←back to thread

161 points belleville | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.456s | source
Show context
itsthecourier ◴[] No.43677688[source]
"Whenever these kind of papers come out I skim it looking for where they actually do backprop.

Check the pseudo code of their algorithms.

"Update using gradient based optimizations""

replies(4): >>43677717 #>>43677878 #>>43684074 #>>43725019 #
f_devd ◴[] No.43677878[source]
I mean the only claim is no propagation, you always need a gradient of sorts to update parameters. Unless you just stumble upon the desired parameters. Even genetic algorithms effectively has gradients which are obfuscated through random projections.
replies(3): >>43678034 #>>43679597 #>>43679675 #
erikerikson ◴[] No.43678034[source]
No you don't. See Hebbian learning (neurons that fire together wire together). Bonus: it is one of the biologically plausible options.

Maybe you have a way of seeing it differently so that this looks like a gradient? Gradient keys my brain into a desired outcome expressed as an expectation function.

replies(4): >>43678091 #>>43679021 #>>43680033 #>>43683591 #
yobbo ◴[] No.43679021[source]
If there is a weight update, there is a gradient, and a loss objective. You might not write them down explicitly.

I can't recall exactly what the Hebbian update is, but something tells me it minimises the "reconstruction loss", and effectively learns the PCA matrix.

replies(2): >>43680272 #>>43682329 #
1. orbifold ◴[] No.43680272[source]
Not every vector field has a potential. So not every weight update can be written as a gradient.
replies(1): >>43682930 #
2. yobbo ◴[] No.43682930[source]
True.