Distributed computing is all the rage these days. The idea is to break down computational tasks into convenient chunks and distribute them across a network to a number of computers. The benefits are clear, such as easy, on-demand access to huge computing resources. 

The conventional way to think about these systems is as independent Turing machines connected by a network that allows them to exchange large messages. This so-called 'message passing model' certainly applies to much of the distributed computing that takes place on the internet; projects such as the SETI@home and the Einstein @home programs.

But there is a growing awareness that many networks are much more limited, both in the size of the messages they can transmit and receive and also in the processing capacity at each node. 

A biological cell, for example, can transmit and receive only limited amounts of information and can perform only rudimentary processing tasks.  It's easy to imagine that a network of cells can perform only very simple distributed computing tasks. On the other hand, perhaps they can make up for their individual deficiencies by working as a group and so are just as capable as other networks.   

So an important question is how these limitations influence the classes of distributed computing tasks that groups of cells can perform. 

Today we have an answer thanks to the work of Yuval Emek, Jasmin Smula and Roger Wattenhofer at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. "We believe that there is a need for a network model, where nodes are by design below the computation and communication capabilities of Turing machines," they say. 

These guys have modelled the computing behaviour of a network of these sub-Turing machines, which they call finite state machines. They show that far from being critically handicapped, a network of finite state machines is capable of solving many of the standard problems in conventional distributed computing, such as the 3-colouring of undirected trees . 

What's more, these networks can do the job just as efficiently--in a time that is poly-logarithmic with the number of cells.

That could turn out to have far reaching consequences. It may be a stretch to imagine a network of cells joining the SETI@home project. But it provides a framework in which to study how networks of cells might solve other common problems in biological systems such as forward planning, trajectory calculations and so on.

The new model can also be applied in more prosaic ways, such as predicting the performance of networks of sensors which are strongly constricted by power limitations.

Emek and co ask the question: "do tiny bio/nano nodes “compute” and/or “communicate” essentially [in] the same [way] as a computer?"

The answer, it would seem, is yes, which means it is an exciting time to be a distributed computing specialist working in biology. 

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1202.1186: Stone Age Distributed Computing   

Twitter has revolutionised the way millions of people receive news and the type of news they get. So it's no surprise that there is huge interest in predicting what kind of stories are likely to spread furthest and fastest.

One way to make this kind of prediction is to study how a story spreads soon after it is released into the wild. Various groups have shown that this early popularity can be a good predictor of a story's later spread. 

A couple of years ago, Bernardo Huberman and pals at HP's Social Computing Lab in Palo Alto used this approach to predict the eventual box office revenues based on the rate of tweets about a film soon after it was released.   

The problem with this method is that the structure of the network can have a profound effect on the way tweets spread and this has little to do with the content and its appeal. 

So Huberman is now taking another approach. This time he wants to know whether there is something about the news stories themselves that determine their popularity. In other words, he's looking for factors that determine how popular a news story will be before it is even published.    

To find out, Huberman and his colleagues examined the content of news stories during  a single week in August last year as measured by the news feed aggregator Feedzilla. They scored each article based on four criteria: the news source that generates and posts the article; the category of news; the subjectivity of the language; and the people and things named in the article.

They then measured the way these news stories spread across the Twitter network to see which became popular and how quickly. They used this to work out how an article's score in each criterion is linked to its eventual popularity    

Finally, having worked out what factors make an article successful, they used this to predict how popular other articles would be. 

Here's their conclusion: "Our experiments show that it is possible to estimate ranges of popularity with an overall accuracy of 84% considering only content features."

So before anybody lays eyes on these articles, it's possible to work out in advance how popular they are likely to become. 

That's pretty impressive and may herald important changes in the way articles are written and edited. It's not hard to imagine an automated article checker—rather like the grammar checkers in word processing programs--that reads articles and predicts how popular they are likely to be when published.  

In a sense, that's what journalists do now when they choose topics to write about. But this process is entirely intuitive, based as much on gut feel as on a good understanding of the dynamics of the audience. Huberman's algorithm could automate this process. 

That would have profound effects on the generation of news stories. On the one hand, it could lead to the homogenisation of stories as news organisations focus on optimising their stories for this algorithm. 

Exactly that process happened in Hollywood a few years ago when story telling became homogenised in the manner outlined by Robin Mckee in his highly successful Story seminars. 

On the other hand, automation could lead to a new generation of more tightly written and better focused stories that  build on the new algorithm and better it. 

Interesting times. One way or another, the way we produce written content is changing. And rapidly.  

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1202.0332: The Pulse of News in Social Media: Forecasting Popularity

One of the buzzwords in artificial intelligence research these days is 'embodiment', the idea that intelligence requires a body.

But in the last few years, a growing body researchers have begun to explore the possibility that this definition is too limited. Led by Rolf Pfeifer at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, these guys say that the notion of intelligence makes no sense outside of the environment in which it operates.

For them, the notion of embodiment must, of course, capture how the brain is embedded in a body but also how this body is embedded in the broader environment. 

Today, Pfeifer and Matej Hoffmann, also at the University of Zurich, set out this thinking in a kind of manifesto for a new approach to AI. And their conclusion has far reaching consequences. They say it's not just artificial intelligence that we need to redefine, but the nature of computing itself.

The paper takes the form of a number of case studies examining the nature of embodiment in various physical systems. For example, Pfeifer and Hoffmann look at the distribution of light-sensing cells within fly eyes.  

Biologists have known for 20 years that these are not distributed evenly in the eye but are more densely packed towards the front of the eye than to the sides. What's interesting is that this distribution compensates for the phenomenon of motion parallax.

When a fly is in constant forward motion, objects to the side move across its field of vision faster than those to the front.  "This implies that under the condition of straight flight, the same motion detection circuitry can be employed for motion detection for the entire eye," point out Pfeifer and Hoffmann.

That's a significant advantage for the fly. With any other distribution of light sensitive cells, it would require much more complex motion detecting circuitry. 

Instead, the particular distribution of cells simplifies the problem. In a sense, the morphology of the eye itself performs a computation. A few years a go, a team of AI researchers built a robot called Eyebot that exploited exactly this effect.

What's important, however, is that the computation is the result of three factors: simple motion detection circuitry in the brain, the morphology or distribution of cells in the body and the nature of flight in a 3-dimensional universe.   

Without any of these, the computation wouldn't work and, indeed, wouldn't make sense.

We've looked at examples of morphological computation on this blog in the past (here and here for example). And Pfeifer has been shouting from the roof tops for several years, with some success, about the role that shape and form play in biological computation. 

But today he and Hoffman go even further. They say that various low level cognitive functions such as locomotion are clearly simple forms of computation involving the brain-body-environment triumvirate. 

That's why our definition of computation needs to be extended to include the influence of environment, they say. 

For many simple actions, such as walking, these computations proceed more or less independently. These are 'natural' actions in the sense that they exploit the natural dynamics of the system.

But they also say it provides a platform on which more complex cognitive tasks can take place relatively easily. They think that systems emerge in the brain that can predict the outcome of these natural computations. That's obviously useful for forward planning.

Pfeifer and Hoffmann's idea is that more complex cognitive abilities emerge when these forward-planning mechanisms become decoupled from the system they are predicting. 

That's an interesting prediction that should lend itself to testing in the next few years. 

But first, researchers will have to broaden the way they think not only about AI but also about the nature of computing itself. 

Clearly an interesting and rapidly evolving field.  

Ref:  arxiv.org/abs/1202.0440 :The Implications of Embodiment for Behavior and Cognition: Animal and Robotic Case Studies