Approximating the Architecture of Visual Cortex in a Convolutional Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have certain structural, mechanistic, representational, and functional parallels with primate visual cortex and also many differences. However, perhaps some of the differences can be reconciled. This study develops a cortex-like CNN architecture, via (1) a loss function that quantifies the consistency of a CNN architecture with neural data from tract tracing, cell reconstruction, and electrophysiology studies; (2) a hyperparameter-optimization approach for reducing this loss, and (3) heuristics for organizing units into convolutional-layer grids. The optimized hyperparameters are consistent with neural data. The cortex-like architecture differs from typical CNN architectures. In particular, it has longer skip connections, larger kernels and strides, and qualitatively different connection sparsity. Importantly, layers of the cortex-like network have one-to-one correspondences with cortical neuron populations. This should allow unambiguous comparison of model and brain representations in the future and, consequently, more precise measurement of progress toward more biologically realistic deep networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".