MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170184326 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2006.247076

Search Space Analysis of Recurrent Spiking and Continuous-time Neural Networks

2006· article· en· W2170184326 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Ventresca, Beatrice M. Ombuki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Recurrent neural networkStochastic neural networkArtificial neural networkInverted pendulumArtificial intelligenceConstruct (python library)Spiking neural networkOutcome (game theory)Machine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of designing recurrent continuous-time and spiking neural networks is NP-Hard. A common practice is to utilize stochastic searches, such as evolutionary algorithms, to automatically construct acceptable networks. The outcome of the stochastic search is related to its ability to navigate the search space of neural networks and discover those of high quality. In this paper we investigate the search space associated with designing the above recurrent neural networks in order to differentiate which network should be easier to automatically design via a stochastic search. Our investigation utilizes two popular dynamic systems problems; (1) the Henon map and (2) the inverted pendulum as a benchmark.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network ProceedingsSame topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207