Deep Learning with Dynamic Spiking Neurons and Fixed Feedback Weights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work in computer science has shown the power of deep learning driven by the backpropagation algorithm in networks of artificial neurons. But real neurons in the brain are different from most of these artificial ones in at least three crucial ways: they emit spikes rather than graded outputs, their inputs and outputs are related dynamically rather than by piecewise-smooth functions, and they have no known way to coordinate arrays of synapses in separate forward and feedback pathways so that they change simultaneously and identically, as they do in backpropagation. Given these differences, it is unlikely that current deep learning algorithms can operate in the brain, but we that show these problems can be solved by two simple devices: learning rules can approximate dynamic input-output relations with piecewise-smooth functions, and a variation on the feedback alignment algorithm can train deep networks without having to coordinate forward and feedback synapses. Our results also show that deep spiking networks learn much better if each neuron computes an intracellular teaching signal that reflects that cell's nonlinearity. With this mechanism, networks of spiking neurons show useful learning in synapses at least nine layers upstream from the output cells and perform well compared to other spiking networks in the literature on the MNIST digit recognition task.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it