prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did the London Paving and Lighting Act pass, which mandated the numbering of houses?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: A Brief History of Benjamin Franklin's Residences on Craven Street, London: 1757 - 1775 - Journal of the American Revolution
Benjamin Franklin House, 36 Craven St, London  (Photo by Elliott Brown | Wikimedia Commons)
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might initially believe he lived at 36 Craven Street the entirety of his two stays in London based on the plethora of articles on the internet that say so  If they dug a little deeper they might read that he lived at No  27 Craven Street, previously numbered 7, but now numbered 36; or that he lived exclusively at No  7 Craven Street; or that he lived in multiple residences on Craven Street; or that he moved out of No  36 to another house on Craven Street and then moved back into No  36 the last year of his residence  What is one to believe with all of the conflicting accounts? What does the historical record have to say about Franklin’s time on Craven Street?
Figure 1  Spur Alley 1685  “A map of the parish of St Martins in the Fields, taken from ye last survey, with additions (1685)”  (© The British Library Board, Shelfmark: Maps Crace Port  13 2, Item number: 2)
Before Craven Street existed there was Spur Alley, a narrow passageway sandwiched between the Hungerford Market to the north (now Charing Cross Station) and Scotland Yard and the Northumberland House and Garden to the south  It was flanked on both ends by major thoroughfares, the Strand on the west, connecting Westminster to London by road, and the River Thames on the east, not only connecting the two cities to each other and to Southwark on the south side of the Thames, but connecting the entire metropolis to the rest of the world  Being located in the City of Westminster, Spur Alley had escaped the devastation of the Great Fire of London in 1666 leaving its wooden structures, built in the early part of seventeenth century, intact, but also in dire need of restoration or demolition  “The ratebooks show that during the last thirty years or so of their existence the houses in Spur Alley were in a very bad condition  Few of them were rated at more than a few shillings and many of them were unoccupied ”[1] The landowner, William, 5th Baron Craven, desiring to increase the profitability of his assets, tore down the derelict structures on Spur Alley around 1730 and leased the newly established lots to builders  By 1735, twenty brick houses in the Georgian style had been built on the west side and sixteen on the east side of the way now called Craven Street [2]
Figure 2  Craven Street 1746  (John Rocque London, Westminster and Southwark, First Edition 1746, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
Letters to Franklin during his residence with Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, his landlady on Craven Street, were addressed rather vaguely; “Craven Street/Strand”, “Mrs  Stevensons in Craven Street”, or “Benjamin Franklin Esqr ” are but a few examples  Letters from Franklin referenced “London,” or sometimes “Cravenstreet,” but never included a number  Despite the absence of numbered addresses in Franklin’s correspondence, there was a sense of one’s place in the neighborhood based on entries in the Westminster Rate Books (tax assessments)  The Rate Books did not list house numbers during Franklin’s time there, but they did list the residents of Craven Street in a particular order that became the default numbering system for the street  Number one was associated with the first resident listed under “Craven Street” in the Rate Books and was the northernmost house on the west side of the street  The numbers increased counter-clockwise down the west side and up the east side in accordance with the list of residents  In 1748, the first year of Margaret Stevenson’s (Stevens in the Rate Books for that year) residence on Craven Street, she is listed as the twenty-seventh resident, the second house north of Court Street (later Craven Court, now Craven Passage) on the east side of the street [3]
In 1766, Parliament passed the London Paving and Lighting Act (6 Geo  3 c  26), “An act for the better paving, cleansing, and enlightening, the city of London, and the liberties thereof; and for preventing obstructions and annoyances within the same; and for other purposes therein mentioned ”[4] One of the other purposes therein mentioned was the numbering of houses  With an aim to bring order to the chaotic numbering systems or lack thereof on London streets the Act provided that “… the said commissioners … may also cause every house, shop, or warehouse, in each of the said streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages, and places, to be marked or numbered, in such manner as they shall judge most proper for distinguishing the same ”[5] This was quite an undertaking that took years to accomplish  It was a decade later before numbered addresses on Craven Street in the City of Westminster appeared in The London Directory (1776)  The London Directory and its competitors were published primarily by booksellers or printers to supplement their income and were highly profitable  To say they were competitive is an understatement  “Some of the most hotly disputed struggles over copyright in the century concerned guidebooks  Many were optimistically emblazoned with a royal license and a notice that the work had been entered at Stationers’ Hall  Various struggles between rival guides intensified as the potential for profits became clear ”[6] The London Directory boldly proclaimed to contain “An ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES and PLACES of ABODE of the MERCHANTS and PRINCIPAL TRADERS of the Cities of LONDON and WESTMINSTER, the Borough of SOUTHWARK, and their Environs, with the Number affixed to each House ”[7] Kent’s Directory made a similar proclamation: “An Alphabetical LIST OF THE Names and Places of Abode OF THE DIRECTORS of COMPANIES, Persons in Public Business, MERCHANTS, and other eminent TRADERS in the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark WITH THE NUMBERS as they are affixed to their Houses agreeable to the late Acts of Parliament ”[8] Mrs  Stevenson wasn’t included in the directories because she didn’t meet the criteria of being a merchant or trader, not because she was a woman  Although it is rare to see women listed in the directories, some examples do exist [9] If Mrs  Stevenson had appeared in the directories in 1776 it would not have been on Craven Street as she had moved to Northumberland Court, a stone’s throw away, the previous year [10] A comparison of Craven Street residents whose names and addresses do appear in the directories with the same residents as they appear in the Westminster Rate Books determines if the numbering systems were congruent  For the most part they were  For example, Joseph Bond at No  30, William Rowles at No  31, Samuel Sneyd at No  32, and Jonathan Michie at No  35 in The London Directory coincide with their places of residence in the Westminster Rate Books; however, errors did occur  The 1776 edition of The London Directory lists Brown & Whiteford, wine merchants, at No  9 Craven Street while the Westminster Rate Books list them as the twenty-ninth residents  Obviously, it makes no sense to have Brown & Whiteford at No  9 in The London Directory and their next-door neighbor, Joseph Bond, at No  30  The same error appears in Baldwin’s The New Complete Guide for 1783  The New Complete Guide may have “borrowed” the error from The London Directory  It was not uncommon for the owner of one directory to copy entries from another to save both time and money  Beginning in 1778 and contrary to The London Directory, Kent’s Directory faithfully followed the numbering system of the Westminster Rate Books in all of its editions and listed Brown & Whiteford at No  29 as did Bailey’s Northern Directory in 1781  Perhaps realizing their error, The London Directory changed their listing of Brown & Whiteford from No  9 to No  29 in their 1783 edition and maintained that listing thereafter 
Sometime prior to 1792, the embankment on the Thames at the south end of Craven Street had been sufficiently extended allowing for the construction of ten new houses below the original houses: “ … four houses, Nos  21–24, were built on the west side, and six houses, Nos  25–30, on the east side of the way ”[11] In a note in the same report, the new numbering system is explained  “The houses in the street, which had previously been numbered consecutively down the west side and up the east side, were then renumbered on the same system to include the additional houses ”[12] Because the new houses (21-24) on the west side were built below the existing houses (1-20), houses 1-20 retained their original numbering 
Figure 4  Craven Street 1799  (Richard Horwood’s Map of London, Westminster and the Borough of Southwark 1799, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
One would think that the numbers of the sixteen original houses on the east side, Nos  21 – 36, would simply increase by ten with the addition of the ten new houses, but such was not the case; they increased by nine  How could that be? The only possible explanation is that No  21 of the original houses was demolished to make way for the construction of the northernmost of the six new houses on the east side (No  30)  Evidence of No  21’s demolition appears in the lease granted to Charles Owen by William, 7th Baron Craven, in 1792, which describes No  22 as: “All that messuage in Craven Street late in the occupation of Francis Deschamps undertaker … being the Southernmost house in the Old Buildings on the East Side of the said Street numbered with the No  22 ”[13] The lease describes No  22 as being the southernmost house in the old buildings on the east side of Craven Street  Clearly the house previously at No  21 did not exist when the lease granted to Charles Owen was written in 1792 as it used to be the southernmost house  It is also worth noting that in 1790, The London Directory listed Jacob Life at No  21 (original numbering)  In 1791-2, it listed him at No  6  With No  21 vacated, it would allow for its demolition and the construction of the tenth new house  By utilizing lot No  21 for the new construction, only nine additional lots were needed to build the ten houses, hence, Margaret Stevenson’s former residence at 27 became 36 (27 + 9) in the renumbering and not 37 
