Biological batch normalisation: How intrinsic plasticity improves learning in deep neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we present a local intrinsic rule that we developed, dubbed IP, inspired by the Infomax rule. Like Infomax, this rule works by controlling the gain and bias of a neuron to regulate its rate of fire. We discuss the biological plausibility of the IP rule and compare it to batch normalisation. We demonstrate that the IP rule improves learning in deep networks, and provides networks with considerable robustness to increases in synaptic learning rates. We also sample the error gradients during learning and show that the IP rule substantially increases the size of the gradients over the course of learning. This suggests that the IP rule solves the vanishing gradient problem. Supplementary analysis is provided to derive the equilibrium solutions that the neuronal gain and bias converge to using our IP rule. An analysis demonstrates that the IP rule results in neuronal information potential similar to that of Infomax, when tested on a fixed input distribution. We also show that batch normalisation also improves information potential, suggesting that this may be a cause for the efficacy of batch normalisation-an open problem at the time of this writing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".