use https for features.
text: sort by
tags: modified
type: chronology
hide / / print
ref: -2020 tags: feedback alignment local hebbian learning rules stanford date: 04-22-2021 03:26 gmt revision:0 [head]

Two Routes to Scalable Credit Assignment without Weight Symmetry

This paper looks at five different learning rules, three purely local, and two non-local, to see if they can work as well as backprop in training a deep convolutional net on ImageNet. The local learning networks all feature forward weights W and backward weights B; the forward weights (+ nonlinearities) pass the information to lead to a classification; the backward weights pass the error, which is used to locally adjust the forward weights.

Hence, each fake neuron has locally the forward activation, the backward error (or loss gradient), the forward weight, backward weight, and Hebbian terms thereof (e.g the outer product of the in-out vectors for both forward and backward passes). From these available variables, they construct the local learning rules:

  • Decay (exponentially decay the backward weights)
  • Amp (Hebbian learning)
  • Null (decay based on the product of the weight and local activation. This effects a Euclidean norm on reconstruction.

Each of these serves as a "regularizer term" on the feedback weights, which governs their learning dynamics. In the case of backprop, the backward weights B are just the instantaneous transpose of the forward weights W. A good local learning rule approximates this transpose progressively. They show that, with proper hyperparameter setting, this does indeed work nearly as well as backprop when training a ResNet-18 network.

But, hyperparameter settings don't translate to other network topologies. To allow this, they add in non-local learning rules:

  • Sparse (penalizes the Euclidean norm of the previous layer; gradient is the outer product of the (current layer activation &transpose) * B)
  • Self (directly measures the forward weights and uses them to update the backward weights)

In "Symmetric Alignment", the Self and Decay rules are employed. This is similar to backprop (the backward weights will track the forward ones) with L2 regularization, which is not new. It performs very similarly to backprop. In "Activation Alignment", Amp and Sparse rules are employed. I assume this is supposed to be more biologically plausible -- the Hebbian term can track the forward weights, while the Sparse rule regularizes and stabilizes the learning, such that overall dynamics allow the gradient to flow even if W and B aren't transposes of each other.

Surprisingly, they find that Symmetric Alignment to be more robust to the injection of Gaussian noise during training than backprop. Both SA and AA achieve similar accuracies on the ResNet benchmark. The authors then go on to explain the plausibility of non-local but approximate learning rules with Regression discontinuity design ala Spiking allows neurons to estimate their causal effect.

This is a decent paper,reasonably well written. They thought trough what variables are available to affect learning, and parameterized five combinations that work. Could they have done the full matrix of combinations, optimizing just they same as the metaparameters? Perhaps, but that would be even more work ...

Regarding the desire to reconcile backprop and biology, this paper does not bring us much (if at all) closer. Biological neural networks have specific and local uses for error; even invoking 'error' has limited explanatory power on activity. Learning and firing dynamics, of course of course. Is the brain then just an overbearing mess of details and overlapping rules? Yes probably but that doesn't mean that we human's can't find something simpler that works. The algorithms in this paper, for example, are well described by a bit of linear algebra, and yet they are performant.

hide / / print
ref: -0 tags: asymmetric locality sensitive hash maximum inner product search sparsity date: 03-30-2020 02:17 gmt revision:5 [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

