From neural network to psychophysics of time: Exploring emergent properties of RNNs using novel Hamiltonian formalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stability analysis of dynamical neural network systems generally follows the route of finding a suitable Liapunov function after the fashion Hopfield’s famous paper on content addressable memory network or by finding conditions that make divergent solutions impossible. For the current work we focused on biological recurrent neural networks (bRNNs) that require transient external inputs (Cohen-Grossberg networks). In the current work we have proposed a general method to construct Liapunov functions for recurrent neural network with the help of a physically meaningful Hamiltonian function. This construct allows us to explore the emergent properties of the recurrent network (e.g., parameter configuration needed for winner-take-all competition in a leaky accumulator design) beyond that available in standard stability analysis, while also comparing well with standard stability analysis (ordinary differential equation approach) as a special case of the general stability constraint derived from the Hamiltonian formulation. We also show that the Cohen-Grossberg Liapunov function can be derived naturally from the Hamiltonian formalism. A strength of the construct comes from its usability as a predictor for behavior in psychophysical experiments involving numerosity and temporal duration judgements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".