Machine Learning seminars
April 2021
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
Recurrent network dynamics lead to interference in sequential learning
Friedrich Schuessler· Barak lab, Technion, Haifa, Israel
Thu, Apr 29 · 16:30 UTC
Learning in real life is often sequential: A learner first learns task A, then task B. If the tasks are related, the learner may adapt the previously learned representation instead of generating a new one from scratch. Adaptation may ease learning task B but may also decrease the performance on task A. Such interference has been observed in experimental and machine learning studies. In the latter case, it is mediated by correlations between weight updates for the different tasks. In typical applications, like image classification with feed-forward networks, these correlated weight updates can be traced back to input correlations. For many neuroscience tasks, however, networks need to not only transform the input, but also generate substantial internal dynamics. Here we illuminate the role of internal dynamics for interference in recurrent neural networks (RNNs). We analyze RNNs trained sequentially on neuroscience tasks with gradient descent and observe forgetting even for orthogonal tasks. We find that the degree of interference changes systematically with tasks properties, especially with emphasis on input-driven over autonomously generated dynamics. To better understand our numerical observations, we thoroughly analyze a simple model of working memory: For task A, a network is presented with an input pattern and trained to generate a fixed point aligned with this pattern. For task B, the network has to memorize a second, orthogonal pattern. Adapting an existing representation corresponds to the rotation of the fixed point in phase space, as opposed to the emergence of a new one. We show that the two modes of learning – rotation vs. new formation – are directly linked to recurrent vs. input-driven dynamics. We make this notion precise in a further simplified, analytically tractable model, where learning is restricted to a 2x2 matrix. In our analysis of trained RNNs, we also make the surprising observation that, across different tasks, larger random initial connectivity reduces interference. Analyzing the fixed point task reveals the underlying mechanism: The random connectivity strongly accelerates the learning mode of new formation, and has less effect on rotation. The prior thus wins the race to zero loss, and interference is reduced. Altogether, our work offers a new perspective on sequential learning in recurrent networks, and the emphasis on internally generated dynamics allows us to take the history of individual learners into account.
How dendrites help solve biological and machine learning problems
Yiota Poirazi· IMBB / FORTH
Fri, Apr 23 · 15:00 UTC
Dendrites are thin processes that extend from the cell body of neurons, the main computing units of the brain. The role of dendrites in complex brain functions has been investigated for several decades, yet their direct involvement in key behaviors such as for example sensory perception has only recently been established. In my presentation I will discuss how computational modelling has helped us illuminate dendritic function. I will present the main findings of a number of projects in lab dealing with dendritic nonlinearities in excitatory and inhibitory and their consequences on neuronal tuning and memory formation, the role of dendrites in solving nonlinear problems in human neurons and recent efforts to advance machine learning algorithms by adopting dendritic features.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
Mental Simulation, Imagination, and Model-Based Deep RL
Jessica Hamrick· Deepmind
Fri, Apr 9 · 06:00 UTC
Mental simulation—the capacity to imagine what will or what could be—is a salient feature of human cognition, playing a key role in a wide range of cognitive abilities. In artificial intelligence, the last few years have seen the development of methods which are analogous to mental models and mental simulation. In this talk, I will discuss recent methods in deep learning for constructing such models from data and learning to use them via reinforcement learning, and compare such approaches to human mental simulation. While a number of challenges remain in matching the capacity of human mental simulation, I will highlight some recent progress on developing more compositional and efficient model-based algorithms through the use of graph neural networks and tree search.
Choice engineering and the modeling of operant learning
Yonatan Loewenstein· The Hebrew University
Wed, Apr 7 · 05:00 UTC
Organisms modify their behavior in response to its consequences, a phenomenon referred to as operant learning. Contemporary modeling of this learning behavior is based on reinforcement learning algorithms. I will discuss some of the challenges that these models face, and proposed a new approach to model-selection that is based on testing their ability to engineer behavior. Finally, I will present the results of The Choice Engineering Competition – an academic competition that compared the efficacies of qualitative and quantitative models of operant learning in shaping behavior.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
March 2021
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
Towards a Translational Neuroscience of Consciousness
Hakwan Lau· UCLA Psychology Department
Thu, Mar 25 · 17:00 UTC
The cognitive neuroscience of conscious perception has seen considerable growth over the past few decades. Confirming an influential hypothesis driven by earlier studies of neuropsychological patients, we have found that the lateral and polar prefrontal cortices play important causal roles in the generation of subjective experiences. However, this basic empirical finding has been hotly contested by researchers with different theoretical commitments, and the differences are at times difficult to resolve. To address the controversies, I suggest one alternative venue may be to look for clinical applications derived from current theories. I outline an example in which we used closed-loop fMRI combined with machine learning to nonconsciously manipulate the physiological responses to threatening stimuli, such as spiders or snakes. A clinical trial involving patients with phobia is currently taking place. I also outline how this theoretical framework may be extended to other diseases. Ultimately, a truly meaningful understanding of the fundamental nature of our mental existence should lead to useful insights for our colleagues on the clinical frontlines. If we use this as a yardstick, whoever loses the esoteric theoretical debates, both science and the patients will always win.
