Dimensionality reduction with normalizing flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the large number of active neurons in the cortex, for various brain regions, the activity of neural populations is expected to live on a low-dimensional manifold [1]. Among the most common tools to estimate the mapping to this manifold, along with its dimension, are many variants of principal component analysis [2]. Despite their apparent success, these procedures have the disadvantage that they assume only linear correlations and that their performance, when used as a generative model, is poor.To be able to fully learn the statistics of neural activity and to generate artificial samples, we make use of normalizing flows (NFs) [3, 4, 5]. These neural networks learn a dimension-preserving estimator of the data probability distribution. They are outstanding in comparison to generative adversarial networks (GANs) and variational autoencoders (VAEs) for their simplicity ‒ only one invertible network is learned ‒ and for their exact estimation of the likelihood due to tractable Jacobians at each building block.We aim to modify NFs such that they can discriminate relevant (in manifold) from noise (out of manifold) dimensions. To this end, we penalize the participation of each single latent variable in the reconstruction of the data through the inverse mapping (following a different reasoning than [6]). We can thus not only give an estimate of the dimensionality of the activity sub-space but also describe the underlying manifold without the need to discard any information.We prove the validity of our modification on controlled data sets of different complexity. We emphasize, in particular, differences between affine and additive coupling layers in normalizing flows [7], and show that the former lead to pathologies when the data topology is non-trivial, or when the data set is composed of classes with different volumes. We further illustrate the power of our modified NFs by reconstructing data using only a few dimensions.We finally apply this technique to identify manifolds in EEG recordings from a dataset showing high gamma activity (described in [8]), obtained from 128 electrodes during four different movement tasks.AcknowledgementsThis project is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - 368482240/GRK2416; and by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF Grant 01IS19077A to Jülich).References [1] Gao, P., Trautmann, E., Yu, B., Santhanam, G., Ryu, S., Shenoy, K., & Ganguli, S. (2017). A theory of multineuronal dimensionality, dynamics and measurement. BioRxiv, 214262., 10.1101/214262 [2] Gallego, J. A., Perich, M. G., Miller, L. E., & Solla, S. A. (2017). Neural manifolds for the control of movement. Neuron, 94(5), 978-984., 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.025 [3] Dinh, L., Krueger, D., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Nice: Non-linear independent components estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8516., 10.48550/arXiv.1410.8516 [4] Dinh, L., Sohl-Dickstein, J., & Bengio, S. (2016). Density estimation using real nvp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08803., 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08803 [5] Kingma, D. P., & Dhariwal, P. (2018). Glow: Generative flow with invertible 1x1 convolutions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31. [6] Cunningham, E., Cobb, A., & Jha, S. (2022). Principal manifold flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07037., 10.48550/arXiv.2202.07037 [7] Behrmann, J., Vicol, P., Wang, K. C., Grosse, R., & Jacobsen, J. H. (2021). Understanding and mitigating exploding inverses in invertible neural networks. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 1792-1800). PMLR. [8] Schirrmeister, R. T., Springenberg, J. T., Fiederer, L. D. J., Glasstetter, M., Eggensperger, K., Tangermann, M., ... & Ball, T. (2017). Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for EEG decoding and visualization. Human brain mapping, 38(11), 5391-5420., 10.1002/hbm.23730
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".