions, i.e., to assign meaning or a value judgment to each possible choice, is linked to the distinction between a minimally voluntary action and a "willing". What I refer to as an *adaptive* free choice, then, includes the capacity to weigh and probe desires, the formation of an intention to act based on the action of weighing and probing desires, and finally the carrying out of the action whose intention was formed. That is, I assume that it is not merely sufficient to possess the capacity of choice. Some action representing the choice being made must also take place. This is not a trivial point.

Returning to the refrigerator, for the sake of simplicity, let's suppose that I only have two options—carrots and peppers. With only two choices, there is no real concern about the reading and processing time being too lengthy and we can assume, for the moment, that neither is it too short, i.e., I am free to stand in front of the refrigerator and ponder these two possibilities, assigning meaning to them in the form of weights. Let us suppose that I then make a choice—carrots, for the sake of argument. There is an often overlooked assumption in discussions of free will having to do with the nature of actually *enacting* a choice. That is, we assume (usually implicitly) that, to a generally high degree of probability, enacting the choice results in the desired outcome. To put it another way, in choosing carrots, I am relying on the fact that there is a very high probability that, at some point between choosing carrots and actually removing them from the refrigerator and ingesting them, they *remain carrots* and do not spontaneously turn into peppers. That is, we rely on the fact that the universe is a relatively stable place. Consider what would happen if we could *not* be confident that our choices lead to their expected outcomes the vast majority of the time. If this were the case, we would likely give up on choosing since the outcomes would be closer to random and thus the act of making a choice would be pointless. As Nozick pointed out, a random act is not a free act . Thus, there must be some level of determinism involved in free choices in the sense that the chosen action itself is nearly deterministic. The crucial point, however, is that each possible choice *is a different action*. Thus, it is that we are choosing between different *processes* rather than labeling each choice as a different outcome of the *same* process . In other words, in order for the choice to be truly free, we have to have a high degree of confidence that the state that we finally choose actually occurs. Otherwise, there is no point in making a choice in the first place. However, this means that, when presented with a set of possible choices, each choice must represent a fundamentally different process, e.g., the actual process of reaching into my refrigerator for a carrot is not the same as the actual process of reaching into my refrigerator for a pepper (at the very least, they are not in the exact same location and thus the processes involve different spatial coordinates).

These characteristics of free choices are partially behavioral since they are based on the system's actions and its reaction to those actions. We weigh our choices based partly on past experience. If I have eaten both carrots and peppers before, I will know what they taste like and can use that information to place weights on each option. The fact that previous behavior can inform future behavior is a characteristic of many downwardly causal processes. This makes the weighting of the choices and the existence of a memory key differentiators, and motivates the use of the term *adaptive* (see ). This distinguishes them from O'Connor's minimally voluntary actions which I interpret as upwardly causal. A minimally voluntary action is distinguished from a purely instinctual one by the fact that it still leads to a desired outcome (see  for a fuller discussion).

If we expect the outcomes of chosen actions to be nearly deterministic in most instances, how can we reconcile this with the fact that the quantum fields of which the universe is constructed, display a certain level of indeterminacy? Is it possible to obtain deterministic outcomes from sets of random processes? This, in fact, is exactly what happens in the thermodynamic limit of statistical physics. I use similar methods to construct the process ontology that is at the heart of this model.

# Process Ontology

In order to reconcile a seemingly deterministic macroworld with a fundamentally random microworld, I introduce a process ontology in which we may classify choices. The fundamental entities of this ontology are *systems*, *states*, and *processes*. However, I refer to this as a *process* ontology in order to emphasize the fact that the aim is to model both the internal reasoning about possible actions as well as the fulfillment of a chosen action.

A system $\sigma$ in this ontology can be anything one chooses it to be. We define states as follows.

The states of systems are thus functions of variables $\lambda$ which allow us to specify the state. Processes, then, take states from one configuration to another by changing $\lambda$.

That is, though a process always ends in a single definite state, it may probabilistically end up in one of a possible collection of states. We assume that the outcome state is definite (i.e., is not a superposition). A graphical representation of a process is shown in Figure .

The *multiplicity* $\omega (\pi_{ij})$ for process $\pi_{ij}$ is then defined to be the number of possible outcomes, i.e., $\omega (\pi_{ij}) = n$.

These definitions now allow us to describe a spectrum of processes. It might be true, for instance, that, for a given process $\pi_{ij}$, the multiplicity is $\omega (\pi_{ij}) = n = 1$. That is, there might be only one possible outcome for the process. Such a process is thus fully deterministic. Conversely, it may be true that $\omega (\pi_{ij}) = n > 1$ *and* that all outcomes have an equal likelihood of occurring, i.e., the probability distribution for the process is flat. Such a process would naturally be fully random since no single outcome is favored over any other.

It is important to distinguish here the difference between determinism and causality. In this model, all processes are causal in that they follow from other processes. This includes "spontaneous" processes which are understood to follow from conditions produced by other processes. For example, spontaneous particle creation can only occur because of the presence of the underlying fields. This model would assume that the existence of those fields came about from some process, even if the nature of that process is not known. Thus, though this model is causal, it is not fully deterministic. The distinction between causality and determinism has been rigorously delineated by D'Ariano, Manessi, and Perinotti, and we refer the reader to  for details.

I note that all these definitions can be broken into two possible categories—micro or macro—depending on the level of the system under consideration. This has the usual meaning from statistics and statistical mechanics. Thus, for instance, we can speak of a pair of (fair) dice as having 36 different microstates and 11 different macrostates. In this case, the microstates are the various configurations that produce a given macrostate. A pair of (fair) dice is a fairly simple system in which we assume the fundamental constituents (the dice) do not interact. In more complex systems, interactions may occur between the various parts of the system. It is not necessary for interactions to occur, however, in order to obtain a deterministic macrostate from a collection of equally likely microstates.

Consider a simple two-state system $\sigma$ in a state $i=1$. Since it is a two-state system, any potential process only has two possible outcomes: either the existing state evolves to itself or to the other state. Let us assume that each of these states is equally likely to occur in the long run. Examples of such systems include two-state paramagnets, fair coins (being flipped), etc. Thus, the process $\pi_{1j}$ for the evolution of a simple two-state system is

$$\begin{tikzpicture}[>=stealth, thick]
\node at (-1.25,0) {$\pi_{1j}$:};
\node at (-0.25,0) {$\bm{\psi}_1(\lambda_1)$};
\draw[->] (0.35,0) -- (1.75,0.5);
\node at (2.75,0.5) {$\bm{\psi}_{j=1}(\lambda_{j=1})$};
\draw[->] (0.35,0) -- (1.75,-0.5);
\node at (2.75,-0.5) {$\bm{\psi}_{j=2}(\lambda_{j=2})$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ The multiplicity for this process is $\omega(\pi_{1j}) = 2$. If we assume that each of the two possible outcomes is equally likely, the probability distribution is quite simple.

Now, consider a more complex system that is composed of smaller sub-systems. The more complex system will be referred to as a macrosystem and its states and processes will be referred to as macrostates and macroprocesses. I will distinguish these from the component microsystems, microstates, and microprocesses by using capital letters. Thus, for example, if $\pi_{ij}$ is a microprocess taking a microsystem $\sigma$ from some fixed microstate $\bm{\psi_i}(\lambda_i)$ to one (and only one) of $n$ possible microstates $\bm{\psi_j}(\lambda_j)$, then $\Pi_{IJ}$ is a macroprocess taking a macrosystem $\Sigma$ from some fixed macrostate $\bm{\Psi_I}(\Lambda_I)$ to one (and only one) of $N$ possible macrostates $\bm{\Psi_J}(\Lambda_J)$.

