Equilibria of Perceptrons for Simple Contingency Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contingency between cues and outcomes is fundamentally important to theories of causal reasoning and to theories of associative learning. Researchers have computed the equilibria of Rescorla-Wagner models for a variety of contingency problems, and have used these equilibria to identify situations in which the Rescorla-Wagner model is consistent, or inconsistent, with normative models of contingency. Mathematical analyses that directly compare artificial neural networks to contingency theory have not been performed, because of the assumed equivalence between the Rescorla-Wagner learning rule and the delta rule training of artificial neural networks. However, recent results indicate that this equivalence is not as straightforward as typically assumed, suggesting a strong need for mathematical accounts of how networks deal with contingency problems. One such analysis is presented here, where it is proven that the structure of the equilibrium for a simple network trained on a basic contingency problem is quite different from the structure of the equilibrium for a Rescorla-Wagner model faced with the same problem. However, these structural differences lead to functionally equivalent behavior. The implications of this result for the relationships between associative learning, contingency theory, and connectionism are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".