Paper detail

Understanding the computational difficulty of a binary-weight perceptron and the advantage of input sparseness

Limited precision of synaptic weights is a key aspect of both biological and hardware implementation of neural networks. To assign low-precise weights during learning is a non-trivial task, but may benefit from representing to-be-learned items using sparse code. However, the computational difficulty resulting from low weight precision and the advantage of sparse coding remain not fully understood. Here, we study a perceptron model, which associates binary (0 or 1) input patterns with outputs using binary (0 or 1) weights, modeling a single neuron receiving excitatory inputs. We considered a decimation process, where every time step, marginal probabilities of unfixed weights were evaluated, then the most polarized weight was fixed at its preferred value. We showed that decimation is a process approaching the dense solution region in weight configuration space. In two efficient algorithms (SBPI and rBP) for solving binary-weight perceptron, most time steps are spent on determining values of the weights fixed late in decimation. This algorithmic difficult point may result from strong cross-correlation between late-decimation-fixed weights in the solution subspace where early-decimation-fixed weights take their fixed values, and is related to solution condensation in this subspace during decimation. Input sparseness reduces the time steps that SBPI and rBP need to find solutions, by reducing time steps used to assign values to late-decimation-fixed weights, due to the reduction of cross-correlation between late-decimation-fixed weights. Our work suggests that the computational difficulty of constraint satisfaction problem originates from the subspace of late-decimation-fixed variables. Our work highlights the heterogeneity of learning dynamics of weights, which may help understand axonal pruning in brain development, and inspire more efficient algorithms to train artificial neural networks.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.