No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2024
We argue that the type of meta-learning proposed by Binz et al. generates models with low interpretability and falsifiability that have limited usefulness for neuroscience research. An alternative approach to meta-learning based on hyperparameter optimization obviates these concerns and can generate empirically testable hypotheses of biological computations.
Target article
Meta-learned models of cognition
Related commentaries (22)
Bayes beyond the predictive distribution
Challenges of meta-learning and rational analysis in large worlds
Combining meta-learned models with process models of cognition
Integrative learning in the lens of meta-learned models of cognition: Impacts on animal and human learning outcomes
Is human compositionality meta-learned?
Learning and memory are inextricable
Linking meta-learning to meta-structure
Meta-learned models as tools to test theories of cognitive development
Meta-learned models beyond and beneath the cognitive
Meta-learning and the evolution of cognition
Meta-learning as a bridge between neural networks and symbolic Bayesian models
Meta-learning goes hand-in-hand with metacognition
Meta-learning in active inference
Meta-learning modeling and the role of affective-homeostatic states in human cognition
Meta-learning: Bayesian or quantum?
Probabilistic programming versus meta-learning as models of cognition
Quantum Markov blankets for meta-learned classical inferential paradoxes with suboptimal free energy
Quo vadis, planning?
The added value of affective processes for models of human cognition and learning
The hard problem of meta-learning is what-to-learn
The meta-learning toolkit needs stronger constraints
The reinforcement metalearner as a biologically plausible meta-learning framework
Author response
Meta-learning: Data, architecture, and both