text:
\documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{times,subeqnarray}
\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
% if you want to be more fully apa-style for submission, then use this
%\usepackage{psypub,doublespace,ulem}
\usepackage{neurcomp}
%\usepackage{doublespace}
\usepackage{one-in-margins}  % use instead of psydraft for one-in-margs
\usepackage{apa}       % apa must come last
% using latex2e as standard, use the following for latex209
% \documentstyle [times,11pt,twoside,subeqnarray,psydraft,apa,epsf]{article}
\input netsym

% use 0 for psypub format
\parskip 2pt
% for double-spacing, determines spacing
%\setstretch{1.7}

\def\myheading{ Generalization in Interactive Networks }

% no twoside for pure apa style, use \markright with heading only
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\markboth{\hspace{.5in} \myheading \hfill}{\hfill O'Reilly \hspace{.5in}}

\begin{document}
\bibliographystyle{apa}

\raggedbottom
% sloppy is the way to go!
\sloppy

\pagestyle{empty}
% pure apa: uncomment following, comment above
%\pagestyle{myheadings}
%\noindent Running Head: \myheading
\hfill Manuscript number 1992\\
\vspace*{.1in}
\begin{center}
  {\Large Generalization in Interactive Networks: \\The Benefits of
Inhibitory Competition and Hebbian Learning\\}
\vspace*{1in}
{\large Randall C. O'Reilly}\\
\vspace*{.5in}
{\large Department of Psychology\\
University of Colorado at Boulder \\
Campus Box 345\\
Boulder, CO 80309}\\
{\small oreilly@psych.colorado.edu}\\
\vspace*{1in}
\today\\
\vspace*{.5in}
%{In press at {\em Neural Computation}\\}
\end{center}

\newpage

% if no abstract, set the page to get the headings on right pages
%\setcounter{page}{0}
\begin{abstract}
  Computational models in cognitive neuroscience should ideally use
  biological properties and powerful computational principles to
  produce behavior consistent with psychological findings.
  Error-driven backpropagation is computationally powerful, and has
  proven useful for modeling a range of psychological data, but is not
  biologically plausible.  Several approaches to implementing
  backpropagation in a biologically plausible fashion converge on the
  idea of using bidirectional activation propagation in interactive
  networks to convey error signals.  This paper demonstrates two main
  points about these error-driven interactive networks: (a) they
  generalize poorly due to attractor dynamics that interfere with the
  network's ability to systematically produce novel combinatorial
  representations in response to novel inputs; and (b) this
  generalization problem can be remedied by adding two widely used
  mechanistic principles, inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning,
  that can be independently motivated for a variety of biological,
  psychological and computational reasons.  Simulations using the
  Leabra algorithm, which combines the generalized recirculation
  (GeneRec) biologically-plausible error-driven learning algorithm
  with inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning, show that these
  mechanisms can result in good generalization in interactive
  networks.  These results support the general conclusion that
  cognitive neuroscience models that incorporate the core mechanistic
  principles of interactivity, inhibitory competition, and
  error-driven and Hebbian learning satisfy a wider range of
  biological, psychological and computational constraints than models
  employing a subset of these principles.
\end{abstract}

% single-spaced table of contents, delete if unwanted
%\newpage
%\begingroup
%\parskip 0em
%\tableofcontents
%\endgroup
%\newpage

\newpage

\pagestyle{myheadings}

\section{Introduction}

A long-standing goal of neural network modeling is to develop a
formalism that is consistent with the known biological properties of
the neural networks of the brain, uses powerful computational
principles, and produces behavior consistent with findings from
psychology.  This goal has often been thwarted by incompatibilities
among these different levels of constraints.  This paper examines the
ability of networks to process novel information, {\em
  generalization}, and how this ability is affected by network
properties motivated by attempts to produce a formalism that achieves
this long-standing goal.  We will see that {\em interactive}
(bidirectional, recurrent) networks, which are appealing for a variety
of biological, psychological, and computational reasons, nevertheless
tend to generalize much worse than their feedforward counterparts.
However, the inclusion of two other principled mechanisms, inhibitory
competition and Hebbian learning (which are similarly appealing for a
variety of biological, psychological, and computational reasons)
results in good generalization in an interactive network.  These
results support the use of formalisms that include all of these
principles.

\subsection{The Importance of Interactivity}

Interactive networks provide a number of advantages from the
biological, computational, and psychological perspectives.
Biologically, bidirectional connectivity is ubiquitous in the cortex
\cite[e.g.,]{FellemanVanEssen91,LevittLewisYoshiokaLund93,WhiteEl89,DouglasMartin90}.
Computationally, interactivity enables iterative, constraint
satisfaction style processing
\cite{Smolensky86,AckleyHintonSejnowski85,Hopfield82,Hopfield84}, and
generally allows information processing to flow in many different
directions within one network, providing a richer and more flexible
system.  Psychologically, interactivity is important for understanding
phenomena like the {\em word superiority effect}, where higher-level
word representations both depend on and yet exert top-down influence
over lower-level letter representations \cite{McClellandRumelhart81},
and other kinds of top-down processing effects
\cite[e.g.,]{VeceraOReilly98}.

Another major motivation for interactive networks is that they enable
a more biologically plausible form of error-driven backpropagation
learning.  Backpropagation learning \cite{RumelhartHintonWilliams86}
provides the starting point for the algorithms discussed in this paper
and has been used in a wide range of psychological models, but is
unfortunately inconsistent with known biological properties
\cite{Crick89,ZipserAndersen88}.  Specifically, a literal biological
interpretation of backpropagation would require that an error
derivative term be (a) propagated backwards across the synapse and
down the axon of the sending neuron, (b) summed and multiplied by a
derivative term, and (c) propagated down the dendrites of this neuron
and across its synapses, etc.  No evidence for these mechanisms
exists.

It was recently shown that backpropagation can be implemented in a
more biologically plausible fashion using bidirectional activation
propagation in an interactive network using the {\em GeneRec}
algorithm \cite{OReilly96}, which is a generalization of the {\em
  recirculation} algorithm \cite{HintonMcClelland88}.  In GeneRec,
error information is propagated as two separate terms via standard
activation propagation mechanisms in interactive networks, and the
difference between these terms (which is the error signal) can be
plausibly computed using the synaptic modification mechanisms
underlying long term potentiation and depression (LTP/LTD).  Versions
of the GeneRec algorithm are equivalent to the other known ways of
implementing powerful error-driven learning using interactive
activation propagation instead of direct error propagation (e.g., the
deterministic Boltzmann machine; \nopcite{Hinton89} and contrastive
Hebbian learning; \nopcite{Movellan90}).  Thus, several different
approaches converge on the idea that the way to perform error-driven
learning in a more biologically plausible manner is to use interactive
networks, where error signals are communicated via top-down activation
propagation.

\subsection{Interactivity Impairs Generalization}

Despite the numerous advantages of interactivity, this paper shows
that it can also impart some significant limitations --- it tends to
impair the generalization performance of networks.  Generalization is
important from both computational and psychological perspectives.
Computationally, generalization has been a major focus in the study of
machine learning, where it enables limited training data to be applied
more broadly
\cite[e.g.,]{WeigendRumelhartHuberman91,Wolpert92,VapnickChervonenkis71}.
Psychologically, generalization is important for modeling human
nonword reading performance (e.g., the fact that people generally
pronounce nonwords like ``nust'' according to the regularities of the
English language;
\nopcite{SeidenbergMcClelland89,PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96}),
and more generally for understanding how human and animal cognition
can exhibit flexibility in ever-changing environments.  Thus, the fact
that interactivity impairs generalization, often to a very significant
degree, is problematic for any attempt to develop a biologically,
computationally, and psychologically satisfying neural network
algorithm.

To understand how an interactive network can interfere with
generalization, one must understand how networks typically generalize.
Networks can form distributed internal representations that encode the
compositional features of the environment in a combinatorial fashion,
which enables novel stimuli to be processed successfully by activating
the appropriate novel combination of representational (hidden) units.
Although the combination is novel, the constituent features are
familiar, and have been trained to produce or influence appropriate
outputs, such that the novel combination of features should also
produce a reasonable result. In the domain of reading, a network can
pronounce nonwords correctly when it represents the pronunciation
consequences of each letter using different units that can easily be
recombined in novel ways for nonwords.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.comb_gen_illus.id}
  \caption{\small Illustration of why independent (elemental) internal
    representations are important for good combinatorial
    generalization.  Inputs are different colored lights (red, green
    and blue), and outputs are different buttons that could be
    pressed.  Training consists of R,G $\rightarrow$ 1,2 and R,B
    $\rightarrow$ 1,3, and testing is on G,B, which, combinatorially,
    should produce 2,3. In case a) the internal representations encode
    the input-output mapping in an independent or elemental fashion,
    enabling full combinatorial generalization.  In case b) the
    representations are {\em conjunctive}, meaning that inputs
    interact or conjoin in determining the internal representations
    (via attractor dynamics), producing different attractors for each
    {\em pair} of inputs.  This can produce bad combinatorial
    generalization because the weights for the novel G,B attractor
    have not been associated with anything meaningful during
    training.}
  \label{fig.comb_gen_illus}
\end{figure}

In this combinatorial view of generalization, interactivity impairs
generalization because an interactive network is a dynamic system,
whereas a feedforward network is not.  Under certain conditions, the
interactive activation dynamics (e.g., {\em attractors}) can interfere
with the ability to form novel combinatorial representations --- the
units interact with each other {\em too much} to retain the kind of
independence necessary for novel recombination.  Consider a very
simple example (figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}): train that a red and
green light means push buttons 1 and 2, and red and blue means push
buttons 1 and 3.  Then, test with green and blue lights --- buttons 2
and 3 should be pushed.  If the training is encoded using independent
internal representations for each elemental input/output mapping, then
the system will naturally generalize to novel combinations
(figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}a).  However, if there are interactive
attractor dynamics that cause different pairs of inputs to be encoded
by very different sets of internal units, then combinatorial
generalization will not work, because the green -- blue test input
will activate a novel internal representation that has not been
systematically associated with the correct outputs
(figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}b).

In other words, combinatorial generalization suffers to the extent
that inputs interact {\em conjunctively} in determining the internal
representation.  The tradeoff between independent, {\em elemental}
representations versus {\em conjunctive} or {\em configural}
representations has been analyzed in the context of hippocampal
representations, which are thought to be conjunctive, while cortical
representations are thought to be more elemental or independent
\cite[e.g.,]{Marr71,OReillyMcClelland94,McClellandMcNaughtonOReilly95,OReillyRudy00,OReillyRudy00hip}.
According to this analysis, conjunctive representations are important
for capturing {\em specifics}, while elemental/independent
representations are important for capturing {\em generalities} of the
environment and using these representations for generalization to
novel situations.