Improved asymmetric locality sensitive hashing for maximum inner product search

  • Like many other papers, this one is based on a long lineage of locality-sensitive hashing papers.
  • Key innovation, in [23] The power of asymmetry in binary hashing, was the development of asymmetric hashing -- the hash function of the query is different than the hash function used for storage. Roughly, this allows additional degrees of freedom since the similarity-function is (in the non-normalized case) non-symmetric.
    • For example, take query Q = [1 1] with keys A = [1 -1] and B = [3 3]. The nearest neighbor is A (distance 2), whereas the maximum inner product is B (inner product 6).
    • Alternately: self-inner product for Q and A is 2, whereas for B it's 18. Self-similarity is not the highest with inner products.
    • Norm of the query does not have an effect on the arg max of the search, though. Hence, for the paper assume that the query has been normalized for MIPS.
  • In this paper instead they convert MIPS into approximate cosine similarity search (which is like normalized MIPS), which can be efficiently solved with signed random projections.
  • (Established): LSH-L2 distance:
    • Sample a random vector a, iid normal N(0,1)
    • Sample a random normal b between 0 and r
      • r is the window size / radius (free parameters?)
    • Hash function is then the floor of the inner product of the vector a and input x + b divided by the radius.
      • I'm not sure about how the floor op is converted to bits of the actual hash -- ?
  • (Established): LSH-correlation, signed random projections h signh^{sign} :
    • Hash is the sign of the inner product of the input vector and a uniform random vector a.
    • This is a two-bit random projection [13][14].
  • (New) Asymmetric-LSH-L2:
    • P(x)=[x;||x|| 2 2;||x|| 2 4;....;||x|| 2 2 m]P(x) = [x;||x||^2_2; ||x||^4_2; .... ; ||x||^{2^m}_2] -- this is the pre-processing hashing of the 'keys'.
      • Requires that then norm of these keys, {||x||}_2 < U < 1$$
      • m3 m \geq 3
    • Q(x)=[x;1/2;1/2;...;1/2]Q(x) = [x;1/2; 1/2; ... ; 1/2] -- hashing of the queries.
    • See the mathematical explanation in the paper, but roughly "transformations P and Q, when normas are less than 1, provide correction to the L2 distance ||Q(p)P(x i)|| 2||Q(p) - P(x_i)||_2 , making in rank correlate with un-normalized inner product."
  • They then change the augmentation to:
    • P(x)=[x;1/2||x|| 2 2;1/2||x|| 2 4;...;1/2||x|| 2 2 m]P(x) = [x; 1/2 - ||x||^2_2; 1/2 - ||x||^4_2; ... ; 1/2 - ||x||^{2^m}_2]
    • Q(x)=[x;0;...;0]Q(x) = [x; 0; ...; 0]
    • This allows use of signed nearest-neighbor search to be used in the MIPS problem. (e.g. the hash is the sign of P and Q, per above; I assume this is still a 2-bit operation?)
  • Then the expand the U,M compromise function ρ\rho to allow for non-normalized queries. U depends on m and c (m is the codeword extension, and c is the ratio between o-target and off-target hash hits.
  • Tested on Movielens and Netflix databases, this using SVD preprocessing on the user-item matrix (full rank matrix indicating every user rating on every movie (mostly zeros!)) to get at the latent vectors.
  • In the above plots, recall (hah) that precision is the number of true positives / number of false positives as the number of draws k increases; recall is the number of true positives / number of draws k.
    • Clearly, the curve bends up and to the right when there are a lot of hash tables K.
    • Example datapoint: 50% precision at 40% recall, top 5. So on average you get 2 correct hits in 4 draws. Or: 40% precision, 20% recall, top 10: 2 hits in 5 draws. 20/40: 4 hits in 20 draws. (hit: correctly within the top-N)
    • So ... it's not that great.

Use case: Capsule: a camera based positioning system using learning
  • Uses 512 SIFT features as keys and queries to LSH. Hashing is computed via sparse addition / subtraction algorithm, with K bits per hash table (not quite random projections) and L hash tables. K = 22 and L = 24. ~ 1000 training images.
  • Best matching image is used as the location of the current image.

hide / / print
ref: -2016 tags: locality sensitive hash deep learning regularization date: 03-30-2020 02:07 gmt revision:5 [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

