← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWith cards better20 / 280 · beu-057f5f65384085b5

Predictive Coding: a Theoretical and Experimental Review

Quantitative biology · 2107.12979v4

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Predictive Coding: a Theoretical and Experimental Review

1 Introduction

… rception ( Beal et al. (2003) ) , through updating a global world-model to make better predictions, which could explain learning ( K. Friston (2003) ; Neal & Hinton (1998) ) , and finally through action to sample sensory data from the world that conforms to the predictions ( K.J. Friston et al. (2009) ) , which potentially provides an account adaptive behaviour and control ( K. Friston et al. (2015) ) . Prediction error minimization can also be influenced by modulating the precision of sensory signals, which corresponds to modulating the ‘signal to noise ratio’ in how prediction errors can be used to update prediction, and which may shed light on the neural implementation of attention mechanisms ( Feldman & Friston (2010) ; Kanai et al. (2015) ) . Predictive coding boasts an extremely developed and principled mathematical framework in terms of a variational inference algorithm ( Blei et al. (2017) ; Ghahramani et al. (2000) ; Jordan et al. (1998) ) , alongside many empirically tested computational models with close links to machine learning ( Beal et al. (2003) ; Dayan et al. (1995) ; Hinton & Zemel (1994) ) , which address how predictive coding can be used to solve challenging perceptual inference and learning tasks similar to the brain. Moreover, predictive coding also has been translated into neurobiologically plausible microcircuit process theories ( Bastos et al. (2012) ; Shipp (2016) ; Shipp et al. (2013) ) which are increasingly supported by neurobiological evidence. Predictive coding as a theory also offers a single mechanism that accounts for diverse perceptual and

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: With cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs complete the interrupted sentence 'Predictive coding as a theory also offers a single mechanism that accounts for diverse perceptual and...' in grammatically and thematically appropriate ways. However, Output B is substantially more useful at this specific position. The draft has already extensively covered predictive coding's applications to perception, learning, and action in the preceding sentences (with citations to Friston, Beal, etc. for each). Output A merely restates this already-established breadth ('perception, learning, and action'), adding no new information and creating redundancy with the immediately prior text. Output B instead introduces a specific, high-value connection that has not yet been mentioned in the draft: the approximation of backpropagation and biological credit assignment. This is directly supported by multiple sources provided (e.g., 'Predictive Coding Can Do Exact Backpropagation on Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks' and 'Relaxing the Constraints on Predictive Coding Models'), fits the paper's evident focus on computational-neuroscience bridges, and advances the argument rather than repeating it. The draft's trajectory—moving from general theory to mathematical framework to microcircuit theories—naturally supports adding this machine-learning mechanism point as a next move.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

cognitive phenomena, and it has been shown to approximate the backpropagation of error algorithm under certain conditions, providing a relatively biologically plausible credit-assignment mechanism for training deep networks.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Applications of the free energy principle to machine learning and neuroscience

In this thesis, we explore and apply methods inspired by the free energy principle to two important areas in machine learning and neuroscience. The free energy principle is a general mathematical theory of the necessary information-theoretic behaviours of systems which maintain a separation from the…

Read full passage excerpt

In this thesis, we explore and apply methods inspired by the free energy principle to two important areas in machine learning and neuroscience. The free energy principle is a general mathematical theory of the necessary information-theoretic behaviours of systems which maintain a separation from their environment. A core postulate of the theory is that complex systems can be seen as performing variational Bayesian inference and minimizing an information-theoretic quantity called the variational free energy. The free energy principle originated in, and has been extremely influential in theoretical neuroscience, having spawned a number of neurophysiologically realistic process theories, and maintaining close links with Bayesian Brain viewpoints. The thesis is split into three main parts where we apply methods and insights from the free energy principle to understand questions first in perception, then action, and finally learning. Specifically, in the first section, we focus on the theor …

Card 2 · Predictive Coding, Variational Autoencoders, and Biological Connections

We present a review of predictive coding, from theoretical neuroscience, and variational autoencoders, from machine learning, identifying the common origin and mathematical framework underlying both areas. As each area is prominent within its respective field, more firmly connecting these areas coul…

Read full passage excerpt

We present a review of predictive coding, from theoretical neuroscience, and variational autoencoders, from machine learning, identifying the common origin and mathematical framework underlying both areas. As each area is prominent within its respective field, more firmly connecting these areas could prove useful in the dialogue between neuroscience and machine learning. After reviewing each area, we discuss two possible correspondences implied by this perspective: cortical pyramidal dendrites as analogous to (nonlinear) deep networks and lateral inhibition as analogous to normalizing flows. These connections may provide new directions for further investigations in each field.