Thus, as will be demonstrated, generalization suffers when there are
{\em conjunctive attractor dynamics}, where multiple input features
interact and give rise to different internal representations, instead
of each feature contributing independently (combinatorially) to the
internal representations.  Specifically, these conjunctive attractor
dynamics can arise when learning and activation dynamics are
underconstrained, such that individual units tend to be activated by a
large and unsystematic collection of input features, and the network
is highly sensitive to small differences between different inputs.  In
addition to demonstrating a substantial impairment of combinatorial
generalization in underconstrained interactive networks, the
simulations in this paper provide more direct evidence that
conjunctive attractor dynamics are the source of the problem.

However, some other reports in the literature have demonstrated
successful generalization in interactive networks
\cite[e.g.,]{PlautMcClelland93,PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96}.
Indeed, Plaut and colleagues attributed the generalization success of
their networks to their ability to form {\em componential attractors},
where attractor dynamics operated within, but not between, the
representations of the compositional features of letters/phonemes of
words (just like the independent representations of
figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}a).  Thus, the components could be
effectively recombined to subserve good generalization, instead of
suffering from the problems of conjunctive representations.  However,
the algorithm used by Plaut and colleagues did not significantly
develop the recurrent feedback weights from the output layer to the
hidden layer over the course of learning (Plaut, personal
communication, 1996), and the networks were specifically constrained
to settle very rapidly.  These facts minimize the extent to which
those networks can be considered interactive --- instead, they are
effectively feedforward networks that have only token feedback
connections, and their generalization performance can thus be
attributed to the lack of interactivity rather than to the existence
of componential attractors.

Another case showed that recurrent connections actually improved
generalization \cite{HarmSeidenberg99}, but here the attractor
dynamics were only in the output layer, and served to clean up
representations to the nearest valid output --- the arguments in this
paper apply instead to fully interactive networks where the
input/output mapping itself is mediated by an interactive network via
one or more hidden layers.  The importance of the distinction between
output-only attractors and those developed over hidden layers was
clearly demonstrated by \incite{NoelleCottrell96}, who found that
networks with only local recurrent connectivity at the directly
trained output layer generalized well, but networks with recurrent
connectivity at the hidden layer that received a distal error signal
from an output layer generalized poorly.  More recent work by
\incite{NoelleZimdars99} showed improved generalization with distal
error signals by incorporating additional biasing mechanisms.

Thus, the idea that generalization performance is impaired in fully
interactive networks is consistent with the findings in the
literature, as well as the simulations reported below.  Therefore, the
improvement in biological plausibility imparted by the GeneRec
algorithm and variations thereof is offset by a decrement in
psychological plausibility and computational efficacy, leaving us
perhaps not that much closer to the eventual goal of a biologically,
psychologically, and computationally satisfying algorithm.

\subsection{Biases for Improving Generalization in Interactive Networks}

A very different conclusion can be reached, however, if one retains
the advantages of interactive networks, and augments them with
additional {\em biases} that favor the development of systematic,
truly componential attractor structures.  The use of such biases in
neural networks has been discussed in the context of the fundamental
bias/variance tradeoff \cite{GemanBienenstockDoursat92}.  This
tradeoff emphasizes the fact that biases {\em that are appropriate for
  the task} can greatly facilitate learning and generalization by
reducing the level of {\em variance}, where variance reflects the
extent to which parameters are underconstrained by learning, and thus
free to vary, causing random errors in generalization.  These biases
are also known as {\em regularizers} \cite[e.g.,]{PoggioGirosi90}.
However, inappropriate biases can obviously hurt performance by
introducing systematic errors, such that there is no such thing as a
single universally beneficial set of biases (\nopcite{Wolpert96b};
\nopcite{Wolpert96a}).  It is nevertheless possible that mammalian
cortical learning mechanisms have a set of biases that facilitate
learning and generalization in the small subset of all possible
environments that characterize the natural world (and what an animal
needs to learn about the natural world to survive) --- an important
goal of the work described here is to make progress in identifying
such biases.

It is well-known that purely error-driven learning mechanisms are
weakly biased, and are therefore typically underconstrained by the
learning task, causing them to suffer from too much variance
\cite[e.g.,]{VapnickChervonenkis71,WeigendRumelhartHuberman91,GemanBienenstockDoursat92,Wolpert92}.
For example, this means that the weights in a trained network tend to
reflect a large contribution from their random initial values, which
prevents the units from systematically carving up the input/output
mapping into separable subsets that can be independently combined for
the novel testing items.  Instead, each unit participates haphazardly
in many different aspects of the mapping.  This haphazardness is often
not that detrimental to generalization in a purely feedforward network
(e.g., as demonstrated in a componential generalization task;
\nopcite{Brousse93}), but it proves far more damaging in the context
of the attractor dynamics in an interactive network.

Therefore, it seems likely that appropriate additional biases could
significantly increase the network's tendency to produce componential
attractors.  The specific choice of biases explored in this paper are
biologically and psychologically motivated, with the hope of producing
an algorithm that is at once biologically plausible and capable of
effective generalization.  Specifically, two important principled
mechanisms, inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning, are
incorporated as biases in the network.  Both of these mechanisms have
been widely used for biological and psychological models, but they
have not generally been combined with error-driven learning in an
interactive network.  Biologically, there is good evidence for
inhibitory competition in the cortex in the form of the effects of
pervasive inhibitory interneurons \cite[e.g.,]{GabbotSomogyi86}, and
Hebbian learning characterizes the properties of long-term
potentiation and depression (LTP/LTD) in the cortex
\cite[e.g.,]{Bear96}.  Psychologically, inhibition is important for
modeling attentional and other phenomena, and Hebbian learning has
been used in modeling a number of different learning phenomena
\cite[e.g.,]{MillerKellerStryker89}.