Scalable and sustainable deep learning via randomized hashing

  • Central idea: replace dropout, adaptive dropout, or winner-take-all with a fast (sublinear time) hash based selection of active nodes based on approximate MIPS (maximum inner product search) using asymmetric locality-sensitive hashing.
    • This avoids a lot of the expensive inner-product multiply-accumulate work & energy associated with nodes that will either be completely off due to the ReLU or other nonlinearity -- or just not important for the algorithm + current input.
    • The result shows that you don't need very many neurons active in a given layer for successful training.
  • C.f: adaptive dropout adaptively chooses the nodes based on their activations. A few nodes are sampled from the network probabalistically based on the node activations dependent on their current input.
    • Adaptive dropouts demonstrate better performance than vanilla dropout [44]
    • It is possible to drop significantly more nodes adaptively than without while retaining superior performance.
  • WTA is an extreme form of adaptive dropout that uses mini-batch statistics to enforce a sparsity constraint. [28] {1507} Winner take all autoencoders
  • Our approach uses the insight that selecting a very sparse set of hidden nodes with the highest activations can be reformulated as dynamic approximate query processing, solvable with LSH.
    • LSH can be sub-linear time; normal processing involves the inner product.
    • LSH maps similar vectors into the same bucket with high probability. That is, it maps vectors into integers (bucket number)
  • Similar approach: Hashed nets [6], which aimed to decrease the number of parameters in a network by using a universal random hash function to tie weights. Compressing neural networks with the Hashing trick
    • "HashedNets uses a low-cost hash function to randomly group connection weights into hash buckets, and all connections within the same hash bucket share a single parameter value."
  • Ref [38] shows how asymmetric hash functions allow LSH to be converted to a sub-linear time algorithm for maximum inner product search (MIPS).
  • Used multi-probe LSH: rather than having a large number of hash tables (L) which increases hash time and memory use, they probe close-by buckets in the hash tables. That is, they probe bucket at B_j(Q) and those for slightly perturbed query Q. See ref [26].
  • See reference [2] for theory...
  • Following ref [42], use K randomized hash functions to generate the K data bits per vector. Each bit is the sign of the asymmetric random projection. Buckets contain a pointer to the node (neuron); only active buckets are kept around.
    • The K hash functions serve to increase the precision of the fingerprint -- found nodes are more expected to be active.
    • Have L hash tables for each hidden layer; these are used to increase the probability of finding useful / active nodes due to the randomness of the hash function.
    • Hash is asymmetric in the sense that the query and collection data are hashed independently.
  • In every layer during SGD, compute K x L hashes of the input, probe about 10 L buckets, and take their union. Experiments: K = 6 and L = 5.
  • See ref [30] where authors show around 500x reduction in computations for image search following different algorithmic and systems choices. Capsule: a camera based positioning system using learning {1506}
  • Use relatively small test data sets -- MNIST 8M, NORB, Convex, Rectangles -- each resized to have small-ish input vectors.

  • Really want more analysis of what exactly is going on here -- what happens when you change the hashing function, for example? How much is the training dependent on suitable ROC or precision/recall on the activation?
    • For example, they could have calculated the actual real activation & WTA selection, and compared it to the results from the hash function; how correlated are they?

hide / / print
ref: -2017 tags: locality sensitive hashing olfaction kenyon cells neuron sparse representation date: 01-18-2020 21:13 gmt revision:1 [0] [head]

PMID-29123069 A neural algorithm for a fundamental computing problem

  • Ceneral idea: locality-sensitive hashing, e.g. hashing that is sensitive to the high-dimensional locality of the input space, can be efficiently solved using a circuit inspired by the insect olfactory system.
  • Here, activation of 50 different types of ORNs is mapped to 50 projection neurons, which 'centers the mean' -- concentration dependence is removed.
  • This is then projected via a random matrix of sparse binary weights to a much larger set of Kenyon cells, which in turn are inhibited by one APL neuron.
  • Normal locality-sensitive hashing uses dense matrices of Gaussian-distributed random weights, which means higher computational complexity...
  • ... these projections are governed by the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, which says that projection from high-d to low-d space can preserve locality (distance between points) within an error bound.
  • Show that the WTA selection of the top 5% plus random binary weight preserves locality as measured by overlap with exact input locality on toy data sets, including MNIST and SIFT.
  • Flashy title as much as anything else got this into Science... indeed, has only been cited 6 times in Pubmed.

