Gervais's interests

Gervais's posts

Post has shared content

Excerpted from my latest draught manuscript:

A convenient mental tool we learn about later-on in school is the concept of a 'vector' (I'm honestly baffled as to why we don't learn about these earlier in school). A vector is just an arrow. But that arrow describes three important bits of information:

1) A line of action - the line along which it is pointing.

2) A magnitude - it's length, which can represent its 'intensity'.

3) A direction - which 'end' of the arrow the 'arrow head' is on.

Translations can be described using vectors. The arrow describes:

1) The line along which we're moving.

2) The 'intensity' with which we're moving.

3) The direction we're moving along the line.

Rotations can also be described using vectors. The arrow describes:

1) The 'axis' of Rotation.

2) The 'intensity' with which it is Rotating.

3) The 'direction' of the Rotation (clock-wise or anti-clockwise).

But we encounter a problem with Reflections. They cannot be described by vectors:

1) The 'line' of a Reflection? What does that mean in 'no space'? What does that mean in 3D space? Reflections aren't always 'along a line'.

2) The 'intensity' of a Reflection? How can you have a partial Reflection (remember we're talking about mathematical transformations, not the half-silvered mirrors etc.) - it either is or isn't Reflected.

3) The 'direction' - wait a minute...

Yes, 'direction' is actually a yes-or-no binary 'bit' of information which is saying simply that the vector is or isn't Reflected. So the 'arrow head' of a vector is actually conveying information about whether-or-not the transformation we're representing by the vector is Reflected.

So in 'no space', we can have one, and only one transformation - the Reflection. Interestingly, all that a Reflection really 'says' is 'yes' or 'no' - i.e. a Thing "is" or "is not". Furthermore, to cancel that transformation, you simply have to re-apply it, because a Reflection is its own opposite: if we say "No" and then we mean to change our mind, we could say "Not no; Yes". "not no" is the re-application of "no" to "no", thereby cancelling it.

For further 'validation' of how a Reflection can be possible in 'zero space' - or zero dimensions - we can look at the relationship between dimensions and transformations. I will propose another thought experiment: On a piece of paper, turned 'landscape' so you have room for this, draw a vertical line down the middle of the page. On one side of that line, draw a triangle (or any shape - triangles are conveniently easy to draw 'free hand'). The vertical line is your 'line of Reflection' - relative to which you want to reflect your hand-drawn triangle. There are two ways to do this:

1) You draw precisely-perpendicular lines from your 'Reflection line' to each vertex of the triangle. Measure the length of these lines, then draw exactly the same length lines on the other side of your 'Reflection line'. Then, simply connect the vertices of your newly reflected triangle. Laborious, imprecise, but it does work.

2) You fold your piece of paper along your 'Reflection line', keeping the blank side firmly on the table, and folding the drawn triangle over the top of it. Then trace your triangle on the other side (or poke holes through the triangle's vertices, or rub the page and try to get some graphite to transfer). With a clean fold, you're sure to get the exact reflection every time: quick and reliable.

Look at the second method: What have we done? We rotated the 2D object (the triangle) through 3D space. More precisely, we effected a half-rotation. Can the same be done with a 1D line segment? Yes: using the same page (let's be ecological here), draw a dashed-line anywhere on your page. On one side of it, darken a line segment (fill it in as a solid dark line segment). A little away from your segment, squiggle a black dot. This will be your 'Reflection point' (no longer a 'line' - reiterating why Reflections can't be represented by vectors). Fold the page through the point so that the dashed-line overlaps. Then trace your line segment on the other side. Voilà , you've just half-rotated a 1D object through 2D space and resulted in a 1D Reflection of your 1D line segment.

There's a pattern here: a half-rotation in n dimensions results in a Reflection in n-1 dimensions. So we can follow this pattern down to zero-dimensions: a 0D object half-Rotated through 1D space is a Reflection of that 0D object in zero-dimensions.

"Wait-a-minute" I hear you say. First, what the heck is any kind of rotation in 1D? Second, how the heck does that 'equate' to any kind of yes-or-no Reflection? Don't fret - here's another experiment to get your hands dirty:

Take a cardboard toilet paper tube and paint half side black (lengthwise, not 'around' the cylinder) and the other side white. Then roll the tube over a white background - better yet, have someone else rotate that tube in place against a white background while you watch, standing far far away. What you will see is the, admittedly 'rectangular', black dot appear and disappear, blinking in and out of existence... This is the Point being Reflected and then re-Reflected - in other words, our Thing for which we can say it "is" or "is not". For you, the black dot "is" and then "is not". Once again, we've seen that Reflections are viable transformations for a non-spatial dimension.

