Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36545030›Full record

ArticlePhysical review. X

Theory of Gating in Recurrent Neural Networks.

Kamesh Krishnamurthy, Tankut Can, David J Schwab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical review. X. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Neural mechanisms of flexible perceptual inference.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Inferring neural population codes forProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Chaotic neural dynamics facilitate probabilistic computations through sampling.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Brain mechanism of foraging: Reward-dependent synaptic plasticity versus neural integration of values.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Neural heterogeneity controls computations in spiking neural networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kamesh KrishnamurthyJoseph Henry Laboratories of Physics and PNI, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2011-2590
Tankut CanInstitute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0999-2355
David J SchwabInitiative for Theoretical Sciences, Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, New York 10016, USA.

Funding

Coarse-graining approaches to networks, learning, and behaviorR01EB026943 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI BIALEK, WILLIAM, PALMER, STEPHANIE E · 2018 to 2020
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are powerful dynamical models, widely used in machine learning (ML) and neuroscience. Prior theoretical work has focused on RNNs with additive interactions. However gating i.e., multiplicative interactions are ubiquitous in real neurons and also

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary Physics Nonlinear DynamicsStatistical Physics

Identifiers

PMID36545030
PMCPMC9762509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.