Card 3 · Predictive Coding Can Do Exact Backpropagation on Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks

Predictive coding networks (PCNs) are an influential model for information processing in the brain. They have appealing theoretical interpretations and offer a single mechanism that accounts for diverse perceptual phenomena of the brain. On the other hand, backpropagation (BP) is commonly regarded t…

Read full passage excerpt

Predictive coding networks (PCNs) are an influential model for information processing in the brain. They have appealing theoretical interpretations and offer a single mechanism that accounts for diverse perceptual phenomena of the brain. On the other hand, backpropagation (BP) is commonly regarded to be the most successful learning method in modern machine learning. Thus, it is exciting that recent work formulates inference learning (IL) that trains PCNs to approximate BP. However, there are several remaining critical issues: (i) IL is an approximation to BP with unrealistic/non-trivial requirements, (ii) IL approximates BP in single-step weight updates; whether it leads to the same point as BP after the weight updates are conducted for more steps is unknown, and (iii) IL is computationally significantly more costly than BP. To solve these issues, a variant of IL that is strictly equivalent to BP in fully connected networks has been proposed. In this work, we build on this result by sh …

Card 4 · Relaxing the Constraints on Predictive Coding Models

Predictive coding is an influential theory of cortical function which posits that the principal computation the brain performs, which underlies both perception and learning, is the minimization of prediction errors. While motivated by high-level notions of variational inference, detailed neurophysio…

Read full passage excerpt

Predictive coding is an influential theory of cortical function which posits that the principal computation the brain performs, which underlies both perception and learning, is the minimization of prediction errors. While motivated by high-level notions of variational inference, detailed neurophysiological models of cortical microcircuits which can implements its computations have been developed. Moreover, under certain conditions, predictive coding has been shown to approximate the backpropagation of error algorithm, and thus provides a relatively biologically plausible credit-assignment mechanism for training deep networks. However, standard implementations of the algorithm still involve potentially neurally implausible features such as identical forward and backward weights, backward nonlinear derivatives, and 1-1 error unit connectivity. In this paper, we show that these features are not integral to the algorithm and can be removed either directly or through learning additional set …

Card 5 · Making Predictive Coding Networks Generative

Predictive coding (PC) networks are a biologically interesting class of neural networks. Their layered hierarchy mimics the reciprocal connectivity pattern observed in the mammalian cortex, and they can be trained using local learning rules that approximate backpropagation [Bogacz, 2017]. However, d…

Read full passage excerpt

Predictive coding (PC) networks are a biologically interesting class of neural networks. Their layered hierarchy mimics the reciprocal connectivity pattern observed in the mammalian cortex, and they can be trained using local learning rules that approximate backpropagation [Bogacz, 2017]. However, despite having feedback connections that enable information to flow down the network hierarchy, discriminative PC networks are not generative. Clamping the output class and running the network to equilibrium yields an input sample that typically does not resemble the training input. This paper studies this phenomenon, and proposes a simple solution that promotes the generation of input samples that resemble the training inputs. Simple decay, a technique already in wide use in neural networks, pushes the PC network toward a unique minimum 2-norm solution, and that unique solution provably (for linear networks) matches the training inputs. The method also vastly improves the samples generated f …

Model-reported card use

Card 4 · fact

Affected output: it has been shown to approximate the backpropagation of error algorithm under certain conditions, providing a relatively biologically plausible credit-assignment mechanism for training deep networks

Model explanation: Supplied the specific conditional relation and credit-assignment terminology used to complete the sentence about predictive coding's scope.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

cognitive phenomena, and it has been extended to account for a broad range of findings across perception, learning, and action.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Both outputs complete the unfinished sentence grammatically and coherently. Output A makes a general claim that predictive coding accounts for 'diverse perceptual and cognitive phenomena' and has been extended to perception, learning, and action. This is broadly supported by the draft's preceding text, which already covers these domains. However, Output B provides a more specific, substantive continuation that directly connects to the source material. The draft ends with 'diverse perceptual and' — Output B completes this with 'cognitive phenomena' and then adds the specific, source-grounded claim about approximating backpropagation of error as a biologically plausible credit-assignment mechanism. This claim is directly supported by source 4 ('Relaxing the Constraints on Predictive Coding Models'), which states: 'predictive coding has been shown to approximate the backpropagation of error algorithm, and thus provides a relatively biologically plausible credit-assignment mechanism for training deep networks.' The wording closely matches. Output B thus provides a more informative, concrete continuation that advances the academic argument with specific theoretical significance, rather than the more generic summary in Output A. Both are usable, but B is more useful for a researcher as it adds substantive, source-supported content rather than restating already-established themes.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.