year:
paper: brainca-brain-inspired-neural-cellular-automata-and-applications-to-morphogenesis-and-motor-control
website:
code:
connections: NCA, Benedikt Hartl, levin


Limitations / obvious next steps

  • GRU, not QKV-attention-memory
  • With graph attn there’s also no any2any between the msgs per node (not sure if it matters - prlly not if u factor efficiency and diffusion over time)
  • Hidden state is public / the same as the public message, not compressed / …
  • Long-range connectivity is fixed (Zipf’s law)
  • All cells get (the same) observations…
  • Arrangement affects performance and learning speed - let the cells arrange themselves
  • Growth instead of fixed structure path: weights are the genome, evolved slowly over many generations of growth, growth happening during rollouts (i.e. genome only meta learns). This prlly (definitely) needs some pre-training to have any chance of working. Perhaps… pre-pre-training the NCA on NCAs…

Unclarities

  • Why does the morpho experiment use additive fusion for the interaction vector while lunar lander concatenates ? Not motivated in the paper.
  • why dont they do all to all comms in the attn agg? efficiency? unnecessary? (same info is spread out through timesteps) - maybe full attn only worth it for internal states
  • Lunar lander readout: paper prose says ” output is split into two heads” but the equations write both heads as reading from directly. : , but , suggests the prose is right and the equations are wrong. And it also makes more sense that way…

BraiNCA

Init: (morpho) or (lunar). broadcast to all cells.
Repeat for steps (morpho: total; lunar: per env step), cells ():

Approach to actions, lunar lander

  • divided into regions
  • softmax over logits → fire probability
  • majority vote, confidence weighted
  • Within each region, compute a weighted average of fire logits , weighted by the fire probability/confidence :
  • softmax over to get actiono dist to sample from