Excitatory/inhibitory balance emerges as a key factor for RBN performance, overriding attractor dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reservoir computing provides a time and cost-efficient alternative to traditional learning methods. Critical regimes, known as the "edge of chaos," have been found to optimize computational performance in binary neural networks. However, little attention has been devoted to studying reservoir-to-reservoir variability when investigating the link between connectivity, dynamics, and performance. As physical reservoir computers become more prevalent, developing a systematic approach to network design is crucial. In this article, we examine Random Boolean Networks (RBNs) and demonstrate that specific distribution parameters can lead to diverse dynamics near critical points. We identify distinct dynamical attractors and quantify their statistics, revealing that most reservoirs possess a dominant attractor. We then evaluate performance in two challenging tasks, memorization and prediction, and find that a positive excitatory balance produces a critical point with higher memory performance. In comparison, a negative inhibitory balance delivers another critical point with better prediction performance. Interestingly, we show that the intrinsic attractor dynamics have little influence on performance in either case.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".