Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal derivatives are computed by a wide variety of neural circuits, but the problem of performing this computation accurately has received little theoretical study. Here we systematically compare the performance of diverse networks that calculate derivatives using cell-intrinsic adaptation and synaptic depression dynamics, feedforward network dynamics, and recurrent network dynamics. Examples of each type of network are compared by quantifying the errors they introduce into the calculation and their rejection of high-frequency input noise. This comparison is based on both analytical methods and numerical simulations with spiking leaky-integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons. Both adapting and feedforward-network circuits provide good performance for signals with frequency bands that are well matched to the time constants of postsynaptic current decay and adaptation, respectively. The synaptic depression circuit performs similarly to the adaptation circuit, although strictly speaking, precisely linear differentiation based on synaptic depression is not possible, because depression scales synaptic weights multiplicatively. Feedback circuits introduce greater errors than functionally equivalent feedforward circuits, but they have the useful property that their dynamics are determined by feedback strength. For this reason, these circuits are better suited for calculating the derivatives of signals that evolve on timescales outside the range of membrane dynamics and, possibly, for providing the wide range of timescales needed for precise fractional-order differentiation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".