Reflections, furthermore, are not just 'zero-dimensional' - they're 'pan-dimensional'. Vectors, you may know (or will soon learn in school), can be represented in infinitely-many dimensions - except zero, as we've seen. But what we've also seen is that the arrow-head of a vector is the yes-or-no 'flag' indicating the 'Reflection status' of that vector. So _every_ vector, up to infinite dimensions, is implicitly constructed with a zero-dimensional Reflection. The reflection transformation is present in ALL (and NONE) dimensions.

A convenient mental tool we learn about later-on in school is the concept of a 'vector' (I'm honestly baffled as to why we don't learn about these earlier in school). A vector is just an arrow. But that arrow describes three important bits of information:

1) A line of action - the line along which it is pointing.

2) A magnitude - it's length, which can represent its 'intensity'.

3) A direction - which 'end' of the arrow the 'arrow head' is on.

Translations can be described using vectors. The arrow describes:

1) The line along which we're moving.

2) The 'intensity' with which we're moving.

3) The direction we're moving along the line.

Rotations can also be described using vectors. The arrow describes:

1) The 'axis' of Rotation.

2) The 'intensity' with which it is Rotating.

3) The 'direction' of the Rotation (clock-wise or anti-clockwise).

But we encounter a problem with Reflections. They cannot be described by vectors:

1) The 'line' of a Reflection? What does that mean in 'no space'? What does that mean in 3D space? Reflections aren't always 'along a line'.

2) The 'intensity' of a Reflection? How can you have a partial Reflection (remember we're talking about mathematical transformations, not the half-silvered mirrors etc.) - it either is or isn't Reflected.

3) The 'direction' - wait a minute...

Yes, 'direction' is actually a yes-or-no binary 'bit' of information which is saying simply that the vector is or isn't Reflected. So the 'arrow head' of a vector is actually conveying information about whether-or-not the transformation we're representing by the vector is Reflected.

So in 'no space', we can have one, and only one transformation - the Reflection. Interestingly, all that a Reflection really 'says' is 'yes' or 'no' - i.e. a Thing "is" or "is not". Furthermore, to cancel that transformation, you simply have to re-apply it, because a Reflection is its own opposite: if we say "No" and then we mean to change our mind, we could say "Not no; Yes". "not no" is the re-application of "no" to "no", thereby cancelling it.

For further 'validation' of how a Reflection can be possible in 'zero space' - or zero dimensions - we can look at the relationship between dimensions and transformations. I will propose another thought experiment: On a piece of paper, turned 'landscape' so you have room for this, draw a vertical line down the middle of the page. On one side of that line, draw a triangle (or any shape - triangles are conveniently easy to draw 'free hand'). The vertical line is your 'line of Reflection' - relative to which you want to reflect your hand-drawn triangle. There are two ways to do this:

1) You draw precisely-perpendicular lines from your 'Reflection line' to each vertex of the triangle. Measure the length of these lines, then draw exactly the same length lines on the other side of your 'Reflection line'. Then, simply connect the vertices of your newly reflected triangle. Laborious, imprecise, but it does work.

2) You fold your piece of paper along your 'Reflection line', keeping the blank side firmly on the table, and folding the drawn triangle over the top of it. Then trace your triangle on the other side (or poke holes through the triangle's vertices, or rub the page and try to get some graphite to transfer). With a clean fold, you're sure to get the exact reflection every time: quick and reliable.

Look at the second method: What have we done? We rotated the 2D object (the triangle) through 3D space. More precisely, we effected a half-rotation. Can the same be done with a 1D line segment? Yes: using the same page (let's be ecological here), draw a dashed-line anywhere on your page. On one side of it, darken a line segment (fill it in as a solid dark line segment). A little away from your segment, squiggle a black dot. This will be your 'Reflection point' (no longer a 'line' - reiterating why Reflections can't be represented by vectors). Fold the page through the point so that the dashed-line overlaps. Then trace your line segment on the other side. Voilà , you've just half-rotated a 1D object through 2D space and resulted in a 1D Reflection of your 1D line segment.

There's a pattern here: a half-rotation in n dimensions results in a Reflection in n-1 dimensions. So we can follow this pattern down to zero-dimensions: a 0D object half-Rotated through 1D space is a Reflection of that 0D object in zero-dimensions.

"Wait-a-minute" I hear you say. First, what the heck is any kind of rotation in 1D? Second, how the heck does that 'equate' to any kind of yes-or-no Reflection? Don't fret - here's another experiment to get your hands dirty:

Take a cardboard toilet paper tube and paint half side black (lengthwise, not 'around' the cylinder) and the other side white. Then roll the tube over a white background - better yet, have someone else rotate that tube in place against a white background while you watch, standing far far away. What you will see is the, admittedly 'rectangular', black dot appear and disappear, blinking in and out of existence... This is the Point being Reflected and then re-Reflected - in other words, our Thing for which we can say it "is" or "is not". For you, the black dot "is" and then "is not". Once again, we've seen that Reflections are viable transformations for a non-spatial dimension.

Reflections, furthermore, are not just 'zero-dimensional' - they're 'pan-dimensional'. Vectors, you may know (or will soon learn in school), can be represented in infinitely-many dimensions - except zero, as we've seen. But what we've also seen is that the arrow-head of a vector is the yes-or-no 'flag' indicating the 'Reflection status' of that vector. So _every_ vector, up to infinite dimensions, is implicitly constructed with a zero-dimensional Reflection. The reflection transformation is present in ALL (and NONE) dimensions.

Post has attachment

We asked, they listened!

The BlackBerry mothership has provided me with some promo codes for the Canadian and US ShopBlackBerry, so if you are thinking of buying a BlackBerry #Classic wouldn't mind $75 off? Check out ShopBlackBerry (see the attached URL) and plug in the following promo codes: Canada-Passport: bqjttbdtt, US-Passport: yhx3ba93a

Same goes for the BlackBerry #Passport, except you get $100 off! Promo codes: Canada-Passport: ghu78pymh, US-Passport: 8yip8tpbh

Obviously share this with your friends that are thinking about getting a new device!

Now to try to convince the wife to allow me to update my Z30 -- or maybe I will just get a Passport and surprise her :)

The BlackBerry mothership has provided me with some promo codes for the Canadian and US ShopBlackBerry, so if you are thinking of buying a BlackBerry #Classic wouldn't mind $75 off? Check out ShopBlackBerry (see the attached URL) and plug in the following promo codes: Canada-Passport: bqjttbdtt, US-Passport: yhx3ba93a

Same goes for the BlackBerry #Passport, except you get $100 off! Promo codes: Canada-Passport: ghu78pymh, US-Passport: 8yip8tpbh

Obviously share this with your friends that are thinking about getting a new device!

Now to try to convince the wife to allow me to update my Z30 -- or maybe I will just get a Passport and surprise her :)

Post has shared content

Это афигительно..

Мне особо нравится тролящее всех распятие

Мне особо нравится тролящее всех распятие

Post has shared content

#thoughtoftheday but on a serious note, spoons are against me!

Guns don't kill people

Post has shared content

Life advice from +reddit

Post has shared content

Post has shared content

#nice

**Watch this robot perform a perfect quadruple backflip**

*Youtuber hinamitetu has engineered a squadron of robot gymnasts capable of executing flips, handsprings, and high-bar acrobatics. Bots capable of entry into other artistic events are sure to follow. In this, his latest video, one of hinamitetu's creations performs a flawless quadruple backflip and sticks the landing like Kerri Strug. Please, nobody tell DARPA about this.*

Read more : http://goo.gl/Oa8Mr1

Image : io9

Post has attachment

web technology has come soo far since 1995.

Post has attachment

Post has shared content

#foodforthought :D

**My First Deep Learning System of 1991 + Deep Learning Timeline 1962-2013**(an experiment in open online peer review - comments welcome - as a machine learning researcher I am obsessed with proper credit assignment):

In 2009, our Deep Learning Artificial Neural Networks became the first Deep Learners to win official international pattern recognition competitions [A9] (with deadline and secret test set known only to the organisers); by 2012 they had won eight of them [A11]. In 2011, GPU-based versions achieved the first superhuman visual pattern recognition results [A10]. Others implemented variants and have won additional contests since 2012, e.g., [A12]. The field of Deep Learning research is far older though (see timeline further down).

My first Deep Learner dates back to 1991 [1,2]. It can perform credit assignment across hundreds of nonlinear operators or neural layers, by using unsupervised pre-training for a stack of recurrent neural networks (RNN) (deep by nature) as in the figure. (Such RNN are general computers more powerful than normal feedforward NN, and can encode entire sequences of inputs.)

The basic idea is still relevant today. Each RNN is trained for a while in unsupervised fashion to predict its next input. From then on, only unexpected inputs (errors) convey new information and get fed to the next higher RNN which thus ticks on a slower, self-organising time scale. It can easily be shown that no information gets lost. It just gets compressed (note that much of machine learning is essentially about compression). We get less and less redundant input sequence encodings in deeper and deeper levels of this hierarchical temporal memory, which compresses data in both space (like feedforward NN) and time. There also is a continuous variant [47].