For nearly a century and a half after Franklin departed London for America in March of 1775 the scales were tipped heavily in favor of his residence having been No  7 Craven Street  As early as 1807 in London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighborhood, Volume 4, one would have read: “In Craven Street is a house, No  7, remarkable for having been the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin [14] In 1815, the identical phrase appeared in The Beauties of England and Wales [15] After 23 editions of not mentioning Franklin, his name finally appeared in the 24th edition of The Picture of London in 1826: “The house, No  7, Craven Street, in the Strand, was once the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin ”[16] In 1840, Jared Sparks referred to Franklin’s Craven Street residence appearing in London guide books in his voluminous The Works of Benjamin Franklin: “In the London Guide Books, ‘No  7, Craven Street,’ is still indicated as the house in which Dr  Franklin resided ”[17] In 1846, George Gulliver F R S , in his book, The Works of William Hewson, wrote: “She [Polly] had been upon terms of the warmest friendship with Dr  Franklin
Figure 5  No  7 Craven Street with Memorial Tablet  (Photo courtesy of British History Online, and the Survey of London)
since she was eighteen years of age  That eminent philosopher resided with her mother, Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, at No  7, Craven Street, Strand, during the fifteen years of his abode in London ”[18] Guide books mentioning Franklin at No  7 continued to proliferate throughout the century: Handbook for London; Past and Present, Volume I (1849);”[19] Handbook for Modern London (1851);”[20] The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events (1859);”[21] London and Its Environs (1879) [22] There was an anomaly when London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition (1880) placed Franklin at 27 Craven street [23] The anomaly lasted for six years until his place of residence was changed to No  7 in the revised edition, London  Illustrated by Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets (1886) [24] London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Volume 1 (1891), copied the 1849 Handbook for London almost word-for-word and included, “The house is on the right from the Strand ”[25] In October of 1867, The Society of Arts in London declared that: “In order to show how rich the metropolis is in the memory of important personages and events, which it would be desirable to mark by means of tablets on houses, the Council have caused an alphabetical list to be prepared, … ”[26] Franklin had been elected a corresponding member to the Society in 1756 and was a popular choice among Council members deciding who they were to memorialize [27] By January of 1870, a tablet honoring him was affixed to the house they believed to have been his residence while in London, No  7 Craven Street in the Strand on the west side of the street [28] A majority of historians writing about Franklin in the nineteenth and early twentieth century placed him at No  7: O  L  Holley, The Life of Benjamin Franklin (1848); E  M  Tomkinson, Benjamin Franklin (1885); John Torrey Morse, Benjamin Franklin (1891); Paul Elmer More, Benjamin Franklin (1900); John S  C  Abbot, Benjamin Franklin (1903); Sydney George Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin (1903)  A notable exception is D  H  Montgomery’s His Life Written by Himself published in 1896  He has Franklin at No  27 Craven Street  It seems then that depending upon the source, Franklin was thought to have lived at either No  7 or No  27, but not both, the overwhelming majority favoring No  7  As late as 2011, Franklin is still mentioned as living at No  7 [29]
In 1913, No  7 was scheduled to be torn down  An article in the March 1914 edition of The Book News Monthly, describes the situation:
As is well known to informed American pilgrims, it has been possible for all admirers of the famous philosopher and statesman to pay their respects to his memory before that house, No  7 Craven Street, just off the Strand, which was his chief home during his two sojourns in the British capital, but even as these lines are being written the London newspapers are recording that that interesting shrine is soon to be pulled down to make room for a restaurant  It is some mitigation of this misfortune to remember that at the most the Craven Street house was nothing more than a reproduction of the one in which Franklin had his suite of four rooms, for the structure has been rebuilt since Franklin’s time  When, then, some one makes a piteous plea that at least the philosopher’s bedroom shall be preserved, the soothing answer is that the apartment in question is only a replica of that in which the illustrious American enjoyed his well-earned slumbers in 1757-62 and 1764-75  The restaurant-builder, however, with an eye doubtless to possible American patronage, has assured the world that every effort will be made to preserve as much as possible of the entire structure [30]
Concerned with the possible demolition of Franklin’s residence, the Royal Society of Arts (formerly the Society of Arts[31]) initiated an inquiry into the matter [32] The London County Council, having taken over the responsibility of placing memorial tablets on notable houses from the Royal Society, was charged with the investigation  It ultimately fell to Sir George Laurence Gomme, a clerk to the Council, to come up with a response  A few years earlier Sir George had discovered Margaret Stevenson residing at No  27 Craven Street in the Westminster Rate Books  He must have wondered why No  7 on the west side of Craven Street was being celebrated as Franklin’s residence when the evidence clearly showed otherwise 
Sir George and his staff examined the various London directories discussed earlier and came up with a novel explanation for the discrepancy  They concluded that there had been two numbering systems on Craven Street  An anonymous author echoes Sir George’s conclusion about the two numbering systems in an article in The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
…an inspection of the directories of that time proves that there were at least two systems of numbering in Craven Street before the erection of the additional houses  According to one of these the numbers started from the top (Strand end) on the west side of the street, and ran down to the bottom to No  20, then crossed over and went back to the Strand along the east side – 21 to 36  According to the other system, the east side of the street was numbered from the bottom upwards, starting at No 1  This was not apparently in general use, but there is evidence that this numbering was at all events occasionally used 
The evidence of these two systems of numbering, and for believing that Mrs  Stevenson’s house was first No  7 under the oldest system, next No  27 under the second system, and finally No  36 under the latest and existing system, is to be found in the various directories and the Westminster rate-books [33]
The “evidence” mentioned above consisted of The London Directory’s listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9: “The rate-books for 1781 and 1786 show the house next but one to the north of Mrs  Stevenson’s house as in the occupation of Brown and ‘Whiteford,’ while the old directories mention the business of the firm as wine merchants, and give their address as 9, Craven Street – then a little later, down to 1791, as 29, Craven Street  Curiously enough, in the years 1778 to 1780, or 1781, Lowndes gives it as No  9, and Kent as 29 ”[34] Ignoring Kent’s Directory having Brown and Whiteford as 29 and The London Directory (Lowndes) having Brown and Whiteford “a little later” as 29, and knowing that Mrs  Stevenson lived two doors south of them, Sir George concluded that her house must have been numbered 7, even though there is no listing in any of the directories of her residence ever being No  7  He surmised that the No  7 on the west side of Craven Street with the memorial tablet thought to have been Franklin’s residence had simply been confused with number 7 (27) on the east side  Again from The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
Taking all the evidence together, there cannot be any doubt whatever that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court, first numbered 7, afterwards 27, and finally 36, and consequently that the house in which Franklin lived was that now numbered 36, not the one now numbered 7, on which the tablet is placed [35]
A response to The Royal Society of Arts was issued: “… the London County Council … informed the Society that it had made a mistake and that No  36 Craven street was the building that deserved commemoration ”[36] The Society accepted the Council’s conclusion, and despite assurances of preservation by the restaurant builder, No  7 was torn down the following year 
Sir George’s assertion “that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court” was correct, however, his assertion that it was “first numbered 7, afterwards 27”, was not  It was only by association with the errant entry of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 from 1776-1782 in The London Directory that Mrs  Stevenson’s address was conjured to be No  7  The problem with associating her address exclusively with that of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 during those years is that, as previously demonstrated, The London Directory also listed four other Craven Street residents, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie, who’s addresses did conform to the numbering system in The Westminster Rate Books  If Brown & Whiteford at No  9 was indicative of a numbering system different from The Westminster Rate Books, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie would have been listed as Nos  10, 11, 12, and 15, respectively  So on one hand Sir George was relying on the Westminster Rate Books to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27 and on the other hand he was dismissing the Westminster Rate Books to establish her at No  7  Instead of using the anomalous listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9, he could have just as easily, and more logically, used the Bond et al  listings, or the post-1782 Brown & Whiteford listing in the London Directory at No  29 to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27  Even if there had been two numbering systems, his assertion that No  27 was first numbered 7 would still be false  The earliest numbering system was the Westminster Rate Books dating from the early 1730s when the houses were constructed  Brown & Whiteford at No  9 didn’t appear until 46 years later and then only for a brief period 
There is ample evidence in Franklin’s correspondence and in a memoir by Polly Hewson (Mrs  Stevenson’s daughter) that Benjamin and Mrs  Stevenson lived in not one, but two houses on Craven Street  On July 6, 1772, Polly wrote to Benjamin from her house at Broad Street North in London: “My Mother I must tell you went off last friday week, took our little Boy with her and left Mr  Hewson [Polly’s husband, William] the care of her House [27 Craven Street]  The first thing he did was pulling down a part of it in order to turn it to his own purpose, and advantage we hope  This Demolition cannot affect you, who at present are not even a Lodger [Benjamin was traveling at the time], your litterary apartment remains untouch’d, the Door is lock’d …”[37] In a memoir about her husband written after his death Polly writes: “He [William Hewson] began his Lectures Sept  30, 1772, in Craven-street, where he had built a Theatre adjoining a house which he intended for the future residence of his family ”[38] On October 7, 1772, Benjamin wrote to his son William: “I am very well  But we [Mrs  Stevenson and I] are moving to another House in the same street; and I go down tomorrow to Lord LeDespencer’s to [stay a] Week till things are settled ”[39] To his son-in-law, Richard Bache, on the same day he wrote: “We are moving to another House in the [street] leaving this to Mr  Hewson ”[40] Writing to a friend on October 30, 1772 he explained: “I should sooner have answered your Questions but that in the Confusion of my Papers, occasioned by removing to another House, I could not readily find the Memorandums …”[41] On November 4, 1772 Benjamin informed his wife Deborah of the move  “We are removed to a more convenient House in the same street, Mrs  Stevenson having accommodated her Son-in-Law with that we lived in  The Removing has been a troublesome Affair, but is now over ”[42]
An agreement had been struck between the parties  Margaret and Benjamin would move to another house on Craven Street and allow Polly and William to move into No  27, the large yard behind the house being spacious enough to accommodate the anatomy school William wished to build [43] Perhaps the idea was inspired by Margaret’s next-door neighbor at No  26, Dr  John Leake, a man-midwife and founder of the Westminster Lying-in Hospital, who had built a theater adjoining his residence in which he practiced anatomy and taught midwifery [44]
After Margaret and Benjamin vacated No  27, Polly, William, their son William Jr , and William’s younger sister, Dorothy Hewson, took up residence there [45] In the 1773 Westminster Rate Books for Craven Street, Mrs  Stevenson’s (Stephenson in the Rate Books) name has been crossed out and replaced with “William Hewson ”[46] Further proof that the Hewsons had indeed moved into 27 Craven Street has been confirmed by the discovery of human and animal remains buried in the basement of No  36 (formerly No  27 and now the Benjamin Franklin House), a by-product of the dissections that took place at William’s anatomy school [47]
So what house on Craven Street did Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin move into after vacating No  27? An examination of the Westminster Rate Books for the years 1774 and 1775 reveal them living not at No  7 on the west side of Craven Street as one might expect from the overwhelming consensus of nineteenth century guidebooks and biographies, but surprisingly at No  1 [48] The controversy of No  7 being torn down was all for naught as it had never been Franklin’s residence  Sir George was correct on that point  Unfortunately, No  1 was torn down as well in the early part of the twentieth century  The first time No  1 is mentioned as Franklin’s second residence is in the Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-The-Fields II: the Strand published by the London County Council in 1937, ironically the same County Council that had declared No  36 as Franklin’s only residence twenty-four years earlier 
From 1748 until 1772 Margaret ‘Stephenson’ occupied this house [No  27 (36)], and it was there that Benjamin Franklin settled after his arrival in London in 1757 as Agent to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania … In October, 1772, Mrs  Stevenson and Franklin removed to No  1, Craven Street (now demolished), and No  36 was for the next two years occupied by William Hewson, surgeon, who had married Mary Stevenson [49]
In the spring of 1774, William Hewson died unexpectedly of septicemia two weeks after cutting himself while dissecting a cadaver  Polly was left to care for their two young sons and was pregnant with a daughter she would give birth to in August of the same year  Is it possible that Margaret and Benjamin moved back into No  27 to assist Polly after the death of her husband as suggested in The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin?[50]
If the Westminster Rate Books are to be believed, the answer is no  For the year 1774, the Rate Books list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and William Hewson at No  27  For the year 1775, they list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and Magnus Falkner (Falconer/Falconar) at No  27  Magnus was William’s assistant at the anatomy school and fiancé to William’s sister, Dorothy  On his death bed, William instructed Polly, “let Mr  Falconar be my successor ”[51] Magnus would immediately take over the running of the anatomy school and continue William’s unfinished research  Four months later, he and Dorothy would marry [52] Essentially only two things changed at 27 Craven Street after William’s death: Polly gave birth to her daughter, and Magnus replaced William as the lease holder, so even if Margaret and Benjamin had wished to move back into No  27, there would have been no room for them  It is also interesting to note that considering the multiple times Benjamin wrote of his move out of No  27 (and complained of it), he never once mentioned moving back into No  27 in any of his correspondence after Mr  Hewson’s death 
Figure 6  No  36 Craven Street  (Photo courtesy of David Ross, britainexpress com)
In sum, based on the Westminster Rate Books[53] and Franklin’s correspondence, Mrs  Stevenson is known to have resided at No  27 (36) Craven Street from 1748 to 1772  It follows that, aside from the two years Franklin spent in Philadelphia from 1762 to 1764, he resided there from 1757 to 1772  Franklin’s correspondence also reveals that in the autumn of 1772, he and Mrs  Stevenson moved to another house on Craven Street  The 1773 Westminster Rate Books show her name crossed off at No  27 and William Hewson’s inserted  The following year the Rate Books list her at No  1 Craven Street  Evidence for Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin remaining at No  1 after William’s death appears in the Westminster Rate Books for 1775 which have Mrs  Stevenson still residing at No  1 and Magnus Falkner residing at No  27  Further evidence can be construed from the lack of any mention of a move back into No  27 in Franklin’s correspondence  Despite the many theories one could devise as to why Franklin was thought to have lived at No  7 Craven Street by so many guide books and Franklin biographers of the nineteenth century, one thing is certain; at some point after Franklin’s departure to America in March of 1775, and no later than 1807, someone mistakenly associated him with No  7 on the west side of Craven Street, and it soon became his de facto residence  Credit must go to D  H  Montgomery in 1896 and Sir George in 1913 for setting the record partially straight by placing Franklin at No  27(36)  In 1937, the London County Council gave us the first accurate account of Franklin’s residences on Craven Street in the Survey of London at No  27(36) and No  1  It has been shown conclusively that No  27 was never previously numbered 7  It was, however, renumbered 36 in 1792 after ten additional houses were built at the southern end of the street and remains No  36 to this day 
[1] “Craven Street and Hungerford Lane”, in Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand, ed  G H Gater and E P Wheeler (London, 1937), 27-39, Early History of the Site 
http://www british-history ac uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp27-39
[2] “England, Westminster Rate Books, 1634-1900,” from database with images, Craven Street – 1735, FamilySearch from database by FindMyPast and images digitized by FamilySearch; citing Westminster City Archives, London 
[3] Ibid , Craven Street – 1748 
[4] The Statutes at Large, From Magna Charta to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain  Anno 1761 Continued, Vol  XXVII, ed  Danby Pickering, (Cambridge, John Archdeacon, 1767), 96 
[6] James Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth-Century England, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 201 
[7] The London Directory For the Year 1776, Ninth Edition, (London: T  Lowndes, 1776), title page 
[8] Kent’s Directory For the Year 1778, Forty-Sixth Edition, (London: Richard and Henry Causton, 1778), title page 
[9] A listing in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1882 on p  28 reveals, “Brown Sarah, Leather-seller, 1, Westmoreland-buildings, Aldersgate-street”, and in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1883 on p  175, “Whiteland Mary, Wine & Brandy Mercht  Jermyn-str  St  James ”
[10] “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin,” Sponsored by The American Philosophical Society and Yale University, Digital Edition by The Packard Humanities Institute, 22:263a 
http://franklinpapers org/franklin
Mrs  Stevenson wrote to Benjamin Franklin a letter from her new home at 75 Northumberland Court on November 16, 1775: “In this Court I have a kind friend, Mr  Lechmoen he comes and seats with me and talks of you with a hiy regard and friendship ”
[11] Survey of London, Early History of the Site 
[12] Survey of London, Footnotes/n 10 
[13] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  31 
[14] David Hughson, LL D , London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighbourhood, To Thirty Miles Extent, From An Actual Perambulation, Vol  IV, (London: W  Stratford, 1807), 227 
[15] The Reverend Joseph Nightingale, The Beauties of England and Wales: Or, Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County, Vol  X, Part III, Vol  II (London: J  Harris; Longman and Co ; J  Walker; R  Baldwin; Sherwood and Co ; J  and J  Cundee; B  and R  Crosby and Co ; J Cuthell; J  and J  Richardson; Cadell and Davies; C  and J  Rivington; and G  Cowie and Co , 1815), 245 
[16] John Britton, F S A  & Co , ed , The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved: Being A Correct Guide For The Stranger, As Well As For the Inhabitant, To The Metropolis Of The British Empire Together With A Description Of The Environs, The Twenty-Fourth Edition (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826), 479 
[17] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol  VII, (Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson, 1840), 151 
[18] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xx 
[19] Peter Cunningham, Handbook for London; Past and Present, Vol  I, (London: John Murray, 1849), 245 
[20] F  Saunders, Memories of the Great Metropolis: or, London, from the Tower to the Crystal Palace, (New York: G P  Putnam, MDCCCLII), 138 
[21] Leigh Hunt, The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events, (London: Smith, Elder and Co , 1859), 185 
[22] K  Baedeker, London and Its Environs, Including Excursions To Brighton, The Isle of Wight, Etc : Handbook For Travelers, Second Edition, (London: Dulau and Co , 1879), 133 
[23] Herbert Fry, London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition, (New York: Scribner, Welford, & Co , 1880), 50 
[24] Herbert Fry, London  Illustrated By Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, (London: W  H  Allen and Co , 1886), 40 
[25] Henry B  Wheatley, F S A , London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Vol  1, (London: John Murray, New York: Scribner & Welford, 1891), 473 
[26] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XV, No  778, (October 18, 1867): 717 
[27] D  G  C  Allen, “Dear and Serviceable to Each Other: Benjamin Franklin and the Royal Society of Arts,” American Philosophical Society, Vol  144, No  3, (September 2000): 248-249 
Franklin was a corresponding member in 1756 because he was still residing in Philadelphia  He became an active member the following year when he moved to London 
[28] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XVIII, No  894, (Jan  7, 1870): 137 
“Since the last announcement, the following tablets have been affixed on houses formerly occupied by – Benjamin Franklin, 7 Craven-street, Strand, W C ”
[29] Franklin in His Own Time, eds  Kevin J  Haytes and Isabelle Bour, (Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 2011), xxxvii 
“Takes lodgings with Margaret Stevenson at No  7 Craven Street ” It is unknown if the editors are referring to No  7 on the west side of Craven Street or No  36 on the east side using Sir George’s explanation of No  36 being previously numbered 7 
[30] Henry C  Shelly, “American Shrines on English Soil, III  In the Footprints of Benjamin Franklin,” in The Book News Monthly, September, 1913 to August, 1914, (Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1914), 325 
[31] The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol  LVI, No  2,880, (Jan  31, 1908): 245 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058423073;view=1up;seq=251
“His Majesty the King, who is Patron of the Society, has granted permission to the Society to prefix to its title the term ‘Royal,’ and the Society will consequently be known in future as the ‘Royal Society of Arts ’”
[32] Nineteenth Annual Report, 1914, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, (Albany: J  B  Lyon Company, 1914), 293 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=wu 89072985302;view=1up;seq=4;size=150
[33] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  LXII, No  3,183, (Nov  21, 1913): 18 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058422968;view=1up;seq=26
[36] Allen, “Dear and Serviceable,” 263-264 
[37] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:20 
[38] Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, F  L  S , Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late John Coakley Lettsom With a Selection From His Correspondence, Vol  I, (London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1817), 144 of Correspondence 
[39] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:321b 
[40] Ibid , 19:314 
[41] Ibid , 19:353a 
[43] Simon David John Chaplin, John Hunter and the ‘museum oeconomy’, 1750-1800, Department of History, King’s College London  Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London , 202 
“Following Falconar’s death [1778] the lease [27 Craven Street] was advertised, and the buildings were described as:
A genteel and commodious house, in good Repair, with Coach-house and Stabling for two Horses…consisting of two rooms and light closets on each floor, with outbuildings in the Yard, a Museum, a Compleat Theatre, and other conveniences  (Daily Advertiser, 27 August 1778)”
[44] Simon Chaplin, “Dissection and Display in Eighteenth-Century London,” in Anatomical Dissection in Enlightenment England and Beyond: Autopsy, Pathology and Display, ed  Dr  Piers Mitchell, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012), 108 
“Given that a nearby building at 35 [ No  26 in Franklin’s time] was occupied by the man-midwife John Leake, who advertised lectures – including lessons in the art of making preparations – at his ‘theatre’ between 1764 and 1788, it is possible that some facilities were shared  In both cases, however, the buildings [Leake’s residence at No  26 and Hewson’s residence next door at 27] served a dual function as domestic accommodation and as sites for lecturing and dissection ”
[45] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xviii 
[46] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1773, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[47] S W  Hillson et al , “Benjamin Franklin, William Hewson, and the Craven Street Bones,” Archaeology International, Vol  2, (Nov  22, 1998): 14-16 
http://dx doi org/10 5334/ai 0206
[48] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1774, 1775, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[49] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  36, Craven Street (not sourced) 
[50] Gordon S  Wood, The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), 261 
[51] Pettigrew, Memoirs, 146 of Correspondence 
[52] http://founders archives gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0178, note 7  “Falconar married Hewson’s sister five months after the Doctor’s death; most of the Craven Street circle attended the wedding, and BF gave away the bride: Polly to Barbara Hewson, Oct  4, 1774, APS” (American Philosophical Society); “England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch org/ark:/61903/1:1:V52W-TGS : accessed September 15, 2015), Magnus Falconar and Dorothy Hewson, September 12, 1774; citing Saint Martin In The Fields, Westminster, London, England, reference ; FHL microfilm 561156, 561157, 561158, 942 B4HA V  25, 942 B4HA V  66 
[53] I chose to rely on the Westminster Rate Books for the numbering system on Craven Street  The books were consistent throughout the eighteenth century in the ordering of residents on the street and were used as the basis for the 1792 re-numbering  For the most part, commercial directories aligned with them as well  If by chance a directory didn’t initially align, it would inevitably produce future editions that did 
Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin House, London
More from David Turnquist
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might   
I think it’s very ironic that on the street maps included in your excellent article, Craven Street is so close to Scotland Yard  Because following the back and forth juxtapositions of numbers 7, 27 and 36 Craven Street (throw in 75 Northumberland Court and 1 Craven Street, too) was a case that could confound Sherlock Holmes 
Excellent job of deciphering street renumbering material spanning sixty years, including that of a wrong house number (# 7) being erroneously identified and then perpetuated in subsequent street map printings  It’s gratifying at least to know that the present day #36 Craven Street is the correct house for Ben Franklin tourists to visit  Except for #1 Craven Street for the last three years Franklin was in London, but we won’t get into that 
Again, excellent article, David!