As an example, consider a macrosystem $\Sigma_{AB}$ that consists of two *non*-interacting two-state microsystems $\sigma_A$ and $\sigma_B$ that is in a state $I=1$. The possible outcome states and the associated probability distribution are shown in Figure :

The probability of any given macrostate is given by the multiplicity of that macrostate divided by the total multiplicity. In this situation, there is only one microstate for each macrostate and so

$$P(\bm{\Psi}) = \frac{\Omega_{1(J=K)}}{\Omega_{1J}} = \frac{\Omega_{1(J=K)}}{\omega^A_{1j}\cdot\omega^B_{1j}} = \frac{1}{2\cdot 2} = 0.25$$ where $\Omega_{1(J=K)}$ is the number of microstates that correspond to macrostate $J=K$ and where $\Omega_{IJ}=\omega^A_{1j}\cdot\omega^B_{1j}$ follows from the fact that multiplicities are multiplicative. Once again, the probability distribution is flat.

Now, consider an even more complex macrosystem composed of $N$ non-interacting two-state microsystems and let us ask how many of the subsystems will be in the state $j=2$ after the process $\Pi_{1J}$ occurs. The answer is given by the multiplicity, which is

$$\Omega_{1J} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
N \\
N_{j=2}
\end{array}
\right) = \frac{N!}{N_{j=2}!(N-N_{j=2})!}.$$ If $N$ is very large, we can use Stirling's approximation, $N!\approx N^Ne^{-N}\sqrt{2\pi N}$, which gives

$$\Omega_{1J} = \frac{N^N}{N_{2}^{N_2}(N-N_{2})^{(N-N_2)}}
\label{twostatemult}$$ where $N_2 = N_{j=2}$. The probability $P(\bm{\Psi}_{N_2})$ of a state $\bm{\Psi}_{N_2}$ occurring is plotted as a function of $N_2/N$ for three different values of $N$ in Figure  where I have normalized each distribution (see  Ch. 2).

We can see from this that, as the size of the system increases, despite the underlying processes being entirely random, the system tends to cluster in a small number of macrostates. As $N\to\infty$, the system tends toward a single macrostate. That is, the transition between state 1 and some state $J$ *becomes deterministic*. From this we can see that sets of random microprocesses can lead to deterministic macroprocesses.

The processes considered in the above example were non-interacting. The real world, of course, includes interactions. An interaction between two systems is also a process that in some way changes the variables of each system. As such, each subsystem is undergoing a process that is influenced by the other subsystems' processes. The details of the process ontology for such situations is beyond the scope of the current work, which is intended as an introduction to the model. However, subsequent works will elaborate on the underlying process ontology and discuss how it affects the distributions. For the purposes of explicating the basic model of free will, the nature of the actual distributions is not important. The distributions become important when assessing the actual choices that are fed into the model.

# The Model

I will refer to any system that possesses the capacity of choice, as introduced in Section , as an 'agent'. A choice can only be said to be free if the agent can make some judgment about all possible choices in order to weigh them against one another, i.e., they must mean something to the agent. Otherwise, the choice is random (and thus meaningless). In addition, the agent has to have a high degree of confidence that the choice they finally make will actually be realized. Crucially, different choices represent different processes. I thus *define* choice in the following manner.

Note that the lower-case $n$ is deliberate and the reason will become evident in a moment.

For a particular choice to be free, the total number of choices presented to the agent at a given time, which I will call the 'choice ensemble' $\Gamma$, must be read into the system's memory and then processed in a finite amount of time. Otherwise, the possibility of making a choice is undecidable. Likewise, stability is assumed, as described in Section , in that the outcomes of the actions associated with each choice do not change subsequent to the decision, i.e., carrots don't spontaneously turn into peppers.

Given the above definition, I add the following axioms:

-   **Axiom 1**.The most fundamental systems are irreducible to other systems, i.e., they contain no interactions and cannot be partitioned.

-   **Axiom 2**. All possible configurations, i.e., microstates, of fundamental systems are equally likely in the long run.

-   **Axiom 3**. A system's macrostates are formed via interacting (micro)processes.

-   **Axiom 4**. The probability that a choice will lead to its macrostate is arbitrarily high if the choice is free, i.e., a free choice inevitably leads to a nearly deterministic outcome.

-   **Axiom 5**. The number $N$ of possible choices that a system has must be small enough to be read into the system's memory in a finite time.

-   **Axiom 6**. The choices do not change at any time during the agent's processing of the choices nor during the agent's enactment of the choice.

-   **Axiom 7**. The choices must be distinct.

These are the *formal* axioms of the model. There are certain assumptions and definitions that fully describe the model that will be introduced in the next section. However, from the formal standpoint, we restrict ourselves to these axioms. It is worth noting that I do *not* require that the interactions of Axiom 3 be classical. This is intentional. It is entirely possible that such an assumption will lead to unusual results that require a refinement of the model, but that is an area for future work.

Now, suppose that some macrosystem $\Sigma$ composed of $k$ microsystems $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_k$ is presented with an ensemble $\Gamma$ of $N$ possible choices $\Pi_{11},\ldots,\Pi_{1N}$. Each choice in the ensemble has $n_k$ possible outcomes (hence the choice of a lower-case $n$ in Definition 3). The probability distributions associated with the choices in the ensemble are $P_1(\bm{\Psi};\textrm{\textbf{E}}_1,\bm{\textrm{K}}_1),\ldots,P_N(\bm{\Psi};\textrm{\textbf{E}}_N,\textrm{K}_N)$ where $\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i$ is the mean and $\textrm{K}_i$ is the variance for the given distribution. The ensemble of choices may be represented as a mixed distribution,

$$\Gamma(\bm{\Psi}) = w_1P_1(\bm{\Psi};\textrm{\textbf{E}}_1,K_1) + w_2P_2(\bm{\Psi};\textrm{\textbf{E}}_2,K_2) + \cdots + w_NP_N(\bm{\Psi};\textrm{\textbf{E}}_N,K_N)
\label{ensemble}$$ with weights $w_i \ge 0, \; w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_N = 1$ and where $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$ is a convex function.

A particularly useful analysis of multimodal distributions is based on the distribution's overall topology. Ray and Lindsay give a method that utilizes what they refer to as the "ridgeline" function which describes the shape of $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$ as

$$\bm{\Psi}^*(a) = \left[\sum_{i=1}^n a_i\textrm{\textbf{K}}_i^{-1}\right]\times\left[\sum_{i=1}^n a_i\textrm{\textbf{K}}_i^{-1}\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i\right]
\label{ridgeline}$$ where $a$ belongs to the $n-1$ dimensional unit simplex $\mathcal{S}_n=\{a\in\mathbb{R}^n:a_i\in[0,1],\sum_{i=1}^n a_i = 1\}$. Here, $\textrm{\textbf{K}}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{D\times D}$, $\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i\in\mathbb{R}^D$ for a $D$-dimensional space and $\textrm{\textbf{K}}_i$ and $\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i$ correspond to the covariance and mean of the $i$th component, respectively. This function can be used to identify the locations of the peaks in the distributions if they are not clearly known . Here, I will assume that the peaks are reasonably distinct in that their individual means and variances, and thus their locations in the overall distribution, are known.

Axiom 7 above captures the assumption that choices can only be said to be free if they are reasonably distinct. If an agent is presented with two essentially identical choices, then there are fewer criteria by which the agent can distinguish them and thus their distributions will have a certain amount of overlap. If spatial information is included in their distributions, then they won't overlap perfectly since the two choices will, at the very least, represent different spatial locations. For example, in choosing between two identical carrots, one is choosing between two objects that, though perhaps otherwise identical, are in different spatial locations. In any case, one expects that the more distinct the choices, the more free the ability to choose; if the choices are identical, the ability to choose is closer to a random process, e.g., the choice between two nearly identical carrots is not as free as the choice between a carrot and a pepper. A convenient measure of the distinctness of the choices in this case is given by the Mahalanobis distance  between any pair of constituent distributions $i$ and $j$ in the mixed distribution $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$ given by

$$\Delta_M(\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i,\textrm{\textbf{E}}_j,\textrm{\textbf{K}}) = \sqrt{(\textrm{\textbf{E}}_j-\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i)^{T}\textrm{\textbf{K}}^{-1}(\textrm{\textbf{E}}_j - \textrm{\textbf{E}}_i)}
\label{maha}$$ where $\textrm{\textbf{E}}_i$ and $\textrm{\textbf{E}}_j$ are the respective means and $\textrm{\textbf{K}}$ is the covariance matrix. When the covariance matrix is diagonal, this reduces to the standardized Euclidean distance. The Mahalanobis distance is preserved under full-rank linear transformations of the space that is spanned by the data comprising the distributions. Intuitively, then, the larger the value of $\Delta_M$, the more distinct choices $i$ and $j$ will be. Within the full ensemble of choices $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$, the freedom of choice $i$ depends on the *minimum* distance $\Delta_M$ between $i$ and each other choice in the ensemble $\min (\Delta_M)_i$.