One ancient illustrative Deep Learning experiment of 1993 [2] required credit assignment across 1200 time steps, or through 1200 subsequent nonlinear virtual layers. The top level code of the initially unsupervised RNN stack, however, got so compact that (previously infeasible) sequence classification through additional supervised learning became possible.

There is a way of compressing higher levels down into lower levels, thus partially collapsing the hierarchical temporal memory. The trick is to retrain lower-level RNN to continually imitate (predict) the hidden units of already trained, slower, higher-level RNN, through additional predictive output neurons [1,2]. This helps the lower RNN to develop appropriate, rarely changing memories that may bridge very long time lags.

The Deep Learner of 1991 was a first way of overcoming the Fundamental Deep Learning Problem identified and analysed in 1991 by my very first student (now professor) Sepp Hochreiter: the problem of vanishing or exploding gradients [3,4,4a,A5]. The latter motivated all our subsequent Deep Learning research of the 1990s and 2000s.

Through supervised LSTM RNN (1997) (e.g., [5,6,7,A7]) and faster computers we could eventually perform similar feats as with the 1991 system [1,2], overcoming the Fundamental Deep Learning Problem without any unsupervised pre-training. Moreover, LSTM could also learn tasks unlearnable by the partially unsupervised 1991 chunker [1,2].

Particularly successful are stacks of LSTM RNN [10] trained by Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) [8]. In 2009, this became the first RNN system ever to win an official international pattern recognition competition [A9], through the work of my PhD student and postdoc Alex Graves, e.g., [10]. To my knowledge, this also was the first Deep Learning system ever (recurrent or not) to win such a contest. (In fact, it won three different ICDAR 2009 contests on connected handwriting in three different languages, e.g., [11,A9,A13].) A while ago, Alex moved on to Geoffrey Hinton's lab (Univ. Toronto), where a stack [10] of our bidirectional LSTM RNN [7] also broke a famous TIMIT speech recognition record [12], despite thousands of man years previously spent on HMM-based speech recognition research.

Recently, well-known entrepreneurs also got interested in hierarchical temporal memories [13,14].

The expression Deep Learning actually got coined relatively late, around 2006, in the context of unsupervised pre-training for less general feedforward networks [15]. Such a system reached 1.2% error rate [15] on the MNIST handwritten digits [16], perhaps the most famous benchmark of Machine Learning. Our team first showed that good old backpropagation [A1] on GPUs (with training pattern distortions [42,43] but without any unsupervised pre-training) can actually achieve a three times better result of 0.35% [17] - back then, a world record (a previous standard net achieved 0.7% [43]; a backprop-trained [16] Convolutional NN (CNN) [19a,19,16,16a] got 0.39% [49]; plain backprop without distortions except for small saccadic eye movement-like translations already got 0.95%). Then we replaced our standard net by a biologically rather plausible architecture inspired by early neuroscience-related work [19a,18,19,16]: Deep and Wide GPU-based Multi-Column Max-Pooling CNN (MCMPCNN) [21,22] with alternating backprop-based [16,16a,50] weight-sharing convolutional layers [19,16,23] and winner-take-all [19a,19] max-pooling [20,24,50,46] layers (see [55] for early GPU-based CNN). MCMPCNN are committees of MPCNN [25a] with simple democratic output averaging (compare earlier more sophisticated ensemble methods [48]). Object detection [54] and image segmentation [53] profit from fast MPCNN-based image scans [28,28a]. Our supervised MCMPCNN was the first method to achieve superhuman performance in an official international competition (with deadline and secret test set known only to the organisers) [25,25a,A10] (compare [51]), and the first with human-competitive performance (around 0.2%) on MNIST [22]. Since 2011, it has won numerous additional competitions on a routine basis [A11-A13].

Some of our methods were adopted by the groups of Univ. Toronto/Stanford/Google, e.g., [26,27]. Apple Inc., the most profitable smartphone maker, hired Ueli Meier, member of our Deep Learning team that won the ICDAR 2011 Chinese handwriting contest [22,A9]. ArcelorMittal, the world's top steel producer, is using our methods for material defect detection, e.g., [28]. Other users include a leading automotive supplier, recent start-ups such as deepmind (which hired four of my former PhD students/postdocs), and many other companies and leading research labs. One of the most important applications of our techniques is biomedical imaging [54], e.g., for cancer prognosis or plaque detection in CT heart scans.

