eLife Assessment: Efficient coding in biophysically realistic excitatory-inhibitory spiking networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principle of efficient coding posits that sensory cortical networks are designed to encode maximal sensory information with minimal metabolic cost. Despite the major influence of efficient coding in neuroscience, it has remained unclear whether fundamental empirical properties of neural network activity can be explained solely based on this normative principle. Here, we derive the structural, coding, and biophysical properties of excitatory-inhibitory recurrent networks of spiking neurons that emerge directly from imposing that the network minimizes an instantaneous loss function and a time-averaged performance measure enacting efficient coding. We assumed that the network encodes a number of independent stimulus features varying with a time scale equal to the membrane time constant of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. The optimal network has biologically-plausible biophysical features, including realistic integrate-and-fire spiking dynamics, spike-triggered adaptation, and a non-specific excitatory external input. The excitatory-inhibitory recurrent connectivity between neurons with similar stimulus tuning implements feature-specific competition, similar to that recently found in visual cortex. Networks with unstructured connectivity cannot reach comparable levels of coding efficiency. The optimal ratio of excitatory vs inhibitory neurons and the ratio of mean inhibitory-to-inhibitory vs excitatory-to-inhibitory connectivity are comparable to those of cortical sensory networks. The efficient network solution exhibits an instantaneous balance between excitation and inhibition. The network can perform efficient coding even when external stimuli vary over multiple time scales. Together, these results suggest that key properties of biological neural networks may be accounted for by efficient coding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".