MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766752287 · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2017.2756859

Symmetric Predictive Estimator for Biologically Plausible Neural Learning

2017· article· en· W2766752287 on OpenAlexafffund
David Xu, Andrew Clappison, Cameron Seth, Jeff Orchard

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCopyingFeed forwardComputer scienceArtificial neural networkEstimatorArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPerceptionFeedforward neural networkMathematicsControl engineeringPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a real brain, the act of perception is a bidirectional process, depending on both feedforward sensory pathways and feedback pathways that carry expectations. We are interested in how such a neural network might emerge from a biologically plausible learning rule. Other neural network learning methods either only apply to feedforward networks, or employ assumptions (such as weight copying) that render them unlikely in a real brain. Predictive estimators (PEs) offer a better solution to this bidirectional learning scenario. However, PEs also depend on weight copying. In this paper, we propose the symmetric PE (SPE), an architecture that can learn both feedforward and feedback connection weights individually using only locally available information. We demonstrate that the SPE can learn complicated mappings without the use of weight copying. The SPE networks also show promise in deeper architectures.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning SystemsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207