Benchmarking Predictive Coding Networks - Made Simple
Open accessAbstract
In this work, we tackle the problems of efficiency and scalability for predictive coding networks (PCNs) in machine learning. To do so, we propose a library, called PCX, that focuses on performance and simplicity, and use it to implement a large set of standard benchmarks for the community to use for their experiments. As most works in the field propose their own tasks and architectures, do not compare one against each other, and focus on small-scale tasks, a simple and fast open-source library and a comprehensive set of benchmarks would address all these concerns. Then, we perform extensive tests on such benchmarks using both existing algorithms for PCNs, as well as adaptations of other methods popular in the bio-plausible deep learning community. All this has allowed us to (i) test architectures much larger than commonly used in the literature, on more complex datasets; (ii)~reach new state-of-the-art results in all of the tasks and datasets provided; (iii)~clearly highlight what the current limitations of PCNs are, allowing us to state important future research directions. With the hope of galvanizing community efforts towards one of the main open problems in the field, scalability, we release code, tests, and benchmarks. Link to the library: https://github.com/liukidar/pcx
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Closed-form predictive coding via hierarchical Gaussian filters
Baskakovs, A., Estebe, S., Enevoldsen, K., Nielbo, K., Mathys, C., & Legrand, N. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20293
“For T iterations, PC is O ( T ) times slower than BP on conventional sequential hardware, because activations must be relaxed toward equilibrium by iterative gradient descent, and performance degrades sharply with depth [Pinchetti et al., 2025].”
Influential
- Authors
- Pinchetti, L., Qi, C., Lokshyn, O., Olivers, G., Emde, C., Tang, M., M'Charrak, A., Frieder, S., Menzat, B., Bogacz, R., Lukasiewicz, T., & Salvatori, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- TU Wien (AT)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.01163
- OpenAlex
- W4400337630
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- AXA Research Fund
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00003/1)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S02428X/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- benchmarking, scalability, efficiency, open source software, large-scale architecture
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review