Hidden Hypergraphs, Error-Correcting Codes, and Critical Learning in Hopfield Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1943, McCulloch and Pitts introduced a discrete recurrent neural network as a model for computation in brains. The work inspired breakthroughs such as the first computer design and the theory of finite automata. We focus on learning in Hopfield networks, a special case with symmetric weights and fixed-point attractor dynamics. Specifically, we explore minimum energy flow (MEF) as a scalable convex objective for determining network parameters. We catalog various properties of MEF, such as biological plausibility, and then compare to classical approaches in the theory of learning. Trained Hopfield networks can perform unsupervised clustering and define novel error-correcting coding schemes. They also efficiently find hidden structures (cliques) in graph theory. We extend this known connection from graphs to hypergraphs and discover n-node networks with robust storage of 2Ω(n1−ϵ) memories for any ϵ>0. In the case of graphs, we also determine a critical ratio of training samples at which networks generalize completely.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".