Temporal encoding in deep reinforcement learning agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroscientists have observed both cells in the brain that fire at specific points in time, known as "time cells", and cells whose activity steadily increases or decreases over time, known as "ramping cells". It is speculated that time and ramping cells support temporal computations in the brain and carry mnemonic information. However, due to the limitations in animal experiments, it is difficult to determine how these cells really contribute to behavior. Here, we show that time cells and ramping cells naturally emerge in the recurrent neural networks of deep reinforcement learning models performing simulated interval timing and working memory tasks, which have learned to estimate expected rewards in the future. We show that these cells do indeed carry information about time and items stored in working memory, but they contribute to behavior in large part by providing a dynamic representation on which policy can be computed. Moreover, the information that they do carry depends on both the task demands and the variables provided to the models. Our results suggest that time cells and ramping cells could contribute to temporal and mnemonic calculations, but the way in which they do so may be complex and unintuitive to human observers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".