MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401687973 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.16.608322

FORCE trained spiking networks do not benefit from faster learning while parameter matched rate networks do

2024· preprint· en· W4401687973 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Training spiking recurrent neural networks (SRNNs) presents significant challenges compared to standard recurrent neural networks (RNNs) that model neural firing rates more directly. Here, we investigate the origins of these difficulties by training networks of spiking neurons and their parameter-matched instantaneous rate-based RNNs on supervised learning tasks. We applied FORCE training to leaky integrate-and-fire spiking networks and their matched rate-based counterparts across various dynamical tasks, keeping the FORCE hyperparameters identical. We found that at slow learning rates, spiking and rate networks behaved similarly: FORCE training identified highly correlated weight matrix solutions, and both network types exhibited overlapping hyperparameter regions for successful convergence. Remarkably, these weight solutions were largely interchangeable—weights trained in the spiking network could be transferred to the rate network and vice versa while preserving correct dynamical decoding. However, at fast learning rates, the correlation between learned solutions dropped sharply, and the solutions were no longer fully interchangeable. Despite this, rate networks still functioned well when their weight matrices were replaced with those learned from spiking networks. Additionally, the two network types exhibited distinct behaviours across different sizes: faster learning improved performance in rate networks but had little effect in spiking networks, aside from increasing instability. Through analytic derivation, we further show that slower learning rates in FORCE effectively act as a low-pass filter on the principal components of the neural bases, selectively stabilizing the dominant correlated components across spiking and rate networks. Our results indicate that some of the difficulties in training spiking networks stem from the inherent spike-time variability in spiking systems—variability that is not present in rate networks. These challenges can be mitigated in FORCE training by selecting appropriately slow learning rates. Moreover, our findings suggest that the decoding solutions learned by FORCE for spiking networks approximate a cross-trial firing rate-based decoding. Author summary Training spiking neural networks is much harder compared to training standard recurrent neural networks that are more closely tied to neural firing rates. To understand why, we trained parameter matched spiking and rate-based networks on the same supervised learning tasks with the FORCE technique. We found that the learned spike weights were highly correlated and interchangeable across spiking and firing rate networks for slow learning rates. However, when both networks learn fast, the spiking networks show no tangible improvements in their performance in comparison to the rate networks, with instabilities caused by faster learning in the spiking network. These networks also discover uncorrelated solutions to their weights when the learning is fast, that are only interchangeable in one direction, from spike to rate. This suggests that the decoding solutions learned by FORCE for spiking networks approximate a cross-trial firing rate-based decoding. We then analytically determine that, with slower learning rates, FORCE acts as a low-pass filter on the principal components of the neural bases, where the leading components are highly correlated across spiking and rate networks.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,107
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,207
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle