Leakage and Second-Order Dynamics Improve Hippocampal RNN Replay
Josue Casco-Rodriguez, Nanda H. Krishna, Richard G. Baraniuk

TL;DR
This paper investigates how leakage and second-order dynamics like hidden state momentum enhance the replay capabilities of hippocampal-like RNNs, leading to more efficient and biologically plausible models of neural replay.
Contribution
It introduces a novel model incorporating leakage and hidden state momentum to improve replay dynamics in noisy RNNs, connecting it to underdamped Langevin sampling.
Findings
Leakage encourages exploration but causes non-Markovian slowdown.
Hidden state momentum counteracts slowness and maintains exploration.
Model successfully replicates hippocampal replay in simulated paths.
Abstract
Biological neural networks (like the hippocampus) can internally generate "replay" resembling stimulus-driven activity. Recent computational models of replay use noisy recurrent neural networks (RNNs) trained to path-integrate. Replay in these networks has been described as Langevin sampling, but new modifiers of noisy RNN replay have surpassed this description. We re-examine noisy RNN replay as sampling to understand or improve it in three ways: (1) Under simple assumptions, we prove that the gradients replay activity should follow are time-varying and difficult to estimate, but readily motivate the use of hidden state leakage in RNNs for replay. (2) We confirm that hidden state adaptation (negative feedback) encourages exploration in replay, but show that it incurs non-Markov sampling that also slows replay. (3) We propose the first model of temporally compressed replay in noisy…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- This works shows that path-integration in noisy RNNs results in score functions which are time-variant and difficult to estimate even for simple distributions such as Gaussian. It demonstrates a useful inductive bias of hidden state linear leakage. - This paper shows that Adaptation (negative feedback) induces exploration in replay. It results in non-Markov second-order Langevin sampling destabilizing attractors, results in diversification/exploration in replay as well as slowing down replay
- It is unclear if the proposed under-dampening mechanism with momentum is biologically plausible? - The theoretical analysis has been done under the Gaussian assumption, it’s not clear if the same would hold true when this assumption breaks down. - While the proposed work focuses on the effects of two counteracting terms : adaptation (negative feedback) and underdampening (momentum). Since adaptation slows replay along with adding diversity/exploration in the replay. In contrast, under-dampen
- Authors present a convincing unified theoretical framework of RNN replay that incorporates membrane voltage decay, adaptation, and STSP. - The paper identifies the invalidity of a key assumption made regularly in the literature. - Authors explain modulation of replay speed, which to my understanding was not explained with theoretical models before.
- Presentation-wise, I find the current manuscript very dense. For instance, what does it mean for an RNN to perform Langevin sampling? What is sampling, what is being sampled? A more comprehensive background for the broader audience may be desirable here. Also, how can an RNN sleep? Do the authors refer to running RNNs without any inputs? If so, what are the initial conditions? As a computational neuroscientists not immediately working on these topics, I was at first very confused about the con
This paper provides a deeper understanding of replay dynamics in RNNs under a set of strong but well-motivated assumptions. It effectively bridges neuroscience and machine learning, which machine learning draws inspiration from. They are seemingly the first to introduce an RNN framework that exhibits temporally compressed replay, resembling replay observed in the hippocampus. The experiments, though conducted in simplified environments, are thoughtfully designed and demonstrate how mechanisms su
While this paper helps further the understanding in the study of replay dynamics, several aspects could be improved for clarity and empirical depth. Some figures. such as Figure 1, could more clearly distinguish functions such as s(t) and r(t) to improve readability. The discussion linking the underdamped mechanism to short-term facilitation is intriguing but remains speculative without experimental validation or quantitative comparison to biological data. Additionally, the claim that the propos
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMemory and Neural Mechanisms · Neural dynamics and brain function · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
