Domains featuring this topic
Explore the domains where this topic appears.
Simons Collaborations in Mathematics and the Physical Sciences
The Simons Foundation invites letters of intent for ambitious collaborations addressing fundamental questions of major importance in mathematics, theoretical physics, or theoretical computer science. Awards support multi-investigator teams across career stages for four years, with up to three new collaborations expected to begin in January 2028.
“Brain theory, what is it or what should it be?”
n the neurosciences the need for some 'overarching' theory is sometimes expressed, but it is not always obvious what is meant by this. One can perhaps agree that in modern science observation and experimentation is normally complemented by 'theory', i.e. the development of theoretical concepts that help guiding and evaluating experiments and measurements. A deeper discussion of 'brain theory' will require the clarification of some further distictions, in particular: theory vs. model and brain research (and its theory) vs. neuroscience. Other questions are: Does a theory require mathematics? Or even differential equations? Today it is often taken for granted that the whole universe including everything in it, for example humans, animals, and plants, can be adequately treated by physics and therefore theoretical physics is the overarching theory. Even if this is the case, it has turned out that in some particular parts of physics (the historical example is thermodynamics) it may be useful to simplify the theory by introducing additional theoretical concepts that can in principle be 'reduced' to more complex descriptions on the 'microscopic' level of basic physical particals and forces. In this sense, brain theory may be regarded as part of theoretical neuroscience, which is inside biophysics and therefore inside physics, or theoretical physics. Still, in neuroscience and brain research, additional concepts are typically used to describe results and help guiding experimentation that are 'outside' physics, beginning with neurons and synapses, names of brain parts and areas, up to concepts like 'learning', 'motivation', 'attention'. Certainly, we do not yet have one theory that includes all these concepts. So 'brain theory' is still in a 'pre-newtonian' state. However, it may still be useful to understand in general the relations between a larger theory and its 'parts', or between microscopic and macroscopic theories, or between theories at different 'levels' of description. This is what I plan to do.
Understanding Machine Learning via Exactly Solvable Statistical Physics Models
The affinity between statistical physics and machine learning has a long history. I will describe the main lines of this long-lasting friendship in the context of current theoretical challenges and open questions about deep learning. Theoretical physics often proceeds in terms of solvable synthetic models, I will describe the related line of work on solvable models of simple feed-forward neural networks. I will highlight a path forward to capture the subtle interplay between the structure of the data, the architecture of the network, and the optimization algorithms commonly used for learning.
Correlations, chaos, and criticality in neural networks
The remarkable properties of information-processing of biological and of artificial neuronal networks alike arise from the interaction of large numbers of neurons. A central quest is thus to characterize their collective states. The directed coupling between pairs of neurons and their continuous dissipation of energy, moreover, cause dynamics of neuronal networks outside thermodynamic equilibrium. Tools from non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and field theory are thus instrumental to obtain a quantitative understanding. We here present progress with this recent approach [1]. On the experimental side, we show how correlations between pairs of neurons are informative on the dynamics of cortical networks: they are poised near a transition to chaos [2]. Close to this transition, we find prolongued sequential memory for past signals [3]. In the chaotic regime, networks offer representations of information whose dimensionality expands with time. We show how this mechanism aids classification performance [4]. Together these works illustrate the fruitful interplay between theoretical physics, neuronal networks, and neural information processing.
Biology is “messy”. So how can we take theory in biology seriously and plot predictions and experiments on the same axes?
Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.
Understanding machine learning via exactly solvable statistical physics models
The affinity between statistical physics and machine learning has long history, this is reflected even in the machine learning terminology that is in part adopted from physics. I will describe the main lines of this long-lasting friendship in the context of current theoretical challenges and open questions about deep learning. Theoretical physics often proceeds in terms of solvable synthetic models, I will describe the related line of work on solvable models of simple feed-forward neural networks. I will highlight a path forward to capture the subtle interplay between the structure of the data, the architecture of the network, and the learning algorithm.