Learning in deep neural networks and brains with similarity-weighted interleaved learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how the brain learns throughout a lifetime remains a long-standing challenge. In artificial neural networks (ANNs), incorporating novel information too rapidly results in catastrophic interference, i.e., abrupt loss of previously acquired knowledge. Complementary Learning Systems Theory (CLST) suggests that new memories can be gradually integrated into the neocortex by interleaving new memories with existing knowledge. This approach, however, has been assumed to require interleaving all existing knowledge every time something new is learned, which is implausible because it is time-consuming and requires a large amount of data. We show that deep, nonlinear ANNs can learn new information by interleaving only a subset of old items that share substantial representational similarity with the new information. By using such similarity-weighted interleaved learning (SWIL), ANNs can learn new information rapidly with a similar accuracy level and minimal interference, while using a much smaller number of old items presented per epoch (fast and data-efficient). SWIL is shown to work with various standard classification datasets (Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100), deep neural network architectures, and in sequential learning frameworks. We show that data efficiency and speedup in learning new items are increased roughly proportionally to the number of nonoverlapping classes stored in the network, which implies an enormous possible speedup in human brains, which encode a high number of separate categories. Finally, we propose a theoretical model of how SWIL might be implemented in the brain.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".