Live data from Hacker News

Neurogenesis Deep Learning

arxiv.org

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#101
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways to compress networks - by pruning neurons, by enforcing sparsity, by representing activations and gradients on one bit (or a few bits), and by transfer learning where a large net is transferred into a smaller one.

Yes, my question was more about meta-level algorithms for balancing size against performance. Especially adaptive methods such that we're not just growing up to a limit and stopping, but selectively allocating resources to those parts which need them. Adapting over time would be nice too: "thinking harder" when there are idle resources, but shrinking the results back down under load.

This paper http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2830854 kind of has a solution to being more efficient. It has two networks and uses the smaller one (more efficient) to infere first. If the result is accurate with high probability (the probability of one class is much larger than the probability of any other class) then there is no need to run the big (expensive) network.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#102
post #3

Neurogensis? How about neural death as a way to prune large neural networks into more compact ones--now that is a research idea!

Exactly!

For that, check out our OpenReview ICLR submission on NEUROGENESIS-INSPIRED DICTIONARY LEARNING: ONLINE MODEL ADAPTION IN A CHANGING WORLD, by Sahil Garg, Irina Rish, Guillermo Cecchi, Aurelie Lozano https://openreview.net/revisions?id=HyecJGP5ge

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#104
A good point was made that a model of neurogenesis must also incorporate neuronal death besides neuronal birth (since hippocampus and the brain as a whole have physical constraints, you can't keep growing your network infinitely :). That's why any model of neurogenesis must incorporate interplay between birth and death of new (and old) neurons; that's was the main idea of the paper I mentioned in an earlier post (this year ICLR submission https://openreview.net/forum?id=HyecJGP5ge) Note that just adding nodes to networks was proposed before, eg. the classical work on cascade correlations.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#105
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll say... 5 - 7 years. This is all based on pure speculation, and being a little more than a ML hobbiest. One thing is for sure though - when we do reach that point, everything changes forever.

I'm immensely confused as to how such a number can be put on a discovery. Then again.. I also don't understand how researchers come up with a yearly budget for making discoveries.

My number is based on raw-nothingness and just pure speculation on my part. I'm by no means an expert in any regard.
Post reply on HN