← 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.
AutocompleteWithout cards better66 / 280 · beu-0df144fbe3a3280b

Predictive Coding: a Theoretical and Experimental Review

Psychology and cognitive neuroscience · 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

…e provide a comprehensive review both of the core mathematical structure and logic of predictive coding, thus complementing recent tutorials in the literature ( Buckley et al., (2017) ; Bogacz, (2017) ) . We also review a wide range of classic and recent work within the framework, ranging from the neurobiologically realistic microcircuits that could implement predictive coding, to the close relationship between predictive coding and the widely-used backpropagation of error algorithm, as well as surveying the close relationships between predictive coding and modern machine learning techniques.

↓ 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: Without 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 provide coherent, relevant continuations. However, Output A better fits the specific rhetorical position in the draft. The draft's opening paragraph is establishing the scope of a comprehensive review: core mathematical structure, microcircuits, relationship to backpropagation, and modern machine learning techniques. Output A follows this broad introductory arc by situating predictive coding as a 'unifying account of cortical function' and tracing its extensions across domains (vision, attention, learning, reward processing), which naturally bridges to the subsequent detailed topics mentioned in the opening. Output B, while accurate and supported by sources, narrows prematurely to the backpropagation comparison—one specific item already explicitly mentioned in the draft's opening sentence. This makes B somewhat redundant with what was just stated rather than expanding the frame. Output A provides more appropriate scope by giving the theoretical context that motivates why these specific technical comparisons matter, fitting the 'comprehensive review' framing.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

Predictive coding has been proposed as a biologically plausible alternative to backpropagation for training neural networks, and recent work has shown that under certain conditions it can approximate backpropagation gradients on arbitrary computation graphs using only local learning rules.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Applications of the Free Energy Principle to Machine Learning and Neuroscience

Specifically, in Chapter 6, we first provide a brief review of the credit assignment problem in the brain, as well as the backpropagation algorithm (and automatic differentiation in general), for context, and then present our two contributions to this field. First, we demonstrate how under certain c…

Read full passage excerpt

Specifically, in Chapter 6, we first provide a brief review of the credit assignment problem in the brain, as well as the backpropagation algorithm (and automatic differentiation in general), for context, and then present our two contributions to this field. First, we demonstrate how under certain conditions, predictive coding itself can be utilized as a biologically plausible method of credit assignment in the brain, can apply to any arbitrary computation graph, and can be used to train modern machine learning architectures such as CNNs and LSTMs with performance comparable to backprop.

Card 2 · On the relationship between predictive coding and backpropagation

Artificial neural networks are often interpreted as abstract models of biological neuronal networks, but they are typically trained using the biologically unrealistic backpropagation algorithm and its variants. Predictive coding has been proposed as a potentially more biologically realistic alternat…

Read full passage excerpt

Artificial neural networks are often interpreted as abstract models of biological neuronal networks, but they are typically trained using the biologically unrealistic backpropagation algorithm and its variants. Predictive coding has been proposed as a potentially more biologically realistic alternative to backpropagation for training neural networks. This manuscript reviews and extends recent work on the mathematical relationship between predictive coding and backpropagation for training feedforward artificial neural networks on supervised learning tasks. Implications of these results for the interpretation of predictive coding and deep neural networks as models of biological learning are discussed along with a repository of functions, Torch2PC, for performing predictive coding with PyTorch neural network models.

Card 3 · Predictive Coding Approximates Backprop along Arbitrary Computation Graphs

Backpropagation of error (backprop) is a powerful algorithm for training machine learning architectures through end-to-end differentiation. However, backprop is often criticised for lacking biological plausibility. Recently, it has been shown that backprop in multilayer-perceptrons (MLPs) can be app…

Read full passage excerpt

Backpropagation of error (backprop) is a powerful algorithm for training machine learning architectures through end-to-end differentiation. However, backprop is often criticised for lacking biological plausibility. Recently, it has been shown that backprop in multilayer-perceptrons (MLPs) can be approximated using predictive coding, a biologically-plausible process theory of cortical computation which relies only on local and Hebbian updates. The power of backprop, however, lies not in its instantiation in MLPs, but rather in the concept of automatic differentiation which allows for the optimisation of any differentiable program expressed as a computation graph. Here, we demonstrate that predictive coding converges asymptotically (and in practice rapidly) to exact backprop gradients on arbitrary computation graphs using only local learning rules. We apply this result to develop a straightforward strategy to translate core machine learning architectures into their predictive coding equi …

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 · 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.

Model-reported card use

Card 2 · fact

Affected output: Predictive coding has been proposed as a biologically plausible alternative to backpropagation for training neural networks

Model explanation: This row supplied the specific framing that predictive coding has been proposed as a biologically realistic alternative to backpropagation, which shaped the opening claim of the paragraph.

Card 3 · fact

Affected output: recent work has shown that under certain conditions it can approximate backpropagation gradients on arbitrary computation graphs using only local learning rules

Model explanation: This row supplied the concrete result that predictive coding approximates backprop gradients on arbitrary computation graphs using local learning rules, which provided the specific content of the second clause.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

Predictive coding has been developed as a unifying account of cortical function, in which the brain continuously generates top-down predictions of sensory input and updates internal models using the resulting prediction errors. This framework has been extended from early formulations in vision to accounts of attention, learning, and reward processing, and it now stands as one of the most influential theories linking Bayesian inference to neural implementation.

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

Output A provides a coherent continuation grounded in the sources. It connects predictive coding as a biologically plausible alternative to backpropagation, which directly extends the draft's mention of 'the close relationship between predictive coding and the widely-used backpropagation of error algorithm.' The claim that 'predictive coding...can approximate backpropagation gradients on arbitrary computation graphs using only local learning rules' is supported by the source 'Predictive Coding Approximates Backprop along Arbitrary Computation Graphs' and the 'Applications of the Free Energy Principle' source. Output B, while topically related to predictive coding, makes several unsupported claims: (1) that predictive coding is a 'unifying account of cortical function' — the sources discuss it as influential but not unifying; (2) 'continuously generates top-down predictions of sensory input' — this specific mechanism framing is not in the sources; (3) 'extended from early formulations in vision to accounts of attention, learning, and reward processing' — none of the sources mention attention or reward processing; (4) 'one of the most influential theories linking Bayesian inference to neural implementation' — this evaluative claim about its standing is unsupported. The draft specifically emphasizes the predictive coding-backpropagation relationship, which Output A continues, while Output B diverges into unsupported territory about broader cortical function and domains not mentioned in sources.

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.