Capturing Axiom 5 proves to be a bit tricky. We could quite simply define a time function $T$ that depends on the total number of choices $N$ and require that it be finite. However, one might suppose that different values for $\Delta_M$ or even $\bm{\Sigma}_i$ will affect the time required to read in and process the choices. For instance, if two neighboring choices are not particularly distinct in that they have considerable overlap in their individual distributions, this might lead to the agent spending more time processing and assigning weights to these two choices. Thus, I will assume that the time it takes for the agent to read in and process the choices is some function of their number $N$ as well as the general topology $\bm{\Psi}^*$ of the distribution, i.e., $T(\bm{\Psi}^*,N)$. The crucial requirement is that

$$t_{min} < T(\bm{\Psi}^*,N) < \infty
\label{time}$$ where $t_{min}$ is some minimum time below which the choice becomes either minimally voluntary or purely instinctual. This ensures that the information can be read into memory and processed in a finite amount of time.

It is debatable whether, aside from requiring that $T$ be finite, we also need to require that it be minimized but greater than $t_{min}$. Obviously if $T$ is too small, the system is not extracting meaning from the process and thus the choice is minimally voluntary or instinctual. Hence the lower bound on $T$. On the other hand, one could argue that a shorter time means the system is more efficient. Greater efficiency does not necessarily mean less freedom. Thus it is that we also might require that $T$ be as close to $t_{min}$ as possible without dropping below it. I will leave this point unanswered in this initial version of the model. However, I discuss some related points in Section .

The covariance, time function, and minimum Mahalanobis distance, then, provide a means of measuring Axioms 4, 5, and 7, respectively. This leads us naturally to a measure of the "freedom" of any particular choice in the ensemble.

I have assumed that maximizing the freedom of the choice entails minimizing its covariance since this increases the "sharpness" of the probability distribution within the ensemble. The larger the value of the $\zeta$-function, then, the more free the choice.

This, of course, is only a measure of the freedom of a single choice. It is entirely possible that an agent could have many free choices and many non-free choices. One would assume that a majority of choices for any agent said to possess *free will* would have a high measure of freedom. The question is whether freedom in this sense is additive or multiplicative. We can answer this by returning to the statistical arguments that underpin the first few axioms.

In a certain sense, the freedom of a given choice is related to how easy it is to actually make that choice. Roughly speaking, then, the more ways in which one can make a specific choice, the greater the freedom of that choice. In that sense, freedom is similar to the outcomes of a process. The number of outcomes for a given macrostate of a process is measured by the multiplicity which is multiplicative. Thus, we can, by analogy, take freedom to be multiplicative in this particular model. As such, we can take a measure of *free will* to be the following.

# Weighting the Choices

A crucial component of the model is the set of weights given in Equation . It is within these weights that the action of choosing can either be entirely random (if the weights are all equal), entirely deterministic (if there is only a single constituent distribution), or something in between. Freedom is a spectrum between entirely random and entirely deterministic and it is this spectrum that $\zeta$ and $Z$ measure.

There are two basic methods for assigning the weights in the function $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$ from a physical standpoint. In the one case, the weights can be derived from the *internal* dynamics of the agent. That is, we could begin with a set of $k$ fundamental subsystems each with some state $\bm{\psi}(\lambda)_i$. These subsystems could be allowed to evolve naturally through various processes $\pi_{ij}$ such that the agent itself evolves by some macroprocess $\Pi _{IJ}$ between two macrostates $\bm{\Psi}_I$ and $\bm{\Psi}_J$, where lowercase labels represent microstates and uppercase labels represent macrostates. It is entirely possible that the agent *could* have evolved via an entirely different macroprocess $\Pi _{IJ^{\prime}}$ to macrostate $\bm{\Psi}_{J^{\prime}}$ under the same internal conditions since the outcomes of the individual microprocesses are assumed to be random in accordance with Axiom 2. Each of these possible macrostates may have an associated probability distribution. Over a large number of evolutions of the agent to these macrostates, the weights can be established statistically and an ensemble $\Gamma(\bm{\Psi})$ can be formed.

Establishing the weights in this instance relies solely on the internal dynamics of the agent and is an entirely upwardly causal process. It would be easy to dismiss this as a free choice either on the grounds that, as a closed system, the agent is causally deterministic or on the grounds that it is simply reacting to underlying random processes. It is important to note that this does not mean the system is free from external interactions. It simply means that the internal dynamics are what drives the state evolution. The external constraints may be what sets the initial conditions in the form of the initial state $\bm{\Psi}_I$ but plays no role in the determination of the actual weights.

However, no system is truly closed and so it is more accurate to assume that environmental and contextual factors also drive the evolution of the processes that the agent undergoes. In actuality, the agent interacts with its environment *during* the macroprocesses such that the dynamics are influenced by the environment in *addition* to internal factors. Axiom 2 is still satisfied since the underlying microstates of both the agent and its environment remain equally likely in the long run, but conditions are now contextual such that the *macrostates* are now partially constrained by external factors. These external factors can be construed as assigning a form of *meaning* to the weights. This is a form of downward causation as discussed by Ellis and others (see, for example, ). Specifically, this can be viewed as a form of decoupling similar to dynamic or symbolic decoupling that has been argued as a possible driver for free will . However, there is still something missing.

Let's return to the choice between carrots and peppers in my refrigerator. If I choose carrots, did I do so because my genetics and specific worldline in spacetime predisposed me to do so? If so, it was hardly a free choice. Indeed, this is a typical feature of arguments *against* free will (see, for example, ). On the other hand, perhaps I chose the carrot because I consciously weighed my past experience against how I "felt" at the time. The difference between the two is that the second involves accessing *memory* in the broad sense (i.e., including both stored practical information as well as potentially qualia). One might argue that both instances involve memory, but that really isn't the case. Accessing memory is a necessarily downwardly causal process whereby a system in a higher-level state actively accesses stored information about lower-level states. Specifically, the process of choosing from a set of choices, which necessarily includes assigning them weights and accessing memory, is precisely a form of adaptive selection . Adaptive selection involves a process of variation (the process ontology in this model) that generates an ensemble of states (here these are the macrostates) from which an outcome is selected according to some kind of selection criteria. Indeed, the selection criteria themselves can be chosen through a form of adaptive selection . The presence of memory is fundamental to any adaptive process. Thus, it makes sense to require that the determination of the weights in this model be through a process of adaptive selection involving environmental and contextual factors, and the accessing of the agent's memory.

# Conclusions

As I emphasized earlier, the model assumes that at least some complex systems possess a capacity of choice. That may or may not be a valid assumption. However, it should be clear that human behavior is at least partly guided by the assumption that we *do* have free will. Indeed, most legal systems are built on the basis of that assumption. As O'Connor pointed out, then, the freedom that this assumed capacity of choice makes possible should come in degrees and can vary in time with individual agents . Freedom, in this context, is an action taken by an agent and it is this action that the model presented here aims to capture. Given the increasing importance of artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, it also seems worthwhile to compare such actionable freedom across systems. Could a machine make choices as freely as a human? Might there be a way to measure any difference?

In that sense, this model is one of behavior. It considers a system as being contained within an environment that helps constrain that behavior. To a certain extent, there is a similarity here to the cause and effect repertoires of integrated information theory (IIT)  and, indeed, the relationship is part of a larger research project that is in the early stages. Additional work is required to determine the form of the constant of proportionality in Equation  and determining the exact form for the time function $T$. I suspect both may need to be determined through experiment. In addition, the model presented here employs simple Gaussian distributions, but it would be interesting to see if Fermi–Dirac, Bose-Einstein, or other such distributions give substantially different predictions.