Context 3: '无锡速芯微电子有限公司是一家集芯片 研发，销售和服务于一体的国家高新技 术企业，为客户提供高性能，高集成 度，极致体验的全协议快充芯片。 无锡速芯微电子有限公司 FastSOC Microelectronics Co ,Ltd  销售联系方式： 联系人：顾先生 手机：1800 185 3071 邮箱：gpp@fastsoc com 网址：www fastsoc com 地址：无锡市新吴区菱湖大道200号中国物联网国际创新园E-503室 顾工微信号 速芯微公众号 免责声明：本文所述方法、方案均供客户参考，用于提示或者展示芯片应用的一种或者多种方式，不作为最终产品的实际方案。文中所描述的功能和性能指标在实 验室环境下测试得到，部分可以提供第三方测试报告，但是不保证客户产品上能获得相同的数据。本文信息只作为芯片使用的指导，不授权用户使用本公司或者其 他公司的知识产权。本文信息只作为芯片使用的指导，不承担因为客户自身应用不当而造成的任何损失。 **文中信息仅供参考，详情请联系我司获取最新资料” 无锡速芯微电子有限公司 FastSOC Microelectronics Co ,Ltd  产品手册 2023年 
新品快览 FS312A：PD3 0 诱骗- FS312A支持PD2 0/PD3 0最高诱骗电压：20V - FS312AE支持PD2 0/PD3 0 最高诱骗电压：20V支持Emarker模拟功能 - 封装：SOT23-5 VBUS CC1 CC2 DM DP 用电电路 4 7K 0 47uF R C C 1 V D D F U N C C C 2F S 3 1 2 B D M D P EP GND 应用图 FS8628：A+C快充协议CC2 CC1 VBUS CC2 CC1 FS312A FUNC GND VDD 4 7K GND R 用电电路 1uF GND 应用图 多口极简方案 FS8611SP*2+CCM-8611SP-A+7533B-T 双C智能降功率方案 FS8611S USB-C AC-DC 双变压器 7533B-T CCM-8611SP-A FS8611S USB-C 采用2颗FS8611SP搭配CCM-8611SP-A （MCU），7533B-T配合工作 - 支持多种协议 - 支持I2C控制 - 任意单 C 的为 35W - 双 插 降 功 率 ， 三 档 功 率 智 能 配 置：27 4W+7 4W；17 4W+17 4W； 27 4W - BOM极简，成本低 FS312B：PD3 1 诱骗FS8611K*2+CCM-8611K-A+7550B-T 双C方案 - FS312BL支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：20V - FS312BLE支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：20V支持Emarker模拟功能 - FS312BH支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：48V - FS312BHE支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：48V 支持Emarker模拟功能 - 封装：DFN2x2-6L - 兼容兼容BC1 2、Apple2 4A、 QC2 0 Class A、QC3 0 Class A/B、 FCP、SCP、AFC、低压直充等 - 兼容Type-C PD2 0、Type-C PD3 0、 Type-C PD3



ground_truth: 1766.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What factors control the reliance of artificial organisms on plasticity?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: Paper Info

Title: Environmental variability and network structure determine the optimal plasticity mechanisms in embodied agents
Publish Date: Unkown
Author List: Sina Khajehabdollahi (from Department of Computer Science, University of Tübingen)

Figure

Figure2: An outline of the network controlling the foraging agent The sensor layer receives inputs at each time step (the ingredients of the nearest food), which are processed by the plastic layer in the same way as the static sensory network, Fig 1 The output of that network is given as input to the motor network, along with the distance d and angle α to the nearest food, the current velocity v, and energy E of the agent These signals are processed through two hidden layers to the final output of motor commands as the linear and angular acceleration of the agent
Figure4: The evolved parameters θ = (θ 1 ,      , θ 8 ) of the plasticity rule for the reward prediction (a ) and the decision (b ) tasks, for a variety of parameters (p tr = 0 01, d e ∈ 0, 0 1,      , 1, and σ ∈ 0, 0 1,      , 1 in all 100 combinations) Despite the relatively small difference between the tasks, the evolved learning rules differ considerably For visual guidance, the lines connect θs from the same run 
Figure5: a The trajectory of an agent (blue line) in the 2D environment A well-trained agent will approach and consume food with positive values (green dots) and avoid negative food (red dots) b The learning rate of the plastic sensory network eta p grows with the distance between environments d e c  and decreases with the frequency of environmental change d The fitness of an agent (measured as the total food consumed over its lifetime) increases over generations of the EA for both the scalar and binary readouts in the sensory network e The Pearson correlation coefficient of an evolved agent's weights with the ingredient value vector of the current environment (E 1 -blue, E 2 -red) In this example, the agent's weights are anti-correlated with its environment, which is not an issue for performance since the motor network can interpret the inverted signs of food 

abstract

The evolutionary balance between innate and learned behaviors is highly intricate, and different organisms have found different solutions to this problem  We hypothesize that the emergence and exact form of learning behaviors is naturally connected with the statistics of environmental fluctuations and tasks an organism needs to solve 
Here, we study how different aspects of simulated environments shape an evolved synaptic plasticity rule in static and moving artificial agents  We demonstrate that environmental fluctuation and uncertainty control the reliance of artificial organisms on plasticity  Interestingly, the form of the emerging plasticity rule is additionally determined by the details of the task the artificial organisms are aiming to solve 
Moreover, we show that coevolution between static connectivity and interacting plasticity mechanisms in distinct sub-networks changes the function and form of the emerging plasticity rules in embodied agents performing a foraging task  One of the defining features of living organisms is their ability to adapt to their environment and incorporate new information to modify their behavior 
It is unclear how the ability to learn first evolved , but its utility appears evident  Natural environments are too complex for all the necessary information to be hardcoded genetically and more importantly, they keep changing during an organism's lifetime in ways that cannot be anticipated ;   The link between learning and environmental uncertainty and fluctuation has been extensively demonstrated in both natural ; , and artificial environments  
Nevertheless, the ability to learn does not come without costs  For the capacity to learn to be beneficial in evolutionary terms, a costly nurturing period is often required, a phenomenon observed in both biological , and artificial organisms   Additionally, it has been shown that in some complex environments, hardcoded behaviors may be superior to learned ones given limits in the agent's lifetime and envi-ronmental uncertainty ; ;  
The theoretical investigation of the optimal balance between learned and innate behaviors in natural and artificial systems goes back several decades  However, it has recently found also a wide range of applications in applied AI systems ;   Most AI systems are trained for specific tasks, and have no need for modification after their training has been completed 
Still, technological advances and the necessity to solve broad families of tasks make discussions about life-like AI systems relevant to a wide range of potential application areas  Thus the idea of open-ended AI agents that can continually interact with and adapt to changing environments has become particularly appealing 
Many different approaches for introducing lifelong learning in artificial agents have been proposed  Some of them draw direct inspiration from actual biological systems ;   Among them, the most biologically plausible solution is to equip artificial neural networks with some local neural plasticity , similar to the large variety of synaptic plasticity mechanisms ; ; that performs the bulk of the learning in the brains of living organisms  
The artificial plasticity mechanisms can be optimized to modify the connectivity of the artificial neural networks toward solving a particular task  The optimization can use a variety of approaches, most commonly evolutionary computation  The idea of meta-learning or optimizing synaptic plasticity rules to perform specific functions has been recently established as an engineering tool that can compete with stateof-the-art machine learning algorithms on various complex tasks ; ; Pedersen and Risi (2021);  
Additionally, it can be used to reverse engineer actual plasticity mechanisms found in biological neural networks and uncover their functions ;   Here, we study the effect that different factors (environ-arXiv:2303 06734v1 [q-bio NC] 12 Mar 2023 mental fluctuation and reliability, task complexity) have on the form of evolved functional reward-modulated plasticity rules 
We investigate the evolution of plasticity rules in static, single-layer simple networks  Then we increase the complexity by switching to moving agents performing a complex foraging task  In both cases, we study the impact of different environmental parameters on the form of the evolved plasticity mechanisms and the interaction of learned and static network connectivity 
Interestingly, we find that different environmental conditions and different combinations of static and plastic connectivity have a very large impact on the resulting plasticity rules  We imagine an agent who must forage to survive in an environment presenting various types of complex food particles  Each food particle is composed of various amounts and combinations of N ingredients that can have positive (food) or negative (poison) values 
The value of a food particle is a weighted sum of its ingredients  To predict the reward value of a given resource, the agent must learn the values of these ingredients by interacting with the environment  The priors could be generated by genetic memory, but the exact values are subject to change  To introduce environmental variability, we stochastically change the values of the ingredients 
More precisely, we define two ingredient-value distributions E 1 and E 2 and switch between them, with probability p tr for every time step  We control how (dis)similar the environments are by parametrically setting E 2 = (1 − 2d e )E 1 , with d e ∈ [0, 1] serving as a distance proxy for the environments; when d e = 0, the environment remains unchanged, and when d e = 1 the value of each ingredient fully reverses when the environmental transition happens 
For simplicity, we take values of the ingredients in E 1 equally spaced between -1 and 1 (for the visualization, see Fig  )  The static agent receives passively presented food as a vector of ingredients and can assess its compound value using the linear summation of its sensors with the (learned or evolved) weights, see Fig   
