In lifelong learning, data are used to improve performance not only on the present task, but also on past and future (unencountered) tasks. While typical transfer learning algorithms can improve performance on future tasks, their performance on prior tasks degrades upon learning new tasks (called forgetting). Many recent approaches for continual or lifelong learning have attempted to maintain performance on old tasks given new tasks. But striving to avoid forgetting sets the goal unnecessarily low. The goal of lifelong learning should be to use data to improve performance on both future tasks (forward transfer) and past tasks (backward transfer). In this paper, we show that a simple approach-representation ensembling-demonstrates both forward and backward transfer in a variety of simulated and benchmark data scenarios, including tabular, vision (CIFAR-100, 5-dataset, Split Mini-Imagenet, Food1k, and CORe50), and speech (spoken digit), in contrast to various reference algorithms, which typically failed to transfer either forward or backward, or both. Moreover, our proposed approach can flexibly operate with or without a computational budget.

Why do brains have inhibitory connections? Why do deep networks have negative weights? We propose an answer from the perspective of representation capacity. We believe representing functions is the primary role of both (i) the brain in natural intelligence, and (ii) deep networks in artificial intelligence. Our answer to why there are inhibitory/negative weights is: to learn more functions. We prove that, in the absence of negative weights, neural networks with non-decreasing activation functions are not universal approximators. While this may be an intuitive result to some, to the best of our knowledge, there is no formal theory, in either machine learning or neuroscience, that demonstrates why negative weights are crucial in the context of representation capacity. Further, we provide insights on the geometric properties of the representation space that non-negative deep networks cannot represent. We expect these insights will yield a deeper understanding of more sophisticated inductive priors imposed on the distribution of weights that lead to more efficient biological and machine learning.

Natural intelligences (NIs) thrive in a dynamic world - they learn quickly, sometimes with only a few samples. In contrast, artificial intelligences (AIs) typically learn with a prohibitive number of training samples and computational power. What design principle difference between NI and AI could contribute to such a discrepancy? Here, we investigate the role of weight polarity: development processes initialize NIs with advantageous polarity configurations; as NIs grow and learn, synapse magnitudes update, yet polarities are largely kept unchanged. We demonstrate with simulation and image classification tasks that if weight polarities are adequately set a priori, then networks learn with less time and data. We also explicitly illustrate situations in which a priori setting the weight polarities is disadvantageous for networks. Our work illustrates the value of weight polarities from the perspective of statistical and computational efficiency during learning.