Remarkably, the most successful Deep Learning algorithms in most international contests since 2009 [A9-A13] are adaptations and extensions of a 40-year-old algorithm, namely, supervised efficient backprop [A1,60,29a] (compare [30,31,58,59,61]) or BPTT/RTRL for RNN, e.g., [32-34,37-39]. (Exceptions include two 2011 contests specialised on transfer learning [44] - but compare [45]). In particular, as of 2013, state-of-the-art feedforward nets [A10-A13] are GPU-based [21] multi-column [22] combinations of two ancient concepts: Backpropagation [A1] applied [16a] to Neocognitron-like convolutional architectures [A2] (with max-pooling layers [20,50,46] instead of alternative [19a,19,40] winner-take-all methods). (Plus additional tricks from the 1990s and 2000s, e.g., [41a,41b,41c].) In the deep recurrent case, supervised systems also dominate, e.g, [5,8,10,9,39,12,A9].

Nevertheless, in many applications it can still be advantageous to combine the best of both worlds - supervised learning and unsupervised pre-training, like in my 1991 system described above [1,2].

**Acknowledgments:**Thanks for valuable comments to Geoffrey Hinton, Kunihiko Fukushima, Yoshua Bengio, Sven Behnke, Yann LeCun, Sepp Hochreiter, Mike Mozer, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Andreas Griewank, Paul Werbos, Shun-ichi Amari, Seppo Linnainmaa, Peter Norvig, Yu-Chi Ho, and others. Graphics: Fibonacci Web Design

-------------------------------------------------------------------

**Timeline of Deep Learning Highlights**

(under construction - compare references further down)

[A0] 1962: Discovery of simple cells and complex cells in the visual cortex [18], inspiration for later deep artificial neural network (NN) architectures [A2] used in certain modern award-winning Deep Learners [A10-A13]

[A1] 1970 (plusminus a decade or so): Error functions and their gradients for complex, nonlinear, multi-stage, differentiable, NN-like systems have been discussed at least since the 1960s, e.g., [56-58,64-66]. Gradients can be computed [57-58] by iterating the ancient chain rule [68,69] in dynamic programming style [67]. However,

**efficient error backpropagation (BP)**in sparse, acyclic, NN-like networks apparently was first described in 1970 [60-61]. BP is also known as the reverse mode of automatic differentiation [56], where the costs of forward activation spreading essentially equal the costs of backward derivative calculation. See early FORTRAN code [60], and compare [62]. Compare the concept of ordered derivative [29], with NN-specific discussion [29] (section 5.5.1), and the first efficient NN-specific BP of the early 1980s [29a,29b]. Compare [30,31,59] and generalisations for sequence-processing recurrent NN, e.g., [32-34,37-39]. See also natural gradients [63]. As of 2013, BP is still the central Deep Learning algorithm.

[A2] 1979: Deep Neocognitron Architecture [19a,19,40] incorporating neurophysiological insights [A0,18], with weight-sharing convolutional neural layers as well as winner-take-all layers, very similar to the architecture of modern, competition-winning, purely supervised, feedforward, gradient-based Deep Learners [A10-A13] (but using local unsupervised learning rules instead) http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neocognitron

[A3] 1987: Ideas published on unsupervised autoencoder hierarchies [35], related to post-2000 feedforward Deep Learners based on unsupervised pre-training, e.g., [15]; compare survey [36] and somewhat related RAAMs [52]

[A4] 1989: Backprop [A1] applied [16,16a] to weight-sharing convolutional neural layers [A2,19a,19,16], essential ingredient of many modern, competition-winning, feedforward, visual Deep Learners [A10-A13]

[A5] 1991: Fundamental Deep Learning Problem discovered and analyzed [3]; compare [4] http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/fundamentaldeeplearningproblem.html

[A6] 1991: First recurrent Deep Learning system, and perhaps the first working Deep Learner in the modern post-2000 sense, also first Neural Hierarchical Temporal Memory (present page: deep RNN stack plus unsupervised pre-training) [1,2] www.deeplearning.me

[A7] 1997: First purely supervised Deep Learner (LSTM RNN), e.g., [5-10,12,A9] http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/rnn.html

[A8] 2006: Science paper [15] helps to arouse interest in deep NN (focus on unsupervised pre-training)

[A9] 2009: First official international pattern recognition contests won by Deep Learning (several connected handwriting competitions won by LSTM RNN) [10,11] http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/handwriting.html

[A10] 2011: First superhuman visual pattern recognition, through deep and wide supervised GPU-based Multicolumn Max-Pooling CNN (MCMPCNN), the current gold standard for deep feedforward NN [25-26] http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/superhumanpatternrecognition.html

