Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39466853›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Competitive plasticity to reduce the energetic costs of learning.

Mark C W van Rossum, Aaron Pache

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Mark C W van RossumSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6525-6814
Aaron PacheSchool of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain is not only constrained by energy needed to fuel computation, but it is also constrained by energy needed to form memories. Experiments have shown that learning simple conditioning tasks which might require only a few synaptic updates, already carries a significant metabolic cost. Yet, learning a task like MNIST to 95% accuracy appears to require at least 108 synaptic updates. Therefore the brain has likely evolved to be able to learn using as little energy as possible. We explored the energy required for learning in feedforward neural networks. Based on a parsimonious energy model, we propose two plasticity restricting algorithms that save energy: 1) only modify synapses with large updates, and 2) restrict plasticity to subsets of synapses that form a path through the network. In biology networks are often much larger than the task requires, yet vanilla backprop prescribes to update all synapses. In particular in this case, large savings can be achieved while only incurring a slightly worse learning time. Thus competitively restricting plasticity helps to save metabolic energy associated to synaptic plasticity. The results might lead to a better understanding of biological plasticity and a better match between artificial and biological learning. Moreover, the algorithms might benefit hardware because also electronic memory storage is energetically costly.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyEnergy MetabolismLearningModels, NeurologicalNeuronal PlasticityBrainHumansMemoryNeural Networks, ComputerSynapses

Identifiers

PMID39466853
PMCPMC11542811

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.