Robust parallel decision-making in neural circuits with nonlinear inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An elemental computation in the brain is to identify the best in a set of options and report its value. It is required for inference, decision-making, optimization, action selection, consensus, and foraging. Neural computing is considered powerful because of its parallelism; however, it is unclear whether neurons can perform this max-finding operation in a way that improves upon the prohibitively slow optimal serial max-finding computation (which takes [Formula: see text] time for N noisy candidate options) by a factor of N, the benchmark for parallel computation. Biologically plausible architectures for this task are winner-take-all (WTA) networks, where individual neurons inhibit each other so only those with the largest input remain active. We show that conventional WTA networks fail the parallelism benchmark and, worse, in the presence of noise, altogether fail to produce a winner when N is large. We introduce the nWTA network, in which neurons are equipped with a second nonlinearity that prevents weakly active neurons from contributing inhibition. Without parameter fine-tuning or rescaling as N varies, the nWTA network achieves the parallelism benchmark. The network reproduces experimentally observed phenomena like Hick's law without needing an additional readout stage or adaptive N-dependent thresholds. Our work bridges scales by linking cellular nonlinearities to circuit-level decision-making, establishes that distributed computation saturating the parallelism benchmark is possible in networks of noisy, finite-memory neurons, and shows that Hick's law may be a symptom of near-optimal parallel decision-making with noisy input.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".