Clearly, the problem of free will is deeply tied to the problem of consciousness. As such, any model will include some of the same baggage as models of consciousness including, for instance, how to deal with qualia which appear to play a role in weighting the choices. More likely than not, the model will need considerable revision and alteration in order to truly capture what we think of when we think of free will, but it at least provides a basic framework for thinking about the problem.


abstract: This paper describes an effective and efficient image classification framework nominated distributed deep representation learning model (DDRL). The aim is to strike the balance between the computational intensive deep learning approaches (tuned parameters) which are intended for distributed computing, and the approaches that focused on the designed parameters but often limited by sequential computing and cannot scale up. In the evaluation of our approach, it is shown that DDRL is able to achieve state-of-art classification accuracy efficiently on both medium and large datasets. The result implies that our approach is more efficient than the conventional deep learning approaches, and can be applied to big data that is too complex for parameter designing focused approaches. More specifically, DDRL contains two main components, *i.e.*, feature extraction and selection. A hierarchical distributed deep representation learning algorithm is designed to extract image statistics and a nonlinear mapping algorithm is used to map the inherent statistics into abstract features. Both algorithms are carefully designed to avoid millions of parameters tuning. This leads to a more compact solution for image classification of big data. We note that the proposed approach is designed to be friendly with parallel computing. It is generic and easy to be deployed to different distributed computing resources. In the experiments, the large-scale image datasets are classified with a DDRM implementation on Hadoop MapReduce, which shows high scalability and resilience.
address: School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC),2006 Xiyuan Avenue, Gaoxin West Zone, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611731, China; School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary, University of London
author: Le Dong; Na Lv; Qianni Zhang; Shanshan Xie; Ling He; Mengdie Mao
title: A Distributed Deep Representation Learning Model
  for Big Image Data Classification

# Introduction

Recent years have witnessed great success and the development of deep learning applied to multiple levels of representation and abstraction that help make sense of image data to accomplish higher-level tasks such as image retrieval , classification , detection , *etc.* Elegant deep representation obtained through greedily learning successive layers of features will contribute to make subsequent tasks more achievable. Provided the scarce labeled data, current deep learning methods such as CNN (Convolutional Neural Networks) , Sparse coding , Sparse auto-encoder and RBMs (Restricted Boltzmann Machines) typically employed an unsupervised learning algorithm to train a model of the unlabeled data and then used the gained deep representation to extract interesting features. These aforementioned deep learning models generally have huge amounts of hyper-parameters to be tuned, which impose sharp requirements for storage and computational expense. More recently, researchers found that it is possible to achieve state-of-the-art performance by focusing effort on the design parameters (*e.g.*, the receptive field size, the number of hidden nodes, the step-size between extracted features, *etc.*) with simple learning algorithms and a single layer of features . However, the superiority demonstrated in is based on the relatively small benchmarkdatasets like NORB and CIFAR-100 . When applied to big image datasets such as ImageNet , the classification accuracy of the single layer feature approach may suffer from the information loss during the feature extraction. Indeed, big image data comes along accompanied by the widespread real applications in various areas, such as engineering, industrial manufacture, military and medicine, *etc.*, which directly motivate us to construct a robust and reliable model for big image data classification with the joining efforts of feature design, deep learning and distributed computing resources.

Inspired by the previous state-of-the-art approaches , we utilize hierarchical distributed deep representation learning algorithm, based on K-means, to serve as the unsupervised feature learning module. The proposed approach avoids the selection of multiple hyper-parameters, such as learning rates, momentum, sparsity penalties, weight decay which must be chosen through cross-validation and result in substantially increased runtime. K-means has enjoyed wide adoption in computer vision for building codebooks of visual words used to define higher-level image features, but it has been less widely used in deep learning. In our design, K-means is used to construct a dictionary $D\in R^{n\times k}$ of $k$ centroids in each layer to gain the feature mapping function so that an input data vector $x^{(i)} \in R^n, i = 1, \cdots, m$ can be mapped to a new feature representation that minimizes the error in reconstruction. The proposed approach is computational simpler as not require any hyper-parameter to be tuned other than obtaining the dictionary $D$. We note that the complexity of the dictionary grows linearly with the number of the layers, which imposes non-trivial computations cannot be handled by a single machine. To mitigate this problem, we utilize the distributed computing resources to provide competent computing capability and storage. Here, the prevalent MapReduce , aimed at big data parallel processing, is chosen to serve as the implementation platform. Based on this platform, our proposed Distributed Deep Representation Learning Model (DDRL) is reliably trained. Note that DDRL model is not restricted to be run on MapReduce. It is generic and can be deployed to any other distributed platform.

In general, the significant contribution of this paper can be summarized as three aspects:

1\) The proposed DDRL model is a hierarchical structure designed to abstract the layer-wise image feature information. Each hierarchy is based on hierarchical distributed deep representation learning algorithm to learn the inherent statistics of the image data. The DDRL model abandons millions of parameters estimation, which releases the complexity of the traditional model learning methods;

2\) To further counter the computing challenges brought by big image data, DDRL model is set up on the distributed resources which help to release the storage and computation efficiency issues. In addition, each layer adapts parallel processing, which further improves the scalability and fault tolerance of DDRL;

3\) Owning to the excellent parallel design and simplifying burdensome models, our DDRL model learns the saliency representation to achieve big image data classification and obtains desirable performance.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the related works and Section 3 elaborates our proposed approach. Experimental evidences that validates our work and a comparison with other methods are presented in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.

# Related work

In recent years, much attention has been concentrated on the flourish of deep learning, which can be of unsupervised , supervised , or a hybrid form . Hierarchical and recursive networks have demonstrated great promise in automatically learning thousands or even millions of features. Image classification based on deep learning have also observed significant performance, especially in the presence of large amount of training data. extracts hand-designed low-level features, which fails to capture the inherent variability of images.

Despite the superiority of deep learning on processing vision tasks, some potential problems with the current deep learning frameworks still exist, just as concluded: reduced transparency and determinativeness of the features learned at hidden layers ; training difficulty due to exploding and vanishing gradients ; lack of a thorough mathematical understanding about the algorithmic behavior, despite of some attempts made on the theoretical side ; dependence on the availability of large amount of training data ; complexity of manual tuning during training . To enhance the performance of deep learning from various angles, several techniques such as dropout , drop connect , pre-training , and data augmentation , have been proposed. In addition, a variety of engineering tricks are employed to fine-tune feature scale, step size, and convergence rate.

In , k-means successfully plays an unsupervised feature learning role to achieve good performance. It is particularly noteworthy for its simple implementation and fast training. Unfortunately, it suffers from the problem that a very large number of centroids are required to generate good features, which directly brings heavy burden on computing speed and storage capacity. To take advantages of the simpleness of K-means and overcome aforementioned deficiencies, we consider employing the distributed resources to make contributions. In this sense, MapReduce , as a prevalent distributed processing framework, is a reliable platform to provide sufficient computing resources. MapReduce is a prevalent framework capable of efficiently processing huge data amount in a parallel manner across numerous distributed nodes. The excellent fault tolerance and load balance of MapReduce benefit from its inherent working mechanism which detects failed map or reduces tasks and reschedules these tasks to other nodes in the cluster. Detailed operation and combination of MapReduce with our DDRL model will be further introduced in subsequent sections.

# Proposed Approach

This section presents the detailed design of our proposed distributed deep representation learning model (DDRL).

## System Overview

The structure of DDRL model consists of five layers. As shown in Figure 1, each layer has a similar structure which includes extracting features and selecting feature maps. The input of the first layer is an unlabeled image dataset and the output of the last layer, *i.e.* the fifth layer, is the learned features which are fed to the SVM to test our model. Between the first and the last layers, each layer extracts features from the output of the previous layer, and then feeds the extracted features to the next layer. In the process of training model, the training image set is partitioned into six small datasets $\left\{ID_0, ID_1, \cdots , ID_5 \right\}$ (each of which corresponds to a specified layer) where $\left\{ID_0, ID_1, \cdots , ID_4 \right\}$ are unlabeled image datasets used to train our DDRL model and $ID_5$ is a labeled image dataset to train SVM for classification. Here, we divide the whole image dataset to several small subsets. This step helps reduce the training time and ensure the richness of the extracted features.

