Spike-Based Winner-Take-All Computation: Fundamental Limits and Order-Optimal Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winner-take-all (WTA) refers to the neural operation that selects a (typically small) group of neurons from a large neuron pool. It is conjectured to underlie many of the brain's fundamental computational abilities. However, not much is known about the robustness of a spike-based WTA network to the inherent randomness of the input spike trains. In this work, we consider a spike-based [Formula: see text]–WTA model wherein [Formula: see text] randomly generated input spike trains compete with each other based on their underlying firing rates and [Formula: see text] winners are supposed to be selected. We slot the time evenly with each time slot of length 1 ms and model the [Formula: see text] input spike trains as [Formula: see text] independent Bernoulli processes. We analytically characterize the minimum waiting time needed so that a target minimax decision accuracy (success probability) can be reached. We first derive an information-theoretic lower bound on the waiting time. We show that to guarantee a (minimax) decision error [Formula: see text] (where [Formula: see text]), the waiting time of any WTA circuit is at least [Formula: see text]where [Formula: see text] is a finite set of rates and [Formula: see text] is a difficulty parameter of a WTA task with respect to set [Formula: see text] for independent input spike trains. Additionally, [Formula: see text] is independent of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]. We then design a simple WTA circuit whose waiting time is [Formula: see text]provided that the local memory of each output neuron is sufficiently long. It turns out that for any fixed [Formula: see text], this decision time is order-optimal (i.e., it matches the above lower bound up to a multiplicative constant factor) in terms of its scaling in [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text].
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".