Inferring brain-wide interactions using data-constrained recurrent neural network models
Matthew Perich· Rajan lab, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Wed, Mar 24 · 17:00 UTC
Behavior arises from the coordinated activity of numerous distinct brain regions. Modern experimental tools allow access to neural populations brain-wide, yet understanding such large-scale datasets necessitates scalable computational models to extract meaningful features of inter-region communication. In this talk, I will introduce Current-Based Decomposition (CURBD), an approach for inferring multi-region interactions using data-constrained recurrent neural network models. I will first show that CURBD accurately isolates inter-region currents in simulated networks with known dynamics. I will then apply CURBD to understand the brain-wide flow of information leading to behavioral state transitions in larval zebrafish. These examples will establish CURBD as a flexible, scalable framework to infer brain-wide interactions that are inaccessible from experimental measurements alone.
Decoding the neural processing of speech
Tobias Reichenbach· Friedrich-Alexander-University
Tue, Mar 23 · 11:00 UTC
Understanding speech in noisy backgrounds requires selective attention to a particular speaker. Humans excel at this challenging task, while current speech recognition technology still struggles when background noise is loud. The neural mechanisms by which we process speech remain, however, poorly understood, not least due to the complexity of natural speech. Here we describe recent progress obtained through applying machine-learning to neuroimaging data of humans listening to speech in different types of background noise. In particular, we develop statistical models to relate characteristic features of speech such as pitch, amplitude fluctuations and linguistic surprisal to neural measurements. We find neural correlates of speech processing both at the subcortical level, related to the pitch, as well as at the cortical level, related to amplitude fluctuations and linguistic structures. We also show that some of these measures allow to diagnose disorders of consciousness. Our findings may be applied in smart hearing aids that automatically adjust speech processing to assist a user, as well as in the diagnosis of brain disorders.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
Data-driven Artificial Social Intelligence: From Social Appropriateness to Fairness
Hatice Gunes· Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge
Tue, Mar 16 · 15:00 UTC
Designing artificially intelligent systems and interfaces with socio-emotional skills is a challenging task. Progress in industry and developments in academia provide us a positive outlook, however, the artificial social and emotional intelligence of the current technology is still limited. My lab’s research has been pushing the state of the art in a wide spectrum of research topics in this area, including the design and creation of new datasets; novel feature representations and learning algorithms for sensing and understanding human nonverbal behaviours in solo, dyadic and group settings; designing longitudinal human-robot interaction studies for wellbeing; and investigating how to mitigate the bias that creeps into these systems. In this talk, I will present some of my research team’s explorations in these areas including social appropriateness of robot actions, virtual reality based cognitive training with affective adaptation, and bias and fairness in data-driven emotionally intelligent systems.
Do deep learning latent spaces resemble human brain representations?
Rufin VanRullen· Centre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition (CERCO)
Sat, Mar 13 · 02:00 UTC
In recent years, artificial neural networks have demonstrated human-like or super-human performance in many tasks including image or speech recognition, natural language processing (NLP), playing Go, chess, poker and video-games. One remarkable feature of the resulting models is that they can develop very intuitive latent representations of their inputs. In these latent spaces, simple linear operations tend to give meaningful results, as in the well-known analogy QUEEN-WOMAN+MAN=KING. We postulate that human brain representations share essential properties with these deep learning latent spaces. To verify this, we test whether artificial latent spaces can serve as a good model for decoding brain activity. We report improvements over state-of-the-art performance for reconstructing seen and imagined face images from fMRI brain activation patterns, using the latent space of a GAN (Generative Adversarial Network) model coupled with a Variational AutoEncoder (VAE). With another GAN model (BigBiGAN), we can decode and reconstruct natural scenes of any category from the corresponding brain activity. Our results suggest that deep learning can produce high-level representations approaching those found in the human brain. Finally, I will discuss whether these deep learning latent spaces could be relevant to the study of consciousness.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
Untangling brain wide current flow using neural network models
Kanaka Rajan· Mount Sinai
Fri, Mar 12 · 06:00 UTC
Rajanlab designs neural network models constrained by experimental data, and reverse engineers them to figure out how brain circuits function in health and disease. Recently, we have been developing a powerful new theory-based framework for “in-vivo tract tracing” from multi-regional neural activity collected experimentally. We call this framework CURrent-Based Decomposition (CURBD). CURBD employs recurrent neural networks (RNNs) directly constrained, from the outset, by time series measurements acquired experimentally, such as Ca2+ imaging or electrophysiological data. Once trained, these data-constrained RNNs let us infer matrices quantifying the interactions between all pairs of modeled units. Such model-derived “directed interaction matrices” can then be used to separately compute excitatory and inhibitory input currents that drive a given neuron from all other neurons. Therefore different current sources can be de-mixed – either within the same region or from other regions, potentially brain-wide – which collectively give rise to the population dynamics observed experimentally. Source de-mixed currents obtained through CURBD allow an unprecedented view into multi-region mechanisms inaccessible from measurements alone. We have applied this method successfully to several types of neural data from our experimental collaborators, e.g., zebrafish (Deisseroth lab, Stanford), mice (Harvey lab, Harvard), monkeys (Rudebeck lab, Sinai), and humans (Rutishauser lab, Cedars Sinai), where we have discovered both directed interactions brain wide and inter-area currents during different types of behaviors. With this powerful framework based on data-constrained multi-region RNNs and CURrent Based Decomposition (CURBD), we ask if there are conserved multi-region mechanisms across different species, as well as identify key divergences.
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.
February 2021
In the Learning Salon, we will discuss the similarities and differences between biological and machine learning, including individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, so we can all learn from one another.