The specific structure of each layer is depicted in Figure 2, which includes input, pre-processing, learning dictionary, extracting features and selecting feature maps. Here, we use the first layer as an example to illustrate our DDRL model. We extract random patches $ID_0[1, \cdots, n]$ from $ID_0$ on the multiple Map nodes in parallel, followed by a pre-processing stage including contrast normalization and whitening of these patches. In , it has been proved that normalization can remove the unit limitation of the data, which helps compare and weight the data of different units and whitening helps remove the redundancy between the pixels. Then, K-means acting as the unsupervised feature learning algorithm runs on each Map node to gain $m$ small dictionaries $\left\{D_{11},D_{21}, \cdots,D_{m1}\right\}$ ($m$ is the total number of map nodes in the cluster), which will be reduced on the Reduce node to produce the final dictionary $D_1$ of the first layer. Thus, provided the first layer's feature mapping $\Phi(x;D_1, \varsigma)$, we can extract image features of $ID_1$ and employ a step of spatial pooling on these features to obtain more compact representations. Note that the pooled features are still in rather high dimension and it is hard to select receptive fields from such huge amount of features. To this end, we utilize a similarity metric to produce feature maps, each of which contains an equal number of the most similar features, and these feature maps will be input to the second layer and assigned to the map nodes for parallel processing. Here, on each Map node, K-means will run on the feature maps to gain the corresponding dictionaries, and subsequent operations are the same as in the first layer. Finally, in the last layer, we use the dictionary $D_5$ to extract image features of the labeled image dataset $ID_5$ and then input the pooled features and labels to train the SVM for classification.

## DDRL Model Formulation

Suppose that each randomly extracted patch has dimension $p-by-p$ and has $d$ channels (*e.g.* $d = 3$ for a RGB image), we can then construct a dataset of $n$ sample patches $X =\left\{X^{(1)}, \cdots ,X^{(n)}\right\}$ , where $X^{(i)} \in R^N$ and $N = p\cdot p\cdot d$. Given this dataset, the pre-processing step can be done followed by the unsupervised feature learning process to accomplish the distributed deep representation learning.

### Pre-processing

Previous state-of-the-art method have validated the key roles of pre-processing on image patches to improve the subsequent feature learning performance. In our work, the pre-processing operation involves normalization and whitening, to provide a cooperative contribution. Since the pre-processing of each image is irrelevant, it can be distributed on the Map node of our DDRL model. Normalization can remove the unit limitation of the data, enabling comparison and weighting of the data of different units. Whitening helps remove the redundancy between the pixels. Here, we normalize the patches according to Eq.(1): $$\label{1}
\widetilde{X}^{(i)}=\frac{X^{(i)}-mean(X{^{(i)}})}{\sqrt{var(X^{(i)})+\sigma}},$$ where $var(\bullet)$ and $mean(\bullet)$ are the variance and mean of the elements of $X^{(i)}$ and $\sigma$ is a constant added to the variance before division to suppress noise and to avoid division by zero. For visual data, this operation corresponds to the local brightness and contrast normalization.

Since that the adjacent pixel values in the raw input image are highly correlated, we employ the classical PCA whitening on each $\widetilde{X}^{(i)}$ obtained from the normalization to make the input less redundant. We have $$\label{1}
[\Lambda,U]:=Eig(cov(\widetilde{X})),\label{2}$$ $$\label{1}
X^{(i)}_{rot}:=U^{T}\widetilde{X}^{(i)},\label{3}$$ $$\label{1}
x_{PCAwhite,i}=\frac{x_{rot,i}}{\sqrt{\lambda_i}},$$ We have: where Eq.(2) computes the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\widetilde{X}$ , Eq.(3) uncorrelates the input features, and Eq.(4) obtains the whitened data. Note that some of the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ may be numerically close to zero. Thus, the scaling step where we divide by $\sqrt{\lambda_i}$ would result in a division by a value close to zero, causing the data to blow up (take on large values) or otherwise be numerically unstable. Therefore, we add a small $\epsilon$ to the eigenvalues before taking their square root, just as shown in Eq.(5). $$\label{5}
x_{PCAwhite,i}=\frac{x_{rot,i}}{\sqrt{\lambda_i+\epsilon}}.$$

Furthermore, adding $\epsilon$ here can contribute to smooth the input image, remove aliasing artifacts caused by the way which pixels laid out in an image, and improve the learned features.

### DDRL Hierarchical Feature Extraction

Given the pre-processed image data, we input them into the DDRL model to learn hierarchical representation. Specifically, we utilize the K-means algorithm to learn the image statistics and gain a dictionary $D_L$ in the $L$ layer. Then, the pre-processed images $(L=1)$ or the feature maps $(L>1)$ and the duplicated dictionary $D_L$ are distributed on multiple map nodes. On each map node, we define a feature-mapping function $\Phi_L :R_N \to R^{K_L}$ that maps an input vector $x^{(i)}$ to a new feature representation of $K_L$ features. Here, we choose the soft-threshold nonlinearities $\Phi_L(x;D_L, \varsigma) = max\left\{0,D^T_Lx-\varsigma\right\}$, the feasibility of which has been validated in , as our feature extractor, where $\varsigma$ is a tunable constant. Thus, on each map node, we obtain the corresponding feature maps, and K-means is again used to learn dictionaries $D_{L+1}$ from these feature maps. The dictionaries on each map node are then reduced on the reduce node to aggregate a complete one. Similarly, the reduced dictionary is duplicated and distributed on multiple map nodes to respectively extract feature information of the feature maps, just as $L$-layer does. Similar operations are replicated in subsequent layers, and in the last layer, we reduce the learned feature maps into a whole. Section 3.2.3 provides the subsequent operation on these feature maps.

### DDRL Hierarchical Feature Selection

Given the feature extractor $\Phi_L$ and $D_L$, we can extract features $Z_L =\left\{Z_1,\cdots,Z_k\right\}$ of $ID_L = \left\{Image_1,\cdots,Image_k\right\}$. Some previous works \[13,14\] have theoretically analyzed the importance of spatial pooling to achieve invariance to image transformation, more compact representations, and better robustness to noise and clutter. Here, in our work, since that the features learned by K-means are relatively sparse, we choose average pooling to exploit its advantages. Figure 3 illustrates the feature extracted from the equally spaced sub-patches (*i.e.* receptive fields) covering the input image. We first extract $\omega-by-\omega$ receptive fields separated by S pixels and then map them to $K_L$ dimensional feature vectors via the feature extractor $\Phi_L(x;D_L, \varsigma) = max\left\{0,D^T_Lx-\varsigma\right\}$ to form a new image representation. Then, these vectors are pooled over $2-by-2$ quadrants of the image to form a feature vector for subsequent processing. As Figure 3 presents, the pooled features will be input to SVM for classification.

Since that the dictionary $D_L$ is designed to be very large to extract adequate representative features for the accurate big image data classification, the learned features are commonly in a huge amount and very high dimensional. Thus, efficiently selecting the receptive fields will be a rather challenging bottleneck since the single machine may possibly suffer from a breakdown. On the other hand, even the distributed computing resources cannot yield a desirable solution because the map nodes just cannot play their full advantages to process these unorganized features. Therefore, we wonder what if these unorganized, huge-sized, and high dimensional features are organized into a whole which can be easily processed by the map nodes in the cluster? The similarity metric between features proposed in inspires us to utilize Eq.(6) to produce feature maps which are composed of equal number of the most similar features. Given two features $Z_j$ and $Z_k$, the similarity between them is measured as follows:

$$\label{6}
d(j,k;Z) \equiv d[Z_j,Z_k]\equiv\frac{\sum_iZ_j^{(i)^2}Z_k^{(i)^2}-1}{\sqrt{\sum_i(Z_j^{(i)^4}-1)\sum_i(Z_k^{(i)^4}-1)}}.$$

Here, in our design, the core idea is to find the top $T$ most correlated features from $Z_L$ as a feature map, and K-means would then separately take a group of feature maps as input to obtain the corresponding dictionary $D_L$ on the map nodes in parallel, which desirably enhances the time efficiency and avoids the breakdown of the machine.