The network consists of N sensory neurons that are projecting to a single post-synaptic neuron  At each time step, an input X t = (x 1 ,       , x N ) is presented, were the value x i , i ∈ {1,       , N } represents the quantity of the ingredient i  We draw x i independently form a uniform distribution on the [0, 1] interval (x i ∼ U (0, 1)) 
The value of each ingredient w c i is determined by the environment (E 1 or E 2 )  The postsynaptic neuron outputs a prediction of the food X t value as y t = g(W X T t )  Throughout the paper, g will be either the identity function, in which case the prediction neuron is linear, or a step-function; however, it could be any other nonlinearity, such as a sigmoid or ReLU 
After outputting the prediction, the neuron receives feedback in the form of the real value of the input R t   The real value is computed as R t = W c X T t + ξ, where W c = (w c 1 ,       , w c N ) is the actual value of the ingredients, and ξ is a term summarizing the noise of reward and sensing system ξ ∼ N (0, σ) 
Figure : An outline of the static agent's network  The sensor layer receives inputs representing the quantity of each ingredient of a given food at each time step  The agent computes the prediction of the food's value y t and is then given the true value R t ; it finally uses this information in the plasticity rule to update the weight matrix 
For the evolutionary adjustment of the agent's parameters, the loss of the static agent is the sum of the mean squared errors (MSE) between its prediction y t and the reward R t over the lifetime of the agent  The agent's initial weights are set to the average of the two ingredient value distributions, which is the optimal initial value for the case of symmetric switching of environments that we consider here 
As a next step, we incorporate the sensory network of static agents into embodied agents that can move around in an environment scattered with food  To this end, we merge the static agent's network with a second, non-plastic motor network that is responsible for controlling the motion of the agent in the environment 
Specifically, the original plastic network now provides the agent with information about the value of the nearest food  The embodied agent has additional sensors for the distance from the nearest food, the angle between the current velocity and the nearest food direction, its own velocity, and its own energy level (sum of consumed food values) 
These inputs are processed by two hidden layers (of 30 and 15 neurons) with tanh activation  The network's outputs are angular and linear acceleration, Fig    The embodied agents spawn in a 2D space with periodic boundary conditions along with a number of food particles that are selected such that the mean of the food value distribution is ∼ 0  An agent can eat food by approaching it sufficiently closely, and each time a food particle is eaten, it is The sensor layer receives inputs at each time step (the ingredients of the nearest food), which are processed by the plastic layer in the same way as the static sensory network, Fig   
The output of that network is given as input to the motor network, along with the distance d and angle α to the nearest food, the current velocity v, and energy E of the agent  These signals are processed through two hidden layers to the final output of motor commands as the linear and angular acceleration of the agent re-spawned with the same value somewhere randomly on the grid (following the setup of ) 
After 5000 time steps, the cumulative reward of the agent (the sum of the values of all the food it consumed) is taken as its fitness  During the evolutionary optimization, the parameters for both the motor network (connections) and plastic network (learning rule parameters) are co-evolved, and so agents must simultaneously learn to move and discriminate good/bad food 
Reward-modulated plasticity is one of the most promising explanations for biological credit assignment   In our network, the plasticity rule that updates the weights of the linear sensor network is a rewardmodulated rule which is parameterized as a linear combination of the input, the output, and the reward at each time step:
Additionally, after each plasticity step, the weights are normalized by mean subtraction, an important step for the stabilization of Hebbian-like plasticity rules   We use a genetic algorithm to optimize the learning rate η p and amplitudes of different terms θ = (θ 1 ,       , θ 8 )  The successful plasticity rule after many food presentations must converge to a weight vector that predicts the correct food values (or allows the agent to correctly decide whether to eat a food or avoid it) 
To have comparable results, we divide θ = (θ 1 ,       , θ 8 ) by We then multiply the learning rate η p with θ max to maintain the rule's evolved form unchanged, η norm p = η p • θ max   In the following, we always use normalized η p and θ, omitting norm   To evolve the plasticity rule and the moving agents' motor networks, we use a simple genetic algorithm with elitism  
The agents' parameters are initialized at random (drawn from a Gaussian distribution), then the sensory network is trained by the plasticity rule and finally, the agents are evaluated  After each generation, the bestperforming agents (top 10 % of the population size) are selected and copied into the next generation 
The remaining 90 % of the generation is repopulated with mutated copies of the best-performing agents  We mutate agents by adding independent Gaussian noise (σ = 0 1) to its parameters  To start with, we consider a static agent whose goal is to identify the value of presented food correctly  The static reward-prediction network quickly evolves the parameters of the learning rule, successfully solving the prediction task 
We first look at the evolved learning rate η p , which determines how fast (if at all) the network's weight vector is updated during the lifetime of the agents  We identify three factors that control the learning rate parameter the EA converges to: the distance between the environments, the noisiness of the reward, and the rate of environmental transition 
The first natural factor is the distance d e between the two environments, with a larger distance requiring a higher learning rate, Fig    This is an expected result since the convergence time to the "correct" weights is highly dependent on the initial conditions  If an agent is born at a point very close to optimality, which naturally happens if the environments are similar, the distance it needs to traverse on the fitness landscape is small 
Therefore it can afford to have a small learning rate, which leads to a more stable convergence and is not affected by noise  A second parameter that impacts the learning rate is the variance of the rewards  The reward an agent receives for the plasticity step contains a noise term ξ that is drawn from a zero mean Gaussian distribution with standard deviation σ 
This parameter controls the unreliability of the agent's sensory system, i e , higher σ means that the information the agent gets about the value of the foods it consumes cannot be fully trusted to reflect the actual value of the foods  As σ increases, the learning rate η p decreases, which means that the more unreliable an environment becomes, the less an agent relies on plasticity to update its weights, Fig   
Indeed for some combinations of relatively small distance d e and high reward variance σ, the EA converges to a learning rate of η p ≈ 0  This means that the agent opts to have no adaptation during its lifetime and remain at the mean of the two environments  It is an optimal solution when the expected loss due to ignoring the environmental transitions is, on average, lower than the loss the plastic network will incur by learning via the (often misleading because of the high σ) environmental cues 
A final factor that affects the learning rate the EA will converge to is the frequency of environmental change during an agent's lifetime  Since the environmental change is modeled as a simple, two-state Markov process (Fig  ), the control parameter is the transition probability p tr   When keeping everything else the same, the learning rate rapidly rises as we increase the transition probability from 0, and after reaching a peak, it begins to decline slowly, eventually reaching zero (Fig  ) 
This means that when environmental transition is very rare, agents opt for a very low learning rate, allowing a slow and stable convergence to an environment-appropriate weight vector that leads to very low losses while the agent remains in that environment  As the rate of environmental transition increases, faster learning is required to speed up convergence in order to exploit the (comparatively shorter) stays in each environment 
Finally, as the environmental transition becomes too fast, the agents opt for slower or even no learning, which keeps them ) and the decision (b ) tasks, for a variety of parameters (p tr = 0 01, d e ∈ 0, 0 1,       , 1, and σ ∈ 0, 0 1,       , 1 in all 100 combinations)  Despite the relatively small difference between the tasks, the evolved learning rules differ considerably 
For visual guidance, the lines connect θs from the same run  near the middle of the two environments, ensuring that the average loss of the two environments is minimal (Fig  )  The form of the evolved learning rule depends on the task: Decision vs  Prediction The plasticity parameters θ = (θ 1 ,       , θ 8 ) for the rewardprediction task converge on approximately the same point, regardless of the environmental parameters (Fig  ) 
