An Information-Theoretic Framework For Optimizing Experimental Design To Distinguish Probabilistic Neural Codes
Po-Chen Kuo, Edgar Y. Walker

TL;DR
This paper introduces an information-theoretic framework to design experiments that effectively distinguish between likelihood and posterior neural coding hypotheses by maximizing the information gap, thus improving understanding of sensory uncertainty representation.
Contribution
It develops a method to optimize stimulus distributions for differentiating probabilistic neural codes using the information gap and KL divergence, guiding more effective experimental designs.
Findings
The information gap predicts decoder performance differences across tasks.
Maximizing the information gap enhances the ability to distinguish neural coding hypotheses.
Simulations confirm the framework's effectiveness in various task settings.
Abstract
The Bayesian brain hypothesis has been a leading theory in understanding perceptual decision-making under uncertainty. While extensive psychophysical evidence supports the notion of the brain performing Bayesian computations, how uncertainty information is encoded in sensory neural populations remains elusive. Specifically, two competing hypotheses propose that early sensory populations encode either the likelihood function (exemplified by probabilistic population codes) or the posterior distribution (exemplified by neural sampling codes) over the stimulus, with the key distinction lying in whether stimulus priors would modulate the neural responses. However, experimentally differentiating these two hypotheses has remained challenging, as it is unclear what task design would effectively distinguish the two. In this work, we present an information-theoretic framework for optimizing the…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
The paper is well written, specifying the problem, process, and limitations clearly. It also gives a good coverage of the literature.
Using KL-divergence and decoding performance is pretty common in modelling in neuroscience, so I don't think using it for a specific problem could be considered a huge contribution. Furthermore, the paper lacks empirical results. There are multiple public data sets that actually contain gratings with different orientation and contrasts, for example Allen Brain observatory visual coding Neuropixel data set( https://portal.brain-map.org/circuits-behavior/visual-coding-neuropixels). So I think test
* Optimal experimental design is an important and under-studied area. * The problem posed, of developing an analysis to compare two standard models proposed for Bayesian inference in the brain, and using this to derive optimal stimulus ensembles for experimental determination of a "winner", is relevant and I'm not aware of any published solutions.
* The development is, in my view, over-formalized given the intended use and implementation. Why is it not sufficient to seek two stimulus ensembles that produce the largest discrepancy in estimates produced by the two models? And how do the results depend on the design and training of the deep neural network decoders that are used to obtain likeilihoods or posteriors from the neural population? * The paper is built on the direct comparison of two models (likelihood encoding vs. posterior enc
This paper seeks to address a problem that has been difficult to make progress on in the field. The proposed approach is sound. The proposed analytical approach and the results are new, although they only seem to work under some relatively simple task conditions. The numerical simulations in the paper were thorough and served to validate the analytical results. The approach may provide some useful guide for the design of future experiments to testing the likelihood theory v..s posterior t
— While the authors clearly spent efforts to articulate the theoretical settings and to justify the importance of the problem, I felt there was still some ambiguity. For example, the two theories outlined were the theory of representing likelihood v..s sampling-based code. However, here sampling seems to be an additional assumption. It would be cleaner if the comparison was simply a presentation of likelihood v.s. a representation the posterior. One can also consider a theory of sampling from th
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies · Neural dynamics and brain function · Visual perception and processing mechanisms