# Experiments

In this section, we conduct comprehensive experiments to evaluate the performance of our work on two large-scale image datasets, *i.e.*, ImageNet and CIFAR-100 . Here, we implement a multi-layered network to accomplish the deep representation learning for subsequent SVM classification. To provide convincing results, we compare our work with the method proposed in which similarly utilized K-means to learn the feature representation on a single node. To guarantee a fair comparison, we set up the experimental environment exactly as .

## Experimental Environment and Datasets

We built the Hadoop-1.0.4 cluster with four PCs, each with 2-core 2.6 GHz CPU and 4 GB memory space. The total number of the map nodes is 4 and the number of reduce node is 1.

is a dataset of over 15 million labeled high resolution images belonging to roughly 22,000 categories, which aims to provide researchers an easily accessible image database, and it is organized according to the WordNet hierarchy in which each node of the hierarchy is depicted by hundreds or thousands of images. Currently, there is an average of over five hundred images per node. To validate the performance of our DDRL model, we chose 100 categories, in total 120,000 images from ImageNet datasets, with 80,000 for training and the rest for testing. Since that the images from ImageNet are not of the the same size, we first resized the chosen images to 32-by-32 for the sake of convenience.

consists of 60,000 32-by-32 color images in 100 classes, with 600 images per class. There are 500 training images and 100 test images per class.

## Comparison of Dictionary

Before looking at the classification results, we first inspect the dictionary learned by our DDRL model and the dictionary learned by on CIFAR-100. The receptive field size is $6\times 6$ and the stride between two receptive fields is $1$ pixel. As presented in Figure 4, (a) provides the randomly selected filters (out of $1,600$) learned by the first layer of DDRL model, and (b) gives a random selection of filters from the completed dictionary composed of $1,600$ filters learned by . Visually, little difference can be observed between (a) and (b). Both of them present diversified features to contribute to the subsequent feature extraction and SVM classification. It is worth to mention that the dictionary presented in (a) is gained by reducing the four dictionaries obtained on the four map nodes, and (b) is gained using a single machine. Thus, considering both the computing resources and the final obtained similar dictionary, we can demonstrate that the feature learning model proposed in our work is superior to that presented in . If we need to learn a much bigger dictionary for better classification performance, the approach proposed in will impose a serious computation constraint on the single machine while our distributed deep model (DDRL) is competent to tackle this challenge with the joint efforts of the distributed computing resources.

## Effect of Whitening

Whitening is a part of pre-processing, which can help remove the redundancy of the pixels. In this section, we conduct experiment to validate the effect of whitening on our model.

Figure 5 shows the performance of our model with and without whitening. Our DDRL model has 5 layers, with 1,600/2,000/2,400/2,800/3,200 centroids from the first layer to the last. In all these layers, the size of the receptive filed is $6\times 6$, and the stride is set as $1$ pixel. From the experimental results, both on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset, we observe that the performance of our model gets improved when the layer number increases, and this increase takes place no matter whether or not the whitening operation is included. The reason for this increase will be discussed in the next subsection. In addition, Figure 5 shows that when the model depth is the same, the whitening operation can help DDRL model achieve higher classification accuracy, both on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset. Thus, we can conclude that whitening is a crucial pre-processing to optimize the proposed model.

## Effect of Receptive Field Size and Stride

In this section, we conduct experiments to compare the effect of receptive field size and stride on DDRL model and , both on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset.

Figure 6 illustrates the effect of receptive field size between DDRL model and on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset. The result of is gained with stride=1 pixel and 1,600 centroids. The results of DDRL model is obtained with 5 layers (centroids number per layer is 1,600, 2,000, 2,400, 2,800, 3,200) and 1 pixel stride. In this experiment, we set the receptive field size as $6\times6$, $8\times8$, $10\times10$, and $12\times12$. As the lines present, both DDRL model and show decreasing performance when the receptive field size increases, while DDRL model still achieves higher accuracies than in all cases. From this perspective, smaller receptive field will lead to better performance, which, however, will result in higher computation expense. In this sense, both on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset, our model can release such constraint with the distributed storage and computing, while with the approach proposed in , it is hard to deal with this overhead.

Figure 7 presents the effect of different strides proposed model in and DDRL model on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset. The model in sets the receptive field size as $6\times6$ and centroids number as 1,600. Our DDRL model is the same as described before, consisting of 5 layers with 1,600/2,000/2,400/2,800/3,200 centroids at different layers and the receptive field size is fixed at $6\times6$. Similar to Figure 6, both the model in and DDRL model get decreasing performance when the stride increases, and DDRL model keeps superiority over at all stride values. Similarly, smaller stride makes great contribution to the classification performance while introducing extra computation cost. Again, on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 dataset, our DDRL model can overcome the computational constraint with the distributed computing resources while it is difficult for a single machine to overcome such a problem.

| layer    | 1      | 2      | 3      | 4      | 5      |     |
|:---------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:----|
| **DDRL** | 70.19% | 72.58% | 74.86% | 75.14% | 75.53% |     |
|          | 70.01% | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |     |

Comparison of the classification performance on ImageNet dataset.

| Method   |        |        |        | **DDRL**   |
|:---------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-----------|
| Accuracy | 61.28% | 61.43% | 63.15% | **62.83%** |

Comparison of the classification performance on CIFAR-100 dataset.

## Classification Performance

In this section, we validate the classification performance of our DDRL model on ImageNet and CIFAR-100. In both and DDRL model, the receptive field size is $6 \times 6$, and the stride is $1$. Table 1 presents the results we gained on models with different number of layers. Although the inherent map and reduce phase of MapReduce may inevitably bring some compromises, the superiority of DDRL model become obvious when the layer number grows. A two-layer setup (with 1,600 centroids in the first dictionary and 2,000 centroids in the second) lead 2.39% improvements on ImageNet compared with the single layer. The results gained on a three/four/five-layer model continue to achieve an increase to different extent. The five-layer model gained subtle increase (only 0.39%) compared with the four-layer one, which indicates that when the model reaches an enough depth, the classification performance will gradually stop improving. Considering the consumption of computation and storage resources, the five-layer depth of DDRL model is deep enough in general.

Although the main body of work is conducted on the ImageNet dataset, we also investigate how the model performs on the CIFAR-100 dataset. As shown in Table 2, our DDRL model achieves 62.83% accuracy. We can observe that the result of DDRL model outperforms by 1.4%, and by 1.55%. Compared to , DDRL model gets 0.32% lower accuracy, which was mainly resulted from the required image amount to train the classification model. Thus, some relatively small datasets (*e.g.* NORB and CIFAR-10, *etc..*) were not used to validate the performance of our DDRL model. Considering both the classification results and computing consumption, such subtle discrepancy is acceptable and reasonable. Thus, when the amount of training images is large enough, the superiority of our DDRL model may become more obvious.

# Conclusion

In this work, we have successfully implemented the distributed deep representation learning model (DDRL) focusing on the task of big image data classification. Different from previous methods perusing algorithm optimization, our design focuses on employing some elegant designs to enhance the classification accuracy while retaining the simplicity of the feature learning algorithm and the robustness in the implementation platform. Since that desirable accuracy of big image data classification imposes a high requirement for the amount and richness of features, we proposed a platform with excellent fault tolerance to avoid the breakdown of the single machine. Experimental results demonstrated the encouraging performance of our design and we expect to pursue tackling further challenges in the big image data in the future work.

# Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61370149, in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(ZYGX2013J083), and in part by the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry.