[A11] 2012: 8th international pattern recognition contest won since 2009 (interview on KurzweilAI) http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-bio-inspired-deep-learning-keeps-winning-competitions

[A12] 2013: More pattern recognition contests since 2012 (lab of G.H.) http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/

[A13] 2013: More benchmark world records set by Deep Learning (lab of J.S.) http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/deeplearning.html

**References**

[1] J. Schmidhuber. Learning complex, extended sequences using the principle of history compression, Neural Computation, 4(2):234-242, 1992 (based on TR FKI-148-91, 1991). ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/chunker.pdf

[2] J. Schmidhuber. Habilitation thesis, TUM, 1993. An ancient experiment with credit assignment across 1200 time steps or virtual layers and unsupervised pre-training for a stack of recurrent NN can be found here http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/habilitation/node114.html - try Google Translate in your mother tongue.

[3] S. Hochreiter. Untersuchungen zu dynamischen neuronalen Netzen. Diploma thesis, TUM, 1991 (advisor J.S.) http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/SeppHochreiter1991ThesisAdvisorSchmidhuber.pdf

[4] S. Hochreiter, Y. Bengio, P. Frasconi, J. Schmidhuber. Gradient flow in recurrent nets: the difficulty of learning long-term dependencies. In S. C. Kremer and J. F. Kolen, eds., A Field Guide to Dynamical Recurrent Neural Networks. IEEE press, 2001. ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/gradientflow.pdf

[4a] Y. Bengio, P. Simard, P. Frasconi. Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE TNN 5(2), p 157-166, 1994

[5] S. Hochreiter, J. Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735-1780, 1997. ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/lstm.pdf

[6] F. A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, F. Cummins. Learning to Forget: Continual Prediction with LSTM. Neural Computation, 12(10):2451--2471, 2000.

[7] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM and other neural network architectures. Neural Networks, 18:5-6, pp. 602-610, 2005.

[8] A. Graves, S. Fernandez, F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. ICML 06, Pittsburgh, 2006. ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/icml2006.pdf

[9] A. Graves, M. Liwicki, S. Fernandez, R. Bertolami, H. Bunke, J. Schmidhuber. A Novel Connectionist System for Improved Unconstrained Handwriting Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 31, no. 5, 2009.

[10] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Offline Handwriting Recognition with Multidimensional Recurrent Neural Networks. NIPS'22, p 545-552, Vancouver, MIT Press, 2009. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/nips2009.pdf

[11] J. Schmidhuber, D. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, A. Graves. On Fast Deep Nets for AGI Vision. In Proc. Fourth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-11), Google, Mountain View, California, 2011. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/agivision2011.pdf

[12] A. Graves, A. Mohamed, G. E. Hinton. Speech Recognition with Deep Recurrent Neural Networks. ICASSP 2013, Vancouver, 2013. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/RNN13.pdf

[13] J. Hawkins, D. George. Hierarchical Temporal Memory - Concepts, Theory, and Terminology. Numenta Inc., 2006.

[14] R. Kurzweil. How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. ISBN 0670025291, 2012.

[15] G. E. Hinton, R. R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 504 - 507, 2006. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/science.pdf

[16] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, L. D. Jackel: Backpropagation Applied to Handwritten Zip Code Recognition, Neural Computation, 1(4):541-551, 1989. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-89e.pdf

[16a] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard and L. D. Jackel: Handwritten digit recognition with a back-propagation network. Proc. NIPS 1989, 2, Morgan Kaufman, Denver, CO, 1990.

[17] Dan Claudiu Ciresan, U. Meier, L. M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Deep Big Simple Neural Nets For Handwritten Digit Recognition. Neural Computation 22(12): 3207-3220, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0358

[18] D. H. Hubel, T. N. Wiesel. Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction And Functional Architecture In The Cat's Visual Cortex. Journal of Physiology, 1962.

[19] K. Fukushima. Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biological Cybernetics, 36(4): 193-202, 1980. Scholarpedia http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neocognitron

[19a] K. Fukushima: Neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position - Neocognitron. Trans. IECE, vol. J62-A, no. 10, pp. 658-665, 1979.

