Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michael A. Powell

dblp:326/2327 · also Michael Alan Powell · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Learning theory · 46% Deep learning architectures and training · 23% Reinforcement learning · 23%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
representational capacity
0.712023
Why do networks have inhibitory/negative connections? · ICCV 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sample efficiency
0.712023
Polarity Is All You Need to Learn and Transfer Faster · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › approximation theory › neural network approximation
universal approximation
0.712023
Why do networks have inhibitory/negative connections? · ICCV 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

theoretical analysis · 0.7simulation · 0.7image classification · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Why do networks have inhibitory/negative connections?
abstract
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.
Qingyang Wang 0002, Michael A. Powell, Ali Geisa, Eric Bridgeford, Carey E. Priebe, Joshua T. Vogelstein
ICCV2
2023 Polarity Is All You Need to Learn and Transfer Faster
abstract
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.
Qingyang Wang 0002, Michael A. Powell, Eric Bridgeford, Ali Geisa, Joshua T. Vogelstein
ICML2