ArticleNature communications2025
Fluctuation-learning relationship in recurrent neural networks.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fluctuation-learning relationship in recurrent neural networks.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Learning speed depends on both task structure and neural dynamics prior to learning, yet a theory connecting them has been missing. Inspired by the fluctuation-response relation, we derive two formulae linking neural dynamics to learning. Initial learning speed is proportional to the covariance between pre-learning spontaneous activity and network's input-evoked response, independent of the learning rule. For Hebb-type learning, initial speed scales with the variance of activity along target and input directions. These results apply across tasks including input-output mapping and time-series generation. Numerical simulations across diverse models validate the formulae beyond the theoretical-derivation's assumptions. Although derived for early learning, the formulae predict total learning time. A straightforward implication is learning is faster when task-relevant directions align with high-variance spontaneous activities, consistent with empirical findings. Our framework establishes how the geometrical relationship between pre-learning dynamics and task directions governs learning speed, independent of details of tasks.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.