MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049639017 · doi:10.1162/neco_a_01311

A Predictive-Coding Network That Is Both Discriminative and Generative

2020· article· en· W3049639017 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Computation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMNIST databaseDiscriminative modelArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePredictive codingGenerative grammarReciprocalBackpropagationHierarchyCoding (social sciences)Nonlinear systemMachine learningGenerative modelMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive coding (PC) networks are a biologically interesting class of neural networks. Their layered hierarchy mimics the reciprocal connectivity pattern observed in the mammalian cortex, and they can be trained using local learning rules that approximate backpropagation (Bogacz, 2017). However, despite having feedback connections that enable information to flow down the network hierarchy, discriminative PC networks are not typically generative. Clamping the output class and running the network to equilibrium yields an input sample that usually does not resemble the training input. This letter studies this phenomenon and proposes a simple solution that promotes the generation of input samples that resemble the training inputs. Simple decay, a technique already in wide use in neural networks, pushes the PC network toward a unique minimum two-norm solution, and that unique solution provably (for linear networks) matches the training inputs. The method also vastly improves the samples generated for nonlinear networks, as we demonstrate on MNIST.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.206 · 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