hide / / print
ref: -2019 tags: Arild Nokland local error signals backprop neural networks mnist cifar VGG date: 02-15-2019 03:15 gmt revision:6 [5] [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

Training neural networks with local error signals

  • Arild Nokland and Lars H Eidnes
  • Idea is to use one+ supplementary neural networks to measure within-batch matching loss between transformed hidden-layer output and one-hot label data to produce layer-local learning signals (gradients) for improving local representation.
  • Hence, no backprop. Error signals are all local, and inter-layer dependencies are not explicitly accounted for (! I think).
  • L simL_{sim} : given a mini-batch of hidden layer activations H=(h 1,...,h n)H = (h_1, ..., h_n) and a one-hot encoded label matrix Y=(y 1,...,y nY = (y_1, ..., y_n ,
    • L sim=||S(NeuralNet(H))S(Y)|| F 2 L_{sim} = || S(NeuralNet(H)) - S(Y)||^2_F (don't know what F is..)
    • NeuralNet()NeuralNet() is a convolutional neural net (trained how?) 3*3, stride 1, reduces output to 2.
    • S()S() is the cosine similarity matrix, or correlation matrix, of a mini-batch.
  • L pred=CrossEntropy(Y,W TH)L_{pred} = CrossEntropy(Y, W^T H) where W is a weight matrix, dim hidden_size * n_classes.
    • Cross-entropy is H(Y,W TH)=Σ i,jY i,jlog((W TH) i,j)+(1Y i,j)log(1(W TH) i,j) H(Y, W^T H) = \Sigma_{i,j} Y_{i,j} log((W^T H)_{i,j}) + (1-Y_{i,j}) log(1-(W^T H)_{i,j})
  • Sim-bio loss: replace NeuralNet()NeuralNet() with average-pooling and standard-deviation op. Plus one-hot target is replaced with a random transformation of the same target vector.
  • Overall loss 99% L simL_sim , 1% L predL_pred
    • Despite the unequal weighting, both seem to improve test prediction on all examples.
  • VGG like network, with dropout and cutout (blacking out square regions of input space), batch size 128.
  • Tested on all the relevant datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, Kuzushiji-MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, STL-10, SVHN.
  • Pretty decent review of similarity matching measures at the beginning of the paper; not extensive but puts everything in context.
    • See for example non-negative matrix factorization using Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning in and Chklovskii 2014.
  • Emphasis put on biologically realistic learning, including the use of feedback alignment {1423}
    • Yet: this was entirely supervised learning, as the labels were propagated back to each layer.
    • More likely that biology is setup to maximize available labels (not a new concept).

hide / / print
ref: Zhang-2009.02 tags: localized surface plasmon resonance nanoparticle neural recording innovative date: 01-15-2012 23:00 gmt revision:4 [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

PMID-19199762[0] Optical Detection of Brain Cell Activity Using Plasmonic Gold Nanoparticles

  • Used 140 nm diameter, 40 nm thick gold disc nanoparticles set in a 400nm array, illuminated by 850nm diode laser light.
    • From my reading, it seems that the diameter of these nanoparticles is important, but the grid spacing is not.
  • These nanoparticles strongly scatter light, and the degree of scattering is dependent on the local index of refraction + electric field.
  • The change in scattering due to applied electric field is very small, though - ~ 3e-6 1/V in the air-capacitor setup, ~1e-3 in solution when stimluated by cultured hippocampal neurons.
  • Noteably, nanoparticles are not diffraction limited - their measurement resolution is proportional to their size. Compare with voltage-sensitive dyes, which have a similar measurement signal-to-noise ratio, are diffraction limited, may be toxic, and may photobleach.


[0] Zhang J, Atay T, Nurmikko AV, Optical detection of brain cell activity using plasmonic gold nanoparticles.Nano Lett 9:2, 519-24 (2009 Feb)

hide / / print
ref: Schaal-1998.11 tags: schaal local learning PLS partial least squares function approximation date: 0-0-2007 0:0 revision:0 [head]

PMID-9804671 Constructive incremental learning from only local information