The connectivity degree controls the difficulty in reservoir design of random boolean networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reservoir Computing (RC) is a paradigm in artificial intelligence where a recurrent neural network (RNN) is used to process temporal data, leveraging the inherent dynamical properties of the reservoir to perform complex computations. In the realm of RC, the excitatory-inhibitory balance b has been shown to be pivotal for driving the dynamics and performance of Echo State Networks (ESN) and, more recently, Random Boolean Network (RBN). However, the relationship between b and other parameters of the network is still poorly understood. This article explores how the interplay of the balance b, the connectivity degree K (i.e., the number of synapses per neuron) and the size of the network (i.e., the number of neurons N) influences the dynamics and performance (memory and prediction) of an RBN reservoir. Our findings reveal that K and b are strongly tied in optimal reservoirs. Reservoirs with high K have two optimal balances, one for globally inhibitory networks (b < 0), and the other one for excitatory networks (b > 0). Both show asymmetric performances about a zero balance. In contrast, for moderate K, the optimal value being K = 4, best reservoirs are obtained when excitation and inhibition almost, but not exactly, balance each other. For almost all K, the influence of the size is such that increasing N leads to better performance, even with very large values of N. Our investigation provides clear directions to generate optimal reservoirs or reservoirs with constraints on size or connectivity.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".