An inductive bias for generalization in mouse olfactory learning
Xia, N.; Murthy, V. N.
Show abstract
Animals must generalize from limited experience, yet behavioral experiments in the laboratory setting rarely assess whether or how rapidly they generalize. This contrasts with machine learning systems, where generalization is considered a fundamental test of learning, and emphasizes performance evaluation with new in-distribution or out-of-distribution examples. Here, we used an olfactory categorization task to investigate rules of generalization versus memorization in mice. We trained mice to discriminate between two target odorants mixed with a variable number (0-13) of background odors. There are 32766 possible mixture stimuli to be classified, yet mice learn to generalize from as few as 8 unique mixtures. This generalization is not due to limited memory capacity: mice successfully learned to group the same set of mixtures when category labels were randomly shuffled. Analysis of individual variability revealed features in learning dynamics during training that predict performance in the generalization phase. A linear supervised learning algorithm could describe the generalization from few exemplars well, whereas nonlinear classifiers were necessary to explain memorization. Our experiments suggest that mice have an inductive bias towards generalization, consistent with a preference for simple rules, and will memorize only when forced to do so.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of odor enrichment on olfactory acuity: Olfactometric testing in mice using two mirror-molecular pairs. 92%
- Novelty detection in early olfactory processing of the honey bee, Apis mellifera 92%
- Improvement in auditory spatial discrimination from ambiguous visual stimuli is not explained by ideal observer causal inference 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.