Skip to content
#edge computing Open access

In-Silico Tests of the Four-Model Architecture: Self-Referential Closure, Self-Modelling and Criticality in Model Systems

Oct 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Embodied and Extended Cognition

Abstract

The Four-Model Theory of Consciousness (FMT; Gruber, 2015, 2026e) specifies consciousness as ongoing self-simulation across two kinds of models — implicit (learned, substrate-level) and explicit (generated, phenomenal) — organized by scope (world vs. self) and mode (implicit vs. explicit), and it requires a substrate capable of open-ended (Wolfram Class 4) computation. Because the theory is an architectural specification, its functional commitments can be tested in silico. This paper reports the in-silico results the master paper points to, sorted by evidential kind. Two distinctions are needed to read them, both forced by model-system results: a built control closure (Closure-1) versus an emergent predictive closure (Closure-2); and a capability-first reading of criticality on which avalanche (σ ≈ 1) and edge-of-chaos (λ ≈ 0) statistics are candidate instruments for one underlying capability rather than competing definitions, and neither certifies it alone. The banked results are mechanism demonstrations at toy, reservoir, and gridworld scale: a self-model-gated planner scales with problem depth where a bracket of reactive policies fails (0.00–0.33); prospective self-modelling confers a survival advantage (0.29–0.33 vs. 0.17–0.25); a self/other model carries a transfer capability that removing its generating projection abolishes (0.98 vs. 0.78, Cohen's d = 2.44), reported as feasibility and pre-conceded as not unique to FMT. In a single, not yet replicated run on one rate reservoir, an edge-peak in computational capability appears only under sufficient task demand. One result is partial — a maintained-decodable representation is not, at spiking scale, computable-upon — and one is null (re-entry on a homogeneous reservoir adds nothing, FMT-consistent and diagnostic). Three further results price the architecture rather than demonstrate a capability: opening the global loop of a model connectome costs 14.0% of its synapses where making it acyclic costs 74.0%, so the cheap edit relocates closure and does not abolish it; closure's advantage is conditional on the driven subsystem carrying change the rest of the system cannot derive for itself, and falls but does not vanish when it can; and an argmin over 72 enumerated architectures selects a bottleneck exactly where content is low-dimensional, spans otherwise-separate subsystems, must be delivered near the achievable ceiling, and reads back over a short path — four conditions a self-model satisfies, with the word "self" nowhere in the derivation. These are structural and wiring-cost results: optimality, never necessity. The scaled, closure-driven test of the theory's central dependency is not attempted here. Keywords: consciousness; self-referential closure; criticality; edge of chaos; Wolfram Class 4; reservoir computing; world models; causal transfer; Four-Model Theory Changelog v3 **v3 (2026-10-02)** Supersedes v2 (2026-08-27). Companion to the Four-Model Theory v16. Retitled to *In-Silico Tests of the Four-Model Architecture: Self-Referential Closure, Self-Modelling and Criticality in Model Systems*. *Criticality.* The requirement is stated as Class 4 computational capability, with avalanche and edge-of-chaos statistics as instruments for it; every branching ratio is reported beside a rate-matched surrogate or marked as tracking firing rate. The demand-gated edge-peak (§4.4) is reported as a single run, not counted among the banked results; five further scans that found no edge-peak are described individually. *Structural priors.* §2 adds a paragraph on nature and nurture: which structural priors a model system may be given, the consolidation null that bounds them, and the scope of what the minimal rig shows. *Presentation.* Section headings and passages describe each experiment in plain terms; project-internal identifiers, run names and code paths are removed. Formulas are set as mathematics. No numerical result changed. The paper is 15 pages.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 6, 2026

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity.  The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.