MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401993139 · doi:10.3390/e26090737

An Information-Geometric Formulation of Pattern Separation and Evaluation of Existing Indices

2024· article· en· W4401993139 on OpenAlexafffund
Harvey Wang, Selena Singh, Thomas Trappenberg, Abraham Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
FundersResearch Nova Scotia
KeywordsSeparation (statistics)MathematicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pattern separation is a computational process by which dissimilar neural patterns are generated from similar input patterns. We present an information-geometric formulation of pattern separation, where a pattern separator is modeled as a family of statistical distributions on a manifold. Such a manifold maps an input (i.e., coordinates) to a probability distribution that generates firing patterns. Pattern separation occurs when small coordinate changes result in large distances between samples from the corresponding distributions. Under this formulation, we implement a two-neuron system whose probability law forms a three-dimensional manifold with mutually orthogonal coordinates representing the neurons' marginal and correlational firing rates. We use this highly controlled system to examine the behavior of spike train similarity indices commonly used in pattern separation research. We find that all indices (except scaling factor) are sensitive to relative differences in marginal firing rates, but no index adequately captures differences in spike trains that result from altering the correlation in activity between the two neurons. That is, existing pattern separation metrics appear (A) sensitive to patterns that are encoded by different neurons but (B) insensitive to patterns that differ only in relative spike timing (e.g., synchrony between neurons in the ensemble).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207