In the context of generalization in interactive networks, the specific
biases of inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning constrain both
the interactive activation dynamics (in the case of inhibitory
competition) and the learned weight patterns such that the network
actually produces componential attractors.

The simulations presented in this paper, which are implemented using
the {\em Leabra} algorithm that combines GeneRec with inhibitory
competition and Hebbian learning mechanisms
\cite{OReilly96phd,OReilly98,OReillyMunakata00,OReillyRudy99tr},
demonstrate that these biases outperform other standard biases such as
weight decay on a combinatorial generalization task.  Furthermore,
these biases have proven useful for a wide range of naturalistic
learning environments, as demonstrated by modeling a range of
cognitive phenomena in perception, memory, language, and higher-level
cognition using the same algorithm, often with the same parameters
\cite{OReillyMunakata00}.  Thus, by incorporating the additional
mechanistic principles of inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning
together with interactivity in a biologically-plausible form of
backpropagation via the GeneRec algorithm, it is possible to have a
neural network model that satisfies a wider range of biological,
psychological, and computational constraints than models using only
subsets of these principles.

The paper is organized as follows: First, a combinatorial
generalization task is introduced, and feedforward backpropagation and
GeneRec are compared, demonstrating the generalization problem with
interactive networks.  Corroborating evidence from recurrent
backpropagation is then presented.  Then, inhibitory competition and
Hebbian learning are discussed, and the Leabra implementation
summarized.  Then, generalization results for Leabra are presented,
with a variety of analyses of its performance, followed by an
exploration of a version of the combinatorial generalization task with
exceptions, and an entirely different generalization task involving
handwritten digit recognition.

\section{Combinatorial Generalization and Interactivity}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{fig.gen_net.id}
  \caption{\small Architecture of the combinatorial generalization
    network.  The input and output are composed of four slots, with
    the input pattern for each slot being one of 45 different possible
    combinations of 2 horizontal and/or vertical bars in the 5x5 slot
    grid, and the output pattern being a localist identification of
    each of the 2 lines (the first row of 5 output units for each slot
    representing the vertical lines, and the second row representing
    the horizontal lines).  Darkened units show an example input/output
    pattern.}
  \label{fig.gen_net}
\end{figure}

The task used to explore combinatorial generalization was constructed
with several different desiderata in mind.  First, it has a simple
combinatorial structure, such that novel inputs can be composed from
combinations of a basic vocabulary of features.  This combinatorial
structure is implemented by having four different input/output {\em
  slots}, where the output mapping for a given slot depends only on
the corresponding input pattern for that slot (similar to the tasks
studied by \nopcite{Brousse93} and \nopcite{NoelleCottrell96}, and the
example shown in figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}).  One could think of
this as the letters in a word mapping to corresponding phonemes,
except that unlike English, this mapping is completely regular (a
combination of regular and irregular cases is explored later).  Each
slot has a {\em vocabulary} of input/output mappings.  The second
desiderata is that there is some interesting sub-structure to the
vocabulary mapping within each slot, which establishes that a slot is
a coherent, interdependent collection of units.  Specifically, the
input vocabulary consists of all 45 combinations of 5 horizontal and 5
vertical bars in a 5x5 grid, and the output mapping is a localist
identification of the two input bars (this is similar to the bars
tasks used by \nopcite{Foldiak90,Saund95,Zemel93,DayanZemel95}).  The
third desiderata is that the structure of the task should be visibly
evident in the weight patterns, which is accomplished by the use of
the bars, so that it should be easy to examine the trained weight
patterns for evidence of having represented the basic elements of the
task.  The resulting network with an example input/output pattern is
shown in Figure~\ref{fig.gen_net}.

The total possible number of distinct input patterns is approximately
4.1 million ($45^4$), but the networks are trained on only 100
randomly constructed examples.  Thus, to the extent that any
significant level of generalization is observed, this task serves as a
demonstration of how neural networks can leverage a relatively small
amount of experience to produce a huge range of generalized behavior.
Five hundred randomly constructed testing patterns (all different from
the 100 training patterns) were used to assess generalization
performance, with generalization reported as proportion of testing
items with errors.  Error was scored using the criterion that each
output unit had to be on the right side of .5 according to the correct
target pattern (i.e., using a unit-wise tolerance of .5).  Ten different
randomly initialized networks were run for 500 epochs each, and the
results are averages over the best generalization performance
(assessed every 25 epochs during training) of these ten networks.

\subsubsection{Basic Results}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_chl.eps}
  \caption{\small Generalization results (proportion error on the test
    set) comparing standard feedforward backpropagation (Bp) with
    interactive GeneRec.  GeneRec generalizes very poorly.}
  \label{fig.bp_chl}
\end{figure}

To assess the effect of interactivity, two different networks were
compared on the combinatorial generalization task, a standard
feedforward backpropagation network, and an interactive GeneRec
network using the symmetric, midpoint variation learning rule which is
equivalent to contrastive Hebbian learning (CHL) or a deterministic
Boltzmann machine (DBM):
\begin{equation}
  \Delta \wij = \epsilon[(x^+_i y^+_j) - (x^-_i y^-_j)]
  \label{eq.chl}
\end{equation}
for sending and receiving unit activations $x_i$ and $y_j$,
respectively, in the minus (target unclamped) and plus (target
clamped) phases (see \nopcite{OReilly96} for details).  A learning
rate ($\epsilon$) of .01 was used for both, without any momentum or
other factors.  The basic generalization results for networks with 100
hidden units are shown in Figure~\ref{fig.bp_chl}, which clearly shows
that the interactivity of GeneRec impairs generalization considerably.
The interactive GeneRec network makes roughly 90 percent errors while
the backpropagation network makes only 40 percent errors.