[20] M. Riesenhuber, T. Poggio. Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience 11, p 1019-1025, 1999. http://riesenhuberlab.neuro.georgetown.edu/docs/publications/nn99.pdf

[21] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, L. M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Flexible, High Performance Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2011, Barcelona), 2011. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/ijcai2011.pdf

[22] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Schmidhuber. Multi-column Deep Neural Networks for Image Classification. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR 2012, p 3642-3649, 2012. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/cvpr2012.pdf

[23] Y. LeCun, Y. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324, 1998 http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-98.pdf

[24] S. Behnke. Hierarchical Neural Networks for Image Interpretation. Dissertation, FU Berlin, 2002. LNCS 2766, Springer 2003. http://www.ais.uni-bonn.de/books/LNCS2766.pdf

[25] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, J. Schmidhuber. Multi-Column Deep Neural Network for Traffic Sign Classification. Neural Networks 32: 333-338, 2012. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/nn2012traffic.pdf

[25a] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, J. Schmidhuber. A Committee of Neural Networks for Traffic Sign Classification. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN-2011, San Francisco), 2011.

[26] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. E. Hinton. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. NIPS 25, MIT Press, 2012. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/imagenet.pdf

[27] A. Coates, B. Huval, T. Wang, D. J. Wu, Andrew Y. Ng, B. Catanzaro. Deep Learning with COTS HPC Systems, ICML 2013. http://www.stanford.edu/~acoates/papers/CoatesHuvalWangWuNgCatanzaro_icml2013.pdf

[28] J. Masci, A. Giusti, D. Ciresan, G. Fricout, J. Schmidhuber. A Fast Learning Algorithm for Image Segmentation with Max-Pooling Convolutional Networks. ICIP 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1690

[28a] A. Giusti, D. Ciresan, J. Masci, L.M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Fast Image Scanning with Deep Max-Pooling Convolutional Neural Networks. ICIP 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1700

[29] P. J. Werbos. Beyond Regression: New Tools for Prediction and Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. PhD thesis, Harvard University, 1974

[29a] P. J. Werbos. Applications of advances in nonlinear sensitivity analysis. In R. Drenick, F. Kozin, (eds): System Modeling and Optimization: Proc. IFIP (1981), Springer, 1982.

[29b] P. J. Werbos. Backwards Differentiation in AD and Neural Nets: Past Links and New Opportunities. In H.M. Bücker, G. Corliss, P. Hovland, U. Naumann, B. Norris (Eds.), Automatic Differentiation: Applications, Theory, and Implementations, 2006. http://www.werbos.com/AD2004.pdf

[30] Y. LeCun: Une procedure d'apprentissage pour reseau a seuil asymetrique. Proceedings of Cognitiva 85, 599-604, Paris, France, 1985. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-85.pdf

[31] D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, R. J. Williams. Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland, editors, Parallel Distributed Processing, volume 1, pages 318-362. MIT Press, 1986 http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/pdp8.pdf

[32] Ron J. Williams. Complexity of exact gradient computation algorithms for recurrent neural networks. Technical Report Technical Report NU-CCS-89-27, Boston: Northeastern University, College of Computer Science, 1989

[33] A. J. Robinson and F. Fallside. The utility driven dynamic error propagation network. TR CUED/F-INFENG/TR.1, Cambridge University Engineering Department, 1987

[34] P. J. Werbos. Generalization of backpropagation with application to a recurrent gas market model. Neural Networks, 1, 1988

[35] D. H. Ballard. Modular learning in neural networks. Proc. AAAI-87, Seattle, WA, p 279-284, 1987

[36] G. E. Hinton. Connectionist learning procedures. Artificial Intelligence 40, 185-234, 1989. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/clp.pdf

[37] B. A. Pearlmutter. Learning state space trajectories in recurrent neural networks. Neural Computation, 1(2):263-269, 1989

[38] J. Schmidhuber. A fixed size storage O(n^3) time complexity learning algorithm for fully recurrent continually running networks. Neural Computation, 4(2):243-248, 1992.

[39] J. Martens and I. Sutskever. Training Recurrent Neural Networks with Hessian-Free Optimization. In Proc. ICML 2011.

[40] K. Fukushima: Artificial vision by multi-layered neural networks: Neocognitron and its advances, Neural Networks, vol. 37, pp. 103-119, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2012.09.016

[41a] G. B. Orr, K.R. Müller, eds., Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade. LNCS 1524, Springer, 1999.

[41b] G. Montavon, G. B. Orr, K.R. Müller, eds., Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade. LNCS 7700, Springer, 2012.

[41c] Lots of additional tricks for improving (e.g., accelerating, robustifying, simplifying, regularising) NN can be found in the proceedings of NIPS (since 1987), IJCNN (of IEEE & INNS, since 1989), ICANN (since 1991), and other NN conferences since the late 1980s. Given the recent attention to NN, many of the old tricks may get revived.