In particular, θ 3 → 1, θ 5 → −1, θ i → 0 for all other i, and thus the learning rule converges to: Since by definition y t = g(W t X T t ) = W t X T t (g(x) = x in this experiment) and R t = W c X T t + ξ we get: Thus the distribution of ∆W t converges to a distribution with mean 0 and variance depending on η p and σ and W converges to W c  
So this learning rule will match the agent's weight vector with the vector of ingredient values in the environment  We examine the robustness of the learning rule the EA discovers by considering a slight modification of our task  Instead of predicting the expected food value, the agent now needs to decide whether to eat the presented food or not 
This is done by introducing a step-function nonlinearity (g(x) = 1 if x ≥ 1 and 0 otherwise)  Then the output y(t) is computed as: Instead of the MSE loss between prediction and actual value, the fitness of the agent is now defined as the sum of the food values it chose to consume (by giving y t = 1)  Besides these two changes, the setup of the experiments remains exactly the same 
The qualitative relation between η p and parameters of environment d e , σ and p tr is preserved in the changed experiment  However, the resulting learning rule is significantly different (Fig  )  The evolution converges to the following learning rule: In both cases, the rule has the form ∆W t = η p X t [α y R t + β y ] 
Thus, the ∆W t is positive or negative depending on whether the reward R t is above or below a threshold (γ = −β y /α y ) that depends on the output decision of the network (y t = 0 or 1)  Both learning rules (for the reward-prediction and decision tasks) have a clear Hebbian form (coordination of preand post-synaptic activity) and use the incoming reward signal as a threshold 
These similarities indicate some common organizing principles of reward-modulated learning rules, but their significant differences highlight the sensitivity of the optimization process to task details  We now turn to the moving embodied agents in the 2D environment  To optimize these agents, both the motor network's connections and the sensory network's plasticity parameters evolve simultaneously 
Since the motor network is initially random and the agent has to move to find food, the number of interactions an agent experiences in its lifetime can be small, slowing down the learning  However, having the larger motor network also has benefits for evolution because it allows the output of the plastic network to be read out and transformed in different ways, resulting in a broad set of solutions 
The fitness of an agent (measured as the total food consumed over its lifetime) increases over generations of the EA for both the scalar and binary readouts in the sensory network  e  The Pearson correlation coefficient of an evolved agent's weights with the ingredient value vector of the current environment (E 1 -blue, E 2 -red) 
In this example, the agent's weights are anti-correlated with its environment, which is not an issue for performance since the motor network can interpret the inverted signs of food  The agents can solve the task effectively by evolving a functional motor network and a plasticity rule that converges to interpretable weights (Fig  ) 
After ∼ 100 evolutionary steps (Fig  ), the agents can learn the ingredient value distribution using the plastic network and reliably move towards foods with positive values while avoiding the ones with negative values  We compare the dependence of the moving and the static agents on the parameters of the environment: d e and the state transition probability p tr  
At first, in order to simplify the experiment, we set the transition probability to 0, but fixed the initial weights to be the average of E 1 and E 2 , while the real state is E 2   In this experiment, the distance between states d e indicates twice the distance between the agent's initial weights and the optimal weights (the environment's ingredient values) since the agent is initialized at the mean of the two environment distributions 
Same as for the static agent, the learning rate increases with the distance d e (Fig  )  Then, we examine the effect of the environmental transition probability p tr on the evolved learning rate η p   In order for an agent to get sufficient exposure to each environment, we scale down the probability p tr from the equivalent experiment for the static agents 
We find that as the probability of transition increases, the evolved learning rate η p decreases (Fig  )  This fits with the larger trend for the static agent, although there is a clear difference when it comes to the increase for very small transition probabil-ities that were clearly identifiable in the static but not the moving agents 
This could be due to much sparser data and possibly the insufficiently long lifetime of the moving agent (the necessity of scaling makes direct comparisons difficult)  Nevertheless, overall we see that the associations observed in the static agents between environmental distance d e and transition probability p tr and the evolved learning rate η p are largely maintained in the moving agents 
Still, more data would be needed to make any conclusive assertions about the exact effect of these environmental parameters on the emerging plasticity mechanisms  A crucial difference between the static and the moving agents is the function the plasticity has to perform  While in the static agents, the plasticity has to effectively identify the exact value distribution of the environment in order to produce accurate predictions, in the embodied agents, the plasticity has to merely produce a representation of the environment that the motor network can evolve to interpret adequately enough to make decisions about which food to consume 
To illustrate the difference, we plot the Pearson correlation coefficient between an agent's weights and the ingredient values of the environment it is moving in (Fig  )  We use the correlation instead of the MSE loss (which we used for the static agents in Fig  ) because the amplitude of the vector varies a lot for different agents and meaningful The evolved parameters of moving agents' plasticity rule for the g(s) = x, identity (a ) and the step function (Eq 
4) (b ) sensory networks (the environmental parameters here are d e ∈ [0, 1], σ = 0 and p tr = 0 001)  The step function (binary output) network evolved a more structured plasticity rule (e g , θ 3 > 0 for all realizations) than the linear network  Moreover, the learned weights for the identity network (c ) have higher variance and correlate significantly less with the environment's ingredient distribution compared to the learned weights for the thresholded network (d )
conclusions cannot be drawn from the MSE loss  For many agents, the learned weights are consistently anti-correlated with the actual ingredient values (an example of such an agent is shown in Fig  )  This means that the output of the sensory network will have the opposite sign from the actual food value 
While in the static network, this would lead to very bad predictions and high loss, in the foraging task, these agents perform exactly as well as the ones where the weights and ingredients values are positively correlated, since the motor network can simply learn to move towards food for which it gets a negative instead of a positive sensory input 
This additional step of the output of the plastic network going through the motor network before producing any behavior has a strong effect on the plasticity rules that the embodied agents evolve  Specifically, if we look at the emerging rules the top performing agents have evolved (Fig  ), it becomes clear that, unlike the very well-structured rules of the static agents (Fig  ), there is now virtually no discernible pattern or structure 
The difference becomes even clearer if we look at the learned weights (at the end of a simulation) of the best-performing agents (Fig  )  While there is some correlation with the environment's ingredient value distribution, the variance is very large, and they do not seem to converge on the "correct" values in any way 
This is to some extent expected since, unlike the static agents where the network's output has to be exactly correct, driving the evolution of rules that converge to the precise environmental distribution, in the embodied networks, the bulk of the processing is done by the motor network which can evolve to interpret the scalar value of the sensory network's output in a variety of ways 
Thus, as long as the sensory network's plasticity rule co-evolves with the motor network, any plasticity rule that learns to produce consistent information about the value of encountered food can potentially be selected  To further test this assumption, we introduce a bottleneck of information propagation between the sensory and motor networks by using a step-function nonlinearity on the output of the sensory network (Eq 
4)  Similarly to the decision task of the static network, the output of the sensory network now becomes binary  This effectively reduces the flow of information from the sensory to the motor network, forcing the sensory network to consistently decide whether food should be consumed (with the caveat that the motor network can still interpret the binary sign in either of two ways, either consuming food marked with 1 or the ones marked with 0 by the sensory network) 
The agents perform equally well in this variation of the task as before (Fig  ), but now, the evolved plasticity rules seem to be more structured (Fig  )  Moreover, the variance of the learned weights in the bestperforming agents is significantly reduced (Fig  ), which indicates that the bottleneck in the sensory network is in-creasing selection pressure for rules that learn the environment's food distribution accurately 
