Parallel and recurrent cascade models as a unifying force for understanding sub-cellular computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neurons are very complicated computational devices, incorporating numerous non-linear processes, particularly in their dendrites. Biophysical models capture these processes directly by explicitly modelling physiological variables, such as ion channels, current flow, membrane capacitance, etc. However, another option for capturing the complexities of real neural computation is to use cascade models, which treat individual neurons as a cascade of linear and non-linear operations, akin to a multi-layer artificial neural network. Recent research has shown that cascade models can capture single-cell computation well, but there are still a number of sub-cellular, regenerative dendritic phenomena that they cannot capture, such as the interaction between sodium, calcium, and NMDA spikes in different compartments. Here, we propose that it is possible to capture these additional phenomena using parallel, recurrent cascade models, wherein an individual neuron is modelled as a cascade of parallel linear and non-linear operations that can be connected recurrently, akin to a multi-layer, recurrent, artificial neural network. Given their tractable mathematical structure, we show that neuron models expressed in terms of parallel recurrent cascades can themselves be integrated into multi-layered artificial neural networks and trained to perform complex tasks. We go on to discuss potential implications and uses of these models for artificial intelligence. Overall, we argue that parallel, recurrent cascade models provide an important, unifying tool for capturing single-cell computation and exploring the algorithmic implications of physiological phenomena.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".