# References


abstract: How can we derive the evolution equations of dissipative systems? What is the relation between the different approaches? How much do we understand the fundamental aspects of a second law based framework? Is there a hierarchy of dissipative and ideal theories at all? How far can we reach with the new methods of nonequilibrium thermodynamics?
address: $^1$Department of Theoretical Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, H-1525 Budapest, Konkoly Thege Miklós u. 29-33., Hungary;
  $^{2}$Department of Energy Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3., Hungary
  $^{3}$ Montavid Thermodynamic Research Group, Budapest, Hungary
author: P. Ván$^{1,2,3}$
title: Nonequilibrium thermodynamics: emergent and fundamental

# Non-equilibrium or nonequilibrium

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a theory where the powerful methods of equilibrium are missing. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is considered as an emergent theory; its fundamental principles, like the second law, are due to microscopic or mesoscopic properties of matter. On the other hand, nonequilibrium thermodynamics is a general framework; universal principles impose strict limits on macroscopic material properties. This way the possible micro- or mesodynamics is restricted, too. Recent developments show that the latter approach (nonequilibrium thermodynamics without the hyphen) may unify dissipative and nondissi-pative evolution. The applied principles are universal because the related methods do not require any details of the structure of the material and also in the sense that most of them are considered valid also at the more microscopic levels. Universal principles lead to universal consequences. This topical volume introduces and overviews the efforts toward a uniform framework.

# What are the fundamental principles of dissipative evolution?

Fundamental principles require mathematical formulations. The various approaches differ in this respect, and also the weights of the various aspects are different. The papers of the volume are instructive from this point of view. One can identify the following leading ideas:

-   *Stability of thermodynamic equilibrium.* Dissipative processes tend to equilibrium; entropy is a kind of Lyapunov functional. This aspect is crucial in , important but less apparent in .

-   *Symmetric hyperbolic evolution.* A solution of evolution equations must exist when describing existing phenomena. A system of symmetric hyperbolic partial differential equations warrants that, and much more, therefore, one may consider this requirement unavoidable. This property is somehow connected to ideal systems, without dissipation, but a thermodynamic framework provides the natural variables and the necessary potential formulation. Symmetric hyperbolicity is a basic requirement in but plays an important role in , too.

-   *Spacetime embedding.* Fast and gravitating phenomena can be dissipative. Therefore, any general framework of nonequilibrium thermodynamics must have relativistic and, more importantly, covariant formulations. In nonrelativistic spacetime, this requirement, the independence of reference frames, is strongly related to material frame indifference. Dissipation does not depend on the observer. This requirement is evident in the relativistic treatment of , and present also in .

Also, the preferred application areas influence modeling methods. For example, for *discrete systems*, that is homogeneous or point-like material models, the spacetime aspects are less important. These systems are treated in and also partially in . *Quantum systems* are discrete, too .

Another fundamental aspect is universality, the approach toward the emergent nature of thermodynamic principles. In nonequilibrium thermodynamics, the deviation from equilibrium can be formulated without considering the detailed structure of the material. Additional fields, frequently called internal variables, is a convenient tool . This approach proved to be very powerful in continuum theories, in particular when combined with weak nonlocality. Extended Thermodynamics introduces *extra fields*, too, and identifies them with dissipative fluxes .

# The necessary benchmarks

Nonequilibrium thermodynamics is a metatheory, a theory of theories. More appropriately, it is a theoretical framework for describing dissipative evolution with the help of general principles. Thermodynamic ideas and concepts are applicable in various areas; they are present in very different disciplines, like quantum mechanics, continuum mechanics, electrodynamics, economics, etc. However, it is not easy to distinguish and compare the performance of the different branches. There are at least three possible benchmarks that can be applied: experimental predictivity, mathematical clarity, and backward compatibility. They help classify the different frameworks of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, like any theories of physics in general.

The first, the comparison of experimental predictivity of the different branches of nonequilibrium thermodynamics does not appear in this topical issue. Also, because in this case, nonequilibrium thermodynamics is competing with other, non-thermodynamical approaches. The second, mathematical clarity is an evident heavy requirement for the approaches emphasizing symmetric hyperbolicity. It is also a general device, a magnifying glass, to identify and clean any unnecessary assumptions. However, we know well that it is hard to preserve experimental predictivity with a clean mathematical structure. Lazy intuitive concepts are useful for flexible experimental research. Ockham's razor is a dangerous device (Figure ).

The third benchmark, backward compatibility, should precede the mathematical structure. The compatibility with a *statistical treatment*, based on a given microscopic or mesoscopic material composition, is a clear benchmark of any general phenomenology and appears here in the papers . In particular, the compatibility with the kinetic theory is important in . However, nonequilibrium thermodynamics is not necessarily emergent, from the fundamental point of view the compatibility with any nondissipative, ideal theory is expected. Ideal evolution must be a part of a general framework in the nondissipative limit. This kind of compatibility of dissipative and nondissipative frameworks is where the various branches of nonequilibrium thermodynamics most differ and where probably the best is to test the predictive power. This requirement involves the compatibility with the most fundamental and simplest equations and theories, like mechanics of point masses, gravity, and electrodynamics. Normally they are deduced from Hamiltonian variational principles. The usual approach attempts to extend the validity of *variational principles* to dissipative evolution . In , we see a promising new method. On the other hand, GENERIC (General Equation for the Nonequilibrium Reversible-Irreversible Coupling) treats the *dissipative-nondissipative parts* on equal footing . A novel approach is given in , where the dissipative part is the primary, and functional derivatives, Hamiltonian dynamics is obtained from pure thermodynamic principles.

In Table . *Stab., SymH., SpaceTime* denotes the stability, symmetric hyperbolicity, and spacetime arguments in the particular paper. *Disc., Q, and VarPr* refer to the treatment of discrete systems, quantum thermodynamics, and the role of variational principles, respectively. *EF* means internal variables or Extended Thermodynamics, that is extra fields, while *Stat., IdDiss* abbreviates close relation to statistical mechanics or kinetic theory, and the aspects of dissipative-nondissipative unification.

| Paper           | Stab. | SymH. | SpaceTime | Discr. |  Q  | VarPr | EF  | Stat. | IdDiss |
|:----------------|:-----:|:-----:|:---------:|:------:|:---:|:-----:|:---:|:-----:|:------:|
| Beretta         |   O   |  \-   |    \-     |   O    |  O  |  \-   | \-  |  \+   |   \-   |
| Jizba-Hanel     |  \-   |  \-   |    \-     |   O    | \-  |  \-   | \-  |  \+   |   \-   |
| Muschik         |  \-   |  \-   |    \-     |   O    |  O  |  \-   | \-  |  \-   |   \+   |
| Abe             |  \-   |  \-   |    \-     |   \-   | \-  |   O   | \-  |  \+   |   \-   |
| Ván-Kovács      |  \+   |  \-   |    \+     |   \+   | \-  |   O   |  O  |  \-   |   O    |
| Forest          |  \-   |  \-   |     ?     |   \-   | \-  |   O   |  O  |  \-   |   \-   |
| Jou             |  \-   |  \+   |    \-     |   \-   | \-  |  \-   |  O  |  \+   |   \-   |
| Arima et al.    |  \-   |   O   |    \-     |   \-   | \-  |  \-   |  O  |  \+   |   \-   |
| Öttinger et al. |  \-   |  \+   |    \-     |   \-   | \-  |  \-   |  O  |  \+   |   O    |
| Grmela et al.   |   O   |  \-   |    \-     |   \+   | \-  |  \-   | \+  |  \+   |   O    |
| Romensky et al. |  \+   |   O   |     O     |   \-   | \-  |   O   | \-  |  \-   |   O    |
| Wen-An Yong     |   O   |   O   |     ?     |   \-   | \-  |  \-   | \-  |  \-   |   \+   |

Fundamental aspects of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, paper by paper in this topical issue (O – represented, + – minor representation, - – does not appear)

# The papers

The papers of this topical issue are approaching the above mentioned particular benchmarks, aiming a unified understanding in their own, sometimes orthogonal looking strategies. A goal of this collection is to incite, formulate and elaborate questions that can be answered with nonequilibrium thermodynamics. I have formulated some of the possible ones below.