We find that different sources of variability have a strong impact on the extent to which evolving agents will develop neuronal plasticity mechanisms for adapting to their environment  A diverse environment, a reliable sensory system, and a rate of environmental change that is neither too large nor too small are necessary conditions for an agent to be able to effectively adapt via synaptic plasticity 
Additionally, we find that minor variations of the task an agent has to solve or the parametrization of the network can give rise to significantly different plasticity rules  Our results partially extend to embodied artificial agents performing a foraging task  We show that environmental variability also pushes the development of plasticity in such agents 
Still, in contrast to the static agents, we find that the interaction of a static motor network with a plastic sensory network gives rise to a much greater variety of wellfunctioning learning rules  We propose a potential cause of this degeneracy; as the relatively complex motor network is allowed to read out and process the outputs from the plastic network, any consistent information coming out of these outputs can be potentially interpreted in a behaviorally useful way 
Reducing the information the motor network can extract from the sensory system significantly limits learning rule variability  Our findings on the effect of environmental variability concur with the findings of previous studies that have identified the constraints that environmental variability places on the evolutionary viability of learning behaviors 
We extend these findings in a mechanistic model which uses a biologically plausible learning mechanism (synaptic plasticity)  We show how a simple evolutionary algorithm can optimize the different parameters of a simple reward-modulated plasticity rule for solving simple prediction and decision tasks 
Reward-modulated plasticity has been extensively studied as a plausible mechanism for credit assignment in the brain ; ; and has found several applications in artificial intelligence and robotics tasks ;   Here, we demonstrate how such rules can be very well-tuned to take into account different environmental parameters and produce optimal behavior in simple systems 
Additionally, we demonstrate how the co-evolution of plasticity and static functional connectivity in different subnetworks fundamentally changes the evolutionary pressures on the resulting plasticity rules, allowing for greater diversity in the form of the learning rule and the resulting learned connectivity 
Several studies have demonstrated how, in biological networks, synaptic plasticity heavily interacts with and is driven by network topology   Moreover, it has been recently demonstrated that biological plasticity mechanisms are highly redundant in the sense that any observed neural connectivity or recorded activity can be achieved with a variety of distinct, unrelated learning rules  
This observed redundancy of learning rules in biological settings complements our results and suggests that the function of plasticity rules cannot be studied independently of the connectivity and topology of the networks they are acting on  The optimization of functional plasticity in neural networks is a promising research direction both as a means to understand biological learning processes and as a tool for building more autonomous artificial systems 
Our results suggest that reward-modulated plasticity is highly adaptable to different environments and can be incorporated into larger systems that solve complex tasks  This work studies a simplified toy model of neural network learning in stochastic environments  Future work could be built on this basic framework to examine more complex reward distributions and sources of environmental variability 
Moreover, a greater degree of biological realism could be added by studying more plausible network architectures (multiple plastic layers, recurrent and feedback connections) and more sophisticated plasticity rule parametrizations  Additionally, our foraging simulations were constrained by limited computational resources and were far from exhaustive 
Further experiments can investigate environments with different constraints, food distributions, multiple seasons, more complex motor control systems and interactions of those systems with different sensory networks as well as the inclusion of plasticity on the motor parts of the artificial organisms 



ground_truth: Environmental fluctuation and uncertainty control the reliance of artificial organisms on plasticity.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: 对于PD3.0协议，FS312BH支持的最高诱骗电压是多少？

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: 0 PPS、QC4 0协议 - 支持两路DP/DM - 支持CV/CC（分段CC）功能 - 支持定制PDO - 支持A+C双口工作，电压自动回5V - 支持FB/OPTO反馈 - 封装：QFN3x3-20L VPWR FB PowerSystem 100K GND R1 GND 19 VIN 17 FB FUNC1 FUNC2 20 15 18 13 PLUGIND VFB FS8628 QFN3x3-20L AGATE 47K 7 5K 47K 7 5K 1 16 8 7 3 4 5 6 10 9 11 CGATE CVBUS CC2 CC1 CDP CDM AVBUS DM DP ISP ISN 12 应用图 2 V3P3 100Ω 1u EP GND GND CVBUS TYPE- C CC2 CC1 CDP CDM CGND TYPE-A AVBUS DM DP 10n 200 AGND 5mΩ GND FS8611K USB-C AC-DC DC-DC 7550B-T CCM-8611K-A FS8611K USB-C 采用2颗FS8611K搭配CCM-8611K-A （MCU）工作，7550B-T配合工作 - 支持PD2 0/PD3 0/QC2 0/AFC/FCP - 支持PDO定制 - 任意单 C 的为 35W(可定制) - 双插18W（可定制15W/20W） - BOM极简，成本低 FS212C+ACM-212C-A+7550B-T 双C方案 FS212C USB-C AC-DC DC-DC 7550B-T ACM-212C-A FS8623B-A+C方案 AC-DC DC-DC FS8623B USB-A USB-C USB-A 采 用 1 颗 F S 2 1 2 C 搭 配 ACM-212C-A 工 作，7550B-T配合工作 - 支持PD2 0/PD3 0 - 支持PDO定制 - 任意单 C 的为20W - 双插7 5W回5V - BOM极简，成本低 采用一颗FS8623B实现A+C方案 - 兼容兼容Apple2 4A/低压直充 QC2 0 Class A/QC3 0 Class A/B/ FCP/SCP等 - 兼 容Type -C PD2 0 / PD3 0 / PD3 0PPS/QC4 0协议 - 支持PDO定制 - 双插回5V 
多口方案选型 产品选型 受电端芯片选型 速芯微现有多种多口的方案选择：A+C，C+C，C+C+A，C+C+C，C+C+A+A等方案。对于 A+C的方案，可使用1颗芯片实现，也可用多颗芯片来实现。 速芯微现有多种受电端诱骗芯片，客户可根据应用需求进行选择。 受电端诱骗芯片应用领域 筋膜枪 无线充 线材 无人机 产品型号 PD2 0 PD3 0 PD3 1 第三方协议 诱骗电压(V) 控制方式 内置Emarker 定制 封装 FS312A √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 SOT23-5 FS312AE √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 SOT23-5 FS312BL √ √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BLE √ √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BH √ √ √ √ 5/20/28/36/48 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BHE √ √ √ √ 5/20/28/36/48 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312LC √ √ √ 5/9/12 电阻阻值 可变第三方 协议 SSOP10 FS312HC √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变第三方 协议 SSOP10 FS2711Q √ √ √ 任意设置 I2C √ QFN3x3-16 FS2711P √ √ √ 任意设置 I2C √ QFN3x3-16 FS2711PA √ √ 全协议 任意设置 I2C √ SSOP10 FS2711SW √ √ 全协议 SSOP10 FS512 √ √ 全协议 任意设置 I2C √ SSOP10 方案 类型 产品型号 单C 单A 双插 A+C方案 FS8623 20W（PPS）（可定制） A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8623B 20W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8628 20W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8611RPC+FS116DB 65W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w A口：5V/2 4A C口：45W FS8628RC+FS116DB 35W(可定制) A口全协议18w A口：5V（BC1 2，Apple 2 4） C口：20W 方案类型 产品型号 单C1 单C2 C1/C2 C+C方案 FS8611RPB*2 30W(可定制) 30W(可定制) C1/C2：5V/3A(或5V/2 4A) FS8611GH*2 35W（可定制） 35W（可定制） C1/C2:18W（可定制） FS8628P*2 35W（可定制） 35W（可定制） C1/C2：17 4W可定制） FS8611KL*2 20W（可定制） 20W（可定制） C1/C2：5V/1 5 A FS8611PC*2 35W 35W C1/C2：18W FS8611BH*2 65W（可定制） 65W（可定制） C1：45W（可定制）C2：20W（可定制） FS8628RPC+FS8611RB 45W（可定制）） 36W （可定制）） C1：30W（可定制）C2：5V/1 5A（可定制） 方案类型 产品型号 单C1 单C2 单A C1+C2 C1/C2+A C1+C2+A C+C+A FS8611S*2+FS116DB 65W（可定制） 65W（ 可定制）） A口全协议18w 智能分配功率 45W+18W C1/C2：智能分配功率 A：18W（或5V1 5A） FS8612C+FS8628P 100W（可定制） 35W （可定制）） 20W C1：65W C2：20W C1+A：65W+20W C2+A：7 5W+7 5W C1：65W C2：7 5W A：7 5W 其他 
Source-TYPE C协议芯片选型 Source-TYPE A协议芯片选型 速芯微现有多种TYPE-C的快充协议芯片，支持多种协议，支持客户定制，多样化，满 足客户对TYPE C的各种快充需求。 速芯微现有多种TYPE A快充协议芯片，支持全协议，支持定制，满足客户对A口协议的各种需 求。速芯微的TYPE-A快充协议芯片的协议丰富，FS112系列拥有多种的型号；FS116D 系列带插入指示，可搭配TYPE-C快充协议芯片，实现A+C，A+C+C，A+A+C+C等多口方 案，协议丰富，其中FS116A一般用于插入指示使用 Source-TYPE A协议芯片引脚封装图 D+ VSS FB 1 2 3 FS112 6 5 4 D- VDD FUNC GATE VIN FUNC FB LED/PLUG_IN 1 2 3 4 5 FS116D 10 DM 9 8 7 6 DP CSP CSN VSS速芯微的各TYPE-C快充协议芯片之间可搭配使用，实现多口方案，更多详情请咨 询我司工作人员。 多口降功率专用快充协议芯片：FS8611RB，FS8611RC，FS8611RPB，FS8611RPC， FS8612CP。 带I2C快充协议芯片：FS8611S，FS8611SP 产品型号 BC1 2 Apple 2 4 QC2 0 QC3 0 AFC FCP SCP HISCP 大电流直充 封装 FS112 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS112H √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS113 √ v √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS116DP √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116DB √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116E √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116A √ √ SSOP10 其他 可定制 PD2 0 PD3 0 PD3 0 PPS 第三方协议 反馈方式 MOS CV/CC 定制 封装 FS212C √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212CM √ √ FB PMOS(可省) √ SOT23-6 FS212D √ √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212DH √ √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212DP √ √ √ FB PMOS √ SOT23-6 FS212DG √ √ √ FB PMOS √ SOT23-6 FS8611G √ √ FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP-8 FS8611K √ √ QC2 0/AFC/FCP FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP8 FS8611J √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP8 FS8611B √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SSOP10 FS8611RB √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611RC √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611S √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611PP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611BP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SSOP10 FS8611RPB √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611RPC √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611SP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) SSOP10 FS8612 √ √ √ 全协议 OPTO PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612B √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612BP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612C √ √ √ 全协议 FB/OPTO PMOS √ √ QFN4x4-16 FS8612CP √ √ √ 全协议 FB/OPTO PMOS √ √ QFN4x4-16 
'



ground_truth: 48V.