Where Does Randomness Matter in Neural Cellular Automata?

arXiv:2609.36797v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Stochastic cell updates are often used throughout the life of a neural cellular automaton (NCA), from backpropagation through time to final rollout. This leaves two questions entangled: does update randomness help learn a useful rule, and must that randomness remain at execution? We separate training and evaluation update modes in controlled Growing NCA experiments, then vary the states shown during training. Under the standard constant-rate persist recipe, asynchronous training passes the short-horizon quality test in 10/10 runs, compared with 3/10 synchronous runs. All ten asynchronous models also retain the target for 4,096 steps under deterministic evaluation. For a scalar translation-invariant lattice, we derive an exact mean-square criterion: random masking can damp mean modes, but it also injects variance, and a mean-only test misclassifies four non-marginal settings. Finally, among 30 models that all pass the same reconstruction test, eight of ten grow-trained models become off-target at 4,096 steps, while all persist and regenerate models retain the target; damage recovery separates persist from regenerate. The results distinguish optimization reliability, execution mode, and task-specific behavior instead of treating them as one stability property.

Title:Where Does Randomness Matter in Neural Cellular Automata?

Abstract:Stochastic cell updates are often used throughout the life of a neural cellular automaton (NCA), from backpropagation through time to final rollout. This leaves two questions entangled: does update randomness help learn a useful rule, and must that randomness remain at execution? We separate training and evaluation update modes in controlled Growing NCA experiments, then vary the states shown during training. Under the standard constant-rate persist recipe, asynchronous training passes the short-horizon quality test in 10/10 runs, compared with 3/10 synchronous runs. All ten asynchronous models also retain the target for 4,096 steps under deterministic evaluation. For a scalar translation-invariant lattice, we derive an exact mean-square criterion: random masking can damp mean modes, but it also injects variance, and a mean-only test misclassifies four non-marginal settings. Finally, among 30 models that all pass the same reconstruction test, eight of ten grow-trained models become off-target at 4,096 steps, while all persist and regenerate models retain the target; damage recovery separates persist from regenerate. The results distinguish optimization reliability, execution mode, and task-specific behavior instead of treating them as one stability property.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)

arXiv:2609.36797 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.36797v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36797 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Where Does Randomness Matter in Neural Cellular Automata?

Subiecte conexe