1.  *G. P. Beretta: The fourth law of thermodynamics: steepest entropy ascent.* One of the "great laws" of nature is the second law of thermodynamics. Greatness comes from generality, according to Feynman. It is a common understanding that both equilibrium and nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and in particular the second law, is related to the stability of equilibrium. The question is exactly how? The method of steepest entropy ascent requires the existence of a metric in the state space in order to get an effective theoretical tool with a well-defined equilibrium. A metric is a strong requirement with strong consequences, applicable in stochastic and, in quantum systems. Shall we call it the fourth law of thermodynamics?

2.  *P. Jizba and R. Hanel: Time-Energy Uncertainty Principle for Irreversible Heat Engines.* Discrete thermodynamic bodies are usually treated independently of time. When time becomes the part of the game, e.g., we are in finite-time thermodynamics , then foundations are shaking, and new problems and possibilities appear. The fourth law is connected to dissipative quantum dynamics by uncertainty principles . However, most of the conceptual questions can be avoided, and substantial consequences can be deduced investigating Carnot like processes of the ideal gas. The analogy of thermodynamics and quantum is natural, but are these results universal? Could it be valid beyond ideal gases and with the many various approximations?

3.  *W. Muschik: Phenomenological Quantum Thermodynamics of Closed Bipartite Schottky Systems.* A natural approach to consider thermodynamics in a quantum framework is shown, where the weights of the density operator depend on time in the von Neumann equation. It is investigated in a discrete body-environment compound system where the second law is taken into consideration. Then the treatment leads to a natural thermodynamic foundation of Lindblad dynamics, among others. The underlying concepts are different because in nonequilibrium thermodynamics of discrete systems the concept of contact temperature helps to avoid the confusion of different concepts of equilibrium.

4.  *S. Abe: Weak invariants in dissipative systems: Action principle and Noether charge for kinetic theory.* Auxiliary fields are introduced in order to obtain a variational principle for the Fokker-Planck equation, where a Hamiltonian variational treatment does not work. Then it is shown that the auxiliary field is a weak invariant of the dynamics; therefore, its expectation value is conserved, while the field itself is not conserved. Then it is also shown that weak invariants are Noether charges of the particular transformations that leave the related action invariant. The proof requires Dirac's formalism of degenerate constraints.

5.  *P. Ván and R. Kovács: Variational Principles and Thermodynamics.* Here it is shown that Hamiltonian structure and Euler-Lagrange form evolution equations do not require variational principles. Both can be easily obtained from the second law applying the classical method of separation of divergences. This way, dissipative and nondissipative evolution equations are derived together with a uniform approach. Three particular examples are treated: point masses, Cahn–Hilliard dynamics and gravity with inertia. Gravity turns out to be weakly nonlocal continuum theory. How can a weakly nonlocal theory lead to long-range interaction?

6.  *S. Forest: Continuum thermomechanics of nonlinear micromorphic, strain and stress gradient media.* One of the most potent approaches of continuum thermodynamics, the method of virtual power with internal variables, is applied to obtain a unified view of micromorphic, stress, and strain gradient theories in a finite deformation elastoviscoplastic framework including strain gradient plasticity. This is the first formulation of stress gradient plasticity in this framework. Relation to heat conduction is considered, too.

    The method of virtual power is a version of the exploitation of the second law with weakly nonlocal internal variables and closely related to the method of separation of divergences . Are these methods truly compatible?

7.  *D. Jou: Relations between Rational Extended Thermodynamics and Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics.* Extended Thermodynamics (ET) introduces the dissipative fluxes as parts of the thermodynamic state space. This is a conceptual step regarding the relation of microscopic and mesoscopic theories. However, there are two different version of ET, the Irreversible and the Rational one. In this paper, a fair comparison and the explanation of the differences and their reasons are given. Is there a unified approach to keep the rigor of rational and the flexibility of irreversible extended thermodynamics?

8.  *T. Arima, T. Ruggeri, and M. Sugiyama: Rational Extended Thermodynamics of Dense Polyatomic Gases Incorporating Molecular Rotation and Vibration.* Rational Extended Thermodynamics is originally a theory of rarefied gases. Motivated by the kinetic theory of polyatomic gases, a doubled hierarchy of evolution equations was introduced. Then the validity of the approach is extended for dense fluids and preserving the spacetime structure and the symmetric hyperbolicity of the equations. All what we need is a duality principle. Here a 7 field system is analysed convincingly and a particular nonequilibrium Gibbs relation is the key.

9.  *H. C. Öttinger, H. Struchtrup, and M. Torrilhon: Formulation of moment equations for rarefied gases within two frameworks of nonequilibrium thermodynamics: RET and GENERIC.* The moment hierarchy of kinetic theory, the heart of Extended Thermodynamics (ET), has the structure of GENERIC (General Equation for the Nonequilibrium Reversible-Irreversible Coupling). However, in the latter framework, the closure of the hierarchy is problematic. Now a new idea is suggested, a particular realization of thermodynamic related Casimir symmetry. Then the compatibility of the two approaches may become complete.

10. *M. Grmela, V. Klika, and M. Pavelka: Gradient and GENERIC time evolution towards reduced dynamics.* In this work, thermodynamics is a general reduction tool between the various nondissipative dynamics. The information that is the number of degrees of freedom is decreasing between the nondissipative levels of physics . This particular form of stability is, according to the authors, pure geometry. Several particular cases are treated. Standard pattern recognition is the part of the game, but the primary is a dynamic one. One may wonder whether there is a path toward renormalization with nonequilibrium thermodynamics?

11. *E. Romenski, I. Peshkov, M. Dumbser, and F. Fambri: A new continuum model for general relativistic viscous heat-conducting media.* Symmetric Hyperbolic Thermodynamic Compatible (SHTC) equations are based on Lagrangians. The dissipative, relaxational part is added to the ideal, reversible core. In a relativistic treatment, the challenge is to deal with the fundamental instability of the thermal interaction. The authors propose a very general framework with stability analysis and numerical examples. Is this approach compatible with Rational Extended Thermodynamics?

12. *Wen-An Yong, Intrinsic Properties of Conservation-dissipation Formalism of Irreversible Thermodynamics.* The conservation-dissipation formalism (CDF) uses the Lax-Friedrich condition as a frame to get evolution equations with symmetric hyperbolic structure. This is an attractive structure, where the stability of equilibrium, the formulation of the second law, is natural and does not require a time-reversible Hamiltonian. The compatibility with other theories is considered.

    What is the exact relation between RET, CDF, SHTC equations, and GENERIC? Could we require all the conditions?

# Conclusions

A topical issue is not a consistent presentation of a field. There are at least seven named strategies in this issue: method of steepest entropy ascent (SEA), Thermodynamics with Internal Variables (TIV), Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics (EIT), Rational Extended Thermodynamics (RET), General Equation for the Nonequilibrium Reversible-Irreversible Coupling (GENERIC), Symmetric Hyperbolic and Thermodynamically Compatible (SHTC) equations, Conservation-Dissipation Formalism (CDF) of Irreversible Thermodynamics are all branches of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. Only branches are visible yet. The purpose of this topical issue is to help to understand the connections between the branches. It is not yet clear which branch is the strongest, which is the closest to the trunk, and if a trunk exists at all. The distorting perspective of our sitting position and the fresh green leaves of applications do not help.

What are the most important among the fundamentals aspect? What is their best formulation? Is there a clarified methodology, a great blend that may lead to a uniform view of dissipative evolution? Is there a TREE behind the branches and leaves? These are the questions that push forward the various approaches of nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

# Acknowledgement

The work was supported by the grants National Research, Development and Innovation Office - NKFIH 124366(124508), 123815, KH130378, TUDFO/51757/2019-ITM (Thematic Excellence Program) and FIEK-16-1-2016-0007. The research reported in this paper was supported by the Higher Education Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities in the frame of Nanotechnology research area of Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME FIKP-NANO).

The author thank Tamás Fülöp for valuable discussions.