[42] H. Baird. Document image defect models. IAPR Workshop, Syntactic & Structural Pattern Recognition, p 38-46, 1990

[43] P. Y. Simard, D. Steinkraus, J.C. Platt. Best Practices for Convolutional Neural Networks Applied to Visual Document Analysis. ICDAR 2003, p 958-962, 2003.

[44] I. J. Goodfellow, A. Courville, Y. Bengio. Spike-and-Slab Sparse Coding for Unsupervised Feature Discovery. Proc. ICML, 2012.

[45] D. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Schmidhuber. Transfer Learning for Latin and Chinese Characters with Deep Neural Networks. Proc. IJCNN 2012, p 1301-1306, 2012.

[46] D. Scherer, A. Mueller, S. Behnke. Evaluation of pooling operations in convolutional architectures for object recognition. In Proc. ICANN 2010. http://www.ais.uni-bonn.de/papers/icann2010_maxpool.pdf

[47] J. Schmidhuber, M. C. Mozer, and D. Prelinger. Continuous history compression. In H. Hüning, S. Neuhauser, M. Raus, and W. Ritschel, editors, Proc. of Intl. Workshop on Neural Networks, RWTH Aachen, pages 87-95. Augustinus, 1993.

[48] R. E. Schapire. The Strength of Weak Learnability. Machine Learning 5 (2): 197-227, 1990.

[49] M. A. Ranzato, C. Poultney, S. Chopra, Y. Lecun. Efficient learning of sparse representations with an energy-based model. Proc. NIPS, 2006.

[50] M. Ranzato, F.J. Huang, Y. Boureau, Y. LeCun. Unsupervised Learning of Invariant Feature Hierarchies with Applications to Object Recognition. Proc. CVPR 2007, Minneapolis, 2007. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ranzato/publications/ranzato-cvpr07.pdf

[51] P. Sermanet, Y. LeCun. Traffic sign recognition with multi-scale convolutional networks. Proc. IJCNN 2011, p 2809-2813, IEEE, 2011

[52] J. B. Pollack. Implications of Recursive Distributed Representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems I, NIPS, 527-536, 1989.

[53] Deep Learning NN win 2012 Brain Image Segmentation Contest http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/deeplearningwinsbraincontest.html

[54] Deep Learning NN win MICCAI 2013 Grand Challenge (and 2012 ICPR Contest) on Mitosis Detection http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/deeplearningwinsMICCAIgrandchallenge.html

[55] K. Chellapilla, S. Puri, P. Simard. High performance convolutional neural networks for document processing. International Workshop on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, 2006.

[56] A. Griewank. Who invented the reverse mode of differentiation? Documenta Mathematica, Extra Volume ISMP, p 389-400, 2012

[57] H. J. Kelley. Gradient Theory of Optimal Flight Paths. ARS Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 947-954, 1960.

[57a] A. E. Bryson. A gradient method for optimizing multi-stage allocation processes. Proc. Harvard Univ. Symposium on digital computers and their applications, 1961.

[58] A. E. Bryson, Y. Ho. Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation, and control. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell, 1969.

[59] D.B. Parker. Learning-logic, TR-47, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1985.

[60] S. Linnainmaa. The representation of the cumulative rounding error of an algorithm as a Taylor expansion of the local rounding errors. Master's Thesis (in Finnish), Univ. Helsinki, 1970. See chapters 6-7 and FORTRAN code on pages 58-60. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/linnainmaa1970thesis.pdf

[61] S. Linnainmaa. Taylor expansion of the accumulated rounding error. BIT 16, 146-160, 1976. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01931367

[62] G.M. Ostrovskii, Yu.M. Volin, W.W. Borisov. Über die Berechnung von Ableitungen. Wiss. Z. Tech. Hochschule für Chemie 13, 382-384, 1971.

[63] S. Amari, Natural gradient works efficiently in learning, Neural Computation, 10, 4-10, 1998

[64] G. J. H. Wilkinson. The algebraic eigenvalue problem. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1965.

[65] S. Amari, Theory of Adaptive Pattern Classifiers. IEEE Trans., EC-16, No. 3, pp. 299-307, 1967

[66] S. W. Director, R. A. Rohrer. Automated network design - the frequency-domain case. IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory CT-16, 330-337, 1969.

[67] R. Bellman. Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, 1957.

[68] G. W. Leibniz. Memoir using the chain rule, 1676. (Cited in TMME 7:2&3 p 321-332, 2010)

[69] G. F. A. L'Hospital. Analyse des infiniment petits - Pour l'intelligence des lignes courbes. Paris: L'Imprimerie Royale, 1696.

.

Wait while more posts are being loaded