Current State and Future Directions for Learning in Biological Recurrent Neural Networks: A Perspective Piece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This perspective piece came about through the Generative Adversarial Collaboration (GAC) series of workshops organized by the Computational Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) conference in 2020. We brought together a number of experts from the field of theoretical neuroscience to debate emerging issues in our understanding of how learning is implemented in biological recurrent neural networks. Here, we will give a brief review of the common assumptions about biological learning and the corresponding findings from experimental neuroscience and contrast them with the efficiency of gradient-based learning in recurrent neural networks commonly used in artificial intelligence. We will then outline the key issues discussed in the workshop: synaptic plasticity, neural circuits, theory-experiment divide, and objective functions. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for both theoretical and experimental neuroscientists when designing new studies that could help to bring clarity to these issues.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".