\subsubsection{Hidden Layer Size}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_chl_hids.id}
  \caption{\small Effect of number of hidden units on generalization
    performance in a) standard feedforward backpropagation (Bp) and b)
    interactive GeneRec.  Larger hidden layers perform better.}
  \label{fig.bp_chl_hids}
\end{figure}

It is generally thought that fewer degrees of freedom should produce
more constrained learning and thus better generalization.  The results
for different numbers of hidden units, shown in
Figure~\ref{fig.bp_chl_hids}, indicate that in this task, {\em more}
hidden units produce {\em better} generalization, with the 100 hidden
unit case (shown in the previous figure) producing the best
performance (and larger numbers of hidden units produce somewhat
better performance but with decreasing gains).  This result goes
against the standard idea that more hidden units results in
overfitting, but overfitting may not be as much of a problem here
because the task is not noisy --- the input-output mapping is
completely deterministic.  A likely explanation is that more hidden
units allow for greater averaging over multiple partially-redundant
but idiosyncratic hidden units, producing more systematic overall
behavior.  Similar results were reported by \incite{Weigend93}, and in
the version of this task with exceptions discussed later.  However,
the handwritten digit recognition task has noisy input patterns and
evidence of overfitting with larger hidden layers is observed.

\subsubsection{Weight Decay}

A commonly-used bias or regularizing function is {\em weight decay}
\cite[e.g.,]{Hinton89b,WeigendRumelhartHuberman91}.  We implemented
two commonly-used forms of weight decay in the Bp and GeneRec
networks, simple weight decay and weight-elimination weight decay
\cite{WeigendRumelhartHuberman91}.  In simple weight decay, a constant
fraction of the weight value is subtracted at each weight update, and
weight-elimination is similar except that the rate of decay is a more
complex function of the weight such that larger weights suffer
relatively less decay than smaller ones (supporting a prior assumption
of a bimodal distribution of weight values --- one population of
larger weights that are actually useful and another of near-zero
weights that are not useful; see \nopcite{WeigendRumelhartHuberman91}
for details).

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_chl_wds.id}
  \caption{\small Effect of weight decay on generalization
    performance in a) standard feedforward backpropagation (Bp) and b)
    interactive GeneRec.  First bar is 0 weight decay, and bars
    labeled S. are for given level of simple weight decay, while E.
    bars are for given level of weight-elimination weight decay.
    Simple weight decay at the .002 level produces the best results.}
  \label{fig.bp_chl_wds}
\end{figure}

The results with these forms of weight decay for the 100 hidden unit
network are shown in Figure~\ref{fig.bp_chl_wds}.  Although a small
amount (.002; smaller amounts had progressively smaller effects) of
simple weight decay appears to reliably improve generalization
performance in both Bp and GeneRec, the difference is not substantial.
The weight-elimination version of weight decay always appears to
impair, rather than improve, performance.  Although the specific forms
of weight decay explored here were not overly successful in this task,
it is possible that other forms might perform better.  Nevertheless,
most forms of weight decay are problematic from a psychological
perspective because they predict a level of forgetting that is likely
much stronger than what is observed in humans and animals, given the
weight-decay levels that produce computational benefits.

\subsubsection{Weight Patterns}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{fig.chl_net_wts.id}
  \caption{\small Weights for a typical hidden unit in the GeneRec
    network after training, with the size of the square indicating
    magnitude, and color indicating sign (white=positive,
    black=negative).  Both feedforward weights from the input layer
    and feedback weights from the output layer are shown (the GeneRec
    weights are symmetric so these feedback weights also indicate the
    nature of the hidden-to-output weights; also note that there are
    no within-layer connections, as indicated by the zero-value grey
    squares).  It is clear that the units are not dividing up the task
    into separable mappings for each slot --- instead, each unit
    participates in multiple slot mappings.}
  \label{fig.chl_net_wts}
\end{figure}

An examination of the weights in the trained networks clearly shows
why generalization is impaired in the interactive network
(Figure~\ref{fig.chl_net_wts}).  The units have not carved the
input/output mapping into separable subsets that can be independently
combined for the novel testing items --- instead, each unit
participates in the input/output mapping for multiple slots.  Although
this is true for both the backpropagation and GeneRec networks, it is
particularly damaging for the interactive GeneRec network because of
its attractor dynamics.  In contrast, the feedforward backpropagation
network is still capable of producing a roughly linear combination of
hidden unit activations that yields reasonable (though far from
perfect) levels of generalization.

