Nonlinear dynamics of localization in neural receptive fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Localized receptive fields -- neurons that are selective for certain contiguous spatiotemporal features of their input -- populate early sensory regions of the mammalian brain. Unsupervised learning algorithms that optimize explicit sparsity or independence criteria replicate features of these localized receptive fields, but fail to explain directly how localization arises through learning without efficient coding, as occurs in early layers of deep neural networks and might occur in early sensory regions of biological systems. We consider an alternative model in which localized receptive fields emerge without explicit top-down efficiency constraints -- a feedforward neural network trained on a data model inspired by the structure of natural images. Previous work identified the importance of non-Gaussian statistics to localization in this setting but left open questions about the mechanisms driving dynamical emergence. We address these questions by deriving the effective learning dynamics for a single nonlinear neuron, making precise how higher-order statistical properties of the input data drive emergent localization, and we demonstrate that the predictions of these effective dynamics extend to the many-neuron setting. Our analysis provides an alternative explanation for the ubiquity of localization as resulting from the nonlinear dynamics of learning in neural circuits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".