\subsubsection{Combinatorial Response Analysis: Direct Evidence for
  Conjunctive Attractor Dynamics}

One way of more directly assessing the extent of conjunctive attractor
dynamics in the interactive network is to measure its internal hidden
representations in response to input patterns that differ
systematically from each other by changes in one or more of the input
slots.  Because there is no relationship between the slots, the hidden
layer should exhibit a combinatorial response as a function of the
number of slots that are different.  This is what would happen if the
representations for each slot were independent of each other, for
example (as in figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}a).  If, however, we see
that the hidden layer representations are {\em more different} than
the input patterns (i.e., exhibiting {\em pattern separation};
\nopcite{OReillyMcClelland94}), this suggests that conjunctive
activation dynamics are causing the network to overreact to
differences in the input.  In other words, the hidden units are
encoding specific conjunctions of input features across different
slots, and therefore very different hidden representations are
activated when the input changes (as in
figure~\ref{fig.comb_gen_illus}b).

In short, if we find that the hidden representations in the
interactive network are more different than the corresponding
differences in input patterns, then this supports the idea that
conjunctive attractor dynamics are behind the poor generalization
observed in these networks.

To address this important question, two sets of 250 input pattern
pairs were generated, one set that differed in only one slot (pairs
overlapped by 75\%) or by two slots (pairs overlapped by 50\%).  Thus,
to the extent the average pairwise hidden unit overlap falls below
75\% and 50\% for the first and second sets, respectively, the hidden
patterns are exhibiting conjunctivity.  We presented these patterns to
the Bp and GeneRec networks, and computed the normalized dot product
(cosine) of the corresponding hidden representations (after settling
in GeneRec) for each set of pairs.  To control for the baseline
activation levels of the units, which would otherwise distort the
similarity measure, the average activation values over all the test
input patterns were subtracted from the pattern-wise activation values
before computing the cosine.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_chl_12d_avg.id}
  \caption{\small Average pairwise overlap (normalized dot product or
    cosine) between hidden patterns corresponding to inputs that
    differ by a) 75\% (1 out of 4 slots different) and b) 50\% (2 out
    of 4 slots different).  Feedforward backpropagation (Bp) remains
    much closer to a linear response level (75\% and 50\% hidden
    similarity, respectively) after training compared to interactive
    GeneRec, which shows evidence of attractor dynamics pulling the
    network away from a linear, combinatorial response to the inputs.}
  \label{fig.bp_chl_12d_avg}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig.bp_chl_12d_avg} shows the results of this analysis,
where it is clear that the interactive GeneRec network is representing
the input patterns using consistently more different hidden
representations than the feedforward network.  It is particularly
instructive that the random initial networks exhibit a much more
proportional response, as would be expected when the weights are small
and the units are in the linear range of the sigmoidal activation
function.  However, when the GeneRec network's weights get larger, it
exhibits a much more nonlinear response, indicative of the complex,
conjunctive attractors that have developed over training.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_chl_12d_malformed.eps}
  \caption{\small Number of malformed outputs out of 500 total for the
    75\% and 50\% overlap inputs.  An output is well-formed if each of
    the slot outputs corresponds to one of the vocabulary of possible
    slot outputs, and malformed otherwise.  The results support the
    idea that conjunctive attractor dynamics and underconstrained
    weights cause GeneRec to produce spurious (malformed) outputs.}
  \label{fig.bp_chl_12d_malformed}
\end{figure}

To further substantiate that the conjunctive attractors formed in the
GeneRec network are really spurious conjunctions across different
slots, and not the result of simply activating a trained attractor
that was close to the novel input pattern, the output patterns need to
be analyzed.  If the GeneRec network is indeed producing spurious
conjunctive attractors, one would expect that the outputs would be
largely uninterpretable noise (e.g., based on the random-looking
weight patterns in Figure~\ref{fig.chl_net_wts}), and not well-formed
outputs that correspond to trained patterns.  To test this, the output
activation patterns for each of the four output slots were compared to
the entire vocabulary of possible output patterns within each slot.
The output was counted as well-formed if each of the slots matched (to
within .5 unit-wise tolerance) one of these valid output patterns, and
was considered malformed otherwise.  Note that this analysis ignores
whether the actual combination of patterns across slots was trained or
not --- it just treats each slot individually (i.e., allowing any of
the approximately 4.1 million possible patterns to match).  The number
(out of 500 total patterns) of malformed outputs for the 75\% and 50\%
overlap testing patterns are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig.bp_chl_12d_malformed}.  These results, showing that
80\% of the GeneRec outputs are malformed compared to only 40\% for
backprop, clearly support the idea that the interactive attractor
dynamics and underconstrained weights in GeneRec lead to spurious,
malformed conjunctive attractors.

\subsubsection{Summary}

To summarize, an interactive network that is otherwise identical to a
feedforward one generalizes much worse on this combinatorial
generalization task.  Manipulations of hidden units and weight decay
had qualitatively similar effects on both types of networks, such that
the interactive network appears to behave just like the feedforward
one, but with a greatly elevated offset in generalization errors.
This result, together with the analysis of the hidden layer responses
and well-formedness of the outputs, clearly supports the idea that the
spurious, conjunctive attractor dynamics of the interactive network
interfere with its ability to produce systematic combinatorial
representations of novel stimuli.

\section{Comparison with Recurrent Backpropagation}

Although GeneRec has been shown to compute essentially the same error
gradients as backpropagation, even in networks with several hidden
layers \cite{OReilly96}, one might argue that the bad generalization
results from GeneRec are somehow an artifact of this particular
algorithm.  To address this concern and provide additional evidence
for the idea that interactivity impairs generalization, networks using
the Almeida-Pineda (AP) fixed-point recurrent backpropagation
algorithm \cite{Almeida87,Pineda87a,Pineda87b,Pineda88} were also run.
This algorithm is a mathematically direct extension of feedforward
error backpropagation to a recurrent attractor network having the same
basic architecture as the GeneRec network.  To the extent that this AP
network also suffers from poor generalization, this substantiates the
GeneRec results and shows that they are not artifactual.

One important difference between AP and the CHL version of GeneRec is
that GeneRec maintains the weight symmetry between feedforward and
feedback weights, whereas AP does not.  The net result of this is that
GeneRec develops the feedback weights over the course of learning,
whereas AP leaves them virtually untouched.  Because it is the
magnitude of these feedback weights that largely determines the extent
of the interactive activation dynamics in the network, this is an
important difference.  By adjusting the random weight initialization
in the AP network, we can control the average magnitude of the
feedback weights to achieve three objectives: (a) show that these
weights influence the level of generalization, such that the more
interactive networks with stronger feedback weights generalize worse;
(b) show that GeneRec's generalization is roughly what would be
expected given the magnitude of its feedback weights; and (c) show
that the \incite{PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96} generalization
results with a recurrent backpropagation network are as expected from
a recurrent network with small, undeveloped feedback weights.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_apbp_chl.eps}
  \caption{\small Generalization results for Almeida-Pineda (AP) with
    various levels of feedback weight variance (.25, .5, and 1.0), as
    compared with the Bp and GeneRec results shown previously.  As the
    strength of these feedback weights increases, causing increased
    attractor dynamics, generalization performance decreases.  The
    next figure shows that GeneRec's generalization is commensurate
    with AP's given the strength of its feedback weights.}
  \label{fig.bp_apbp_chl}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig.bp_apbp_chl} shows the generalization performance of
three different AP networks having .25, .5, and 1.0 uniform random
initial weight variance (centered on 0), resulting in an average
feedback weight magnitude (mean of absolute values of all
output-to-hidden weights) of roughly .125, .25, and .5, respectively.
Clearly, generalization performance is a function of the strength of
these weights, with the 1.0 variance case resulting in generalization
performance roughly equivalent to that of GeneRec, while the .25
variance case produces generalization performance roughly comparable
to that of the feedforward network, as was the case with the
\incite{PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96} model.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.apbp_chl_both.id}
  \caption{\small Measures of the level of interactivity in the AP and
    GeneRec networks: (a) average feedback weight magnitude before and
    after training, and (b) settling time (average number of cycles to
    achieve a stable activation state).  These measures are strongly
    correlated ($r=.9705$ and $r=.9998$, respectively) with the
    generalization performance shown in the previous figure, as well
    as with each other ($r=.9733$).  Also, GeneRec develops the
    feedback weights much more than AP does.}
  \label{fig.apbp_chl_both}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig.apbp_chl_both}a compares the average feedback weight
magnitudes from before and after training with those values from the
GeneRec network.  Commensurate with their generalization performance,
the GeneRec network has slightly smaller feedback weights compared to
the 1.0 variance AP network.  Thus, GeneRec's generalization
performance is as expected based on its level of interactivity as
determined by these feedback weights.  The correlation between the
generalization scores and the trained feedback weight magnitude
measure was very strong ($r=.9705$).  Also evident from this figure is
the fact that GeneRec develops the feedback weights over training much
more than AP does.

Another way of measuring the level of interactivity in a network is in
terms of {\em settling time} --- the number of activation update
cycles required to achieve a stable activation state (stopping
criterion was when maximum activation change of any unit in the
network in one cycle went below .01).  A longer settling time is
indicative of a more complex activation trajectory and thus of more
extensive attractor dynamics.  As shown in
Figure~\ref{fig.apbp_chl_both}b, settling time is well correlated with
both the strength of the feedback weights ($r=.9733$) and the
generalization performance ($r=.9998$).  To summarize, the AP results
strongly corroborate the conclusion reached previously that the
conjunctive attractor dynamics produced by interactive networks
directly impair generalization performance.

\section{Inhibitory Competition and Hebbian Learning}

Although it is possible that any of a number of different biases could
be added to the interactive GeneRec network to improve generalization
performance, this paper focuses on two such biases that have been
widely used and can be independently motivated for a variety of
biological, psychological, and computational reasons.  These biases
and their implementation in the Leabra algorithm are discussed in the
subsequent sections.

\subsection{Inhibitory Competition}

Roughly 15-20\% of the neurons in the cortex are GABAergic inhibitory
interneurons \cite{WhiteEl89,GabbotSomogyi86}.  The importance of
these neurons for controlling the positive feedback loops between
excitatory cortical pyramidal neurons is revealed for example in the
epileptic-like effects of GABA antagonists
\cite[e.g.,]{GrinvaldFrostigLieke88}.  Thus, any realistic model of
the cortex should include a role for inhibitory competition.  Many
neural network formalisms show the computational advantages of
inhibitory competition
\cite[e.g.,]{Grossberg76,Kohonen84,McClellandRumelhart81,RumelhartZipser86}.
One such advantage is that inhibitory competition allows only the most
strongly excited representations to prevail, with this {\em selection}
process identifying the most appropriate representations for
subsequent processing.  Furthermore, learning mechanisms are affected
by this selection process such that only the selected representations
are refined over time through learning, resulting in an effective
differentiation and distribution of representations.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=1in]{fig.con_sat_inhib.id}
  \caption{\small Illustration in two dimensions (units) of how kWTA
    inhibition can restrict the activation dynamics of an interactive
    network. {\bf a)} represents a network without inhibition, which
    can explore all possible combinations of activation states.  {\bf
      b)} shows the effect of inhibition in restricting the activation
    states that can be explored to those having a roughly constant
    level of activity (e.g., under the kWTA inhibition function
    described in the text), leading to faster and more
    constrained attractor dynamics.}
  \label{fig.con_sat_inhib}
\end{figure}

In the context of the generalization problem, the selection and
distribution effects of inhibitory competition can result in
individual units specializing on the input/output mapping for
separable components (e.g., the slots in the combinatorial problem
explored in this paper).  When the units are specialized in this way,
combinatorial representations are facilitated.  Furthermore,
inhibition has the effect of greatly constraining the activation
dynamics of an interactive network, as illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig.con_sat_inhib}.  Thus, a network with inhibitory
competition should settle more rapidly and with less influence from
the kinds of attractor dynamics that can impair generalization.

Another way of thinking about the benefits of inhibitory competition
comes from the idea that, given the general structure of the natural
environment, {\em sparse} distributed representations (i.e., with
relatively few units active at a time) are particularly useful
\cite{Barlow89,Field94}.  For example, in visual processing, a given
object can be defined along a set of feature dimensions (e.g., shape,
size, color, texture), with a large number of different values along
each dimension (e.g., many different possible shapes, sizes, colors,
textures).  Assuming that these feature values are encoded individual
units (or small groups thereof) in a distributed representation, the
overall representation of a given object will only activate a
relatively small subset of the entire set of feature units (i.e., the
representations will be sparse).  More generally, it seems as though
the world can be usefully represented in terms of a large number of
categories with a large number of exemplars per category (animals,
furniture, trees, etc.).  If we again assume that only a relatively
few such exemplars are processed at a given time, a bias favoring
sparse representations is appropriate.  The combinatorial
generalization problem has this structure, with only a few of the
possible different bar stimuli present at any given time.

To further substantiate the argument in favor of using sparse
distributed representations, \incite{OlshausenField96} developed a
simulation that showed that imposing a bias for developing this type
of representation can result in the development of realistic early
visual representations (oriented edge detectors) of natural visual
scenes.  The close fit between the simulated representations and those
in the early visual system suggests that the visual system also uses a
sparse distributed representational system.

Although seemingly straightforward, achieving a sparse distributed
representation is technically challenging, primarily because this case
is difficult to analyze mathematically within a probabilistic learning
framework.  The problem is one of combinatorial explosion --- one
needs to take into account all the different possible combinations of
active and inactive units to analyze a sparse distributed
representation based on true inhibitory competition.  Thus, sparse
distributed representations fall in a complex intermediate zone
between two easily analyzed frameworks \cite{HintonGhahramani97}: (a)
the winner-take-all ({\em WTA}) framework
\cite{RumelhartZipser86,Grossberg76,Nowlan90}, where only one unit is
allowed to be active at a time --- having a single active unit
eliminates the combinatorial problems, but also does not allow for
distributed representations; and (b) the independent units framework,
where the units are considered to be (conditionally) independent of
each other (e.g., a standard backpropagation network) --- this allows
the combined probability of an activation pattern to be represented as
a simple product of the individual unit probabilities (and for
distributed representations), but there is no inhibitory competition.

There have been a number of attempts to remedy the limitations of
these two analytical frameworks, by introducing distributed
representations within a basically WTA framework, or by introducing
sparseness constraints within the independent units framework.
However, the basic limitations of these frameworks are difficult to
overcome.  Basically, any use of WTA prevents the cooperativity and
combinatoriality of true distributed representations, and the need to
preserve independence among the units in the independent units
framework prevents the introduction of any true activation-based
competition (see discussion in \nopcite{OReilly98}).

Leabra achieves sparse distributed representations with true
competition by using a $k$-winners-take-all ({\em kWTA}) mechanism,
that generalizes the WTA approach to $k$ winners
\cite{MajaniErlarsonAbuMostafa89}.  A kWTA mechanism can enforce true
competition amongst the units, while allowing for a (sparse)
distributed representation across the subset of $k$ units.  kWTA
mechanisms have been analyzed for factors such as stability and
convergence onto $k$ units, and can be implemented with
biologically-plausible lateral inhibition mechanisms
\cite{MajaniErlarsonAbuMostafa89,FukaiTanaka97}.  However, they have
not been analytically treated within a probabilistic learning
framework, due to the combinatorial explosion problems.  Nevertheless,
the simple form of kWTA used in Leabra (described in detail in the
Appendix) works well in bidirectionally connected networks has been
shown to be useful for modeling a wide range of cognitive phenomena
\cite{OReillyMunakata00}.

\subsection{Hebbian Learning}

Although Hebbian learning has typically been used as the primary form
of learning in a range of models, it is used here as a supplemental
form of learning to complement a network learning primarily from
error-driven GeneRec.  Hebbian learning by itself is simply not
powerful enough to enable the learning of even moderately complex
input/output mappings, and so cannot be considered a self-sufficient
learning mechanism (e.g., as we will see below, Hebbian learning alone
cannot learn the combinatorial generalization task explored in this
paper).  However, there are a number of ways of understanding why the
use of Hebbian learning, computed on the plus phase activations to
reinforce the correct patterns, is beneficial in the context of
error-driven learning.

First, error-driven and Hebbian learning have two complementary
learning objectives, which can be referred to as {\em task learning}
and {\em model learning}, respectively.  Error-driven learning
accomplishes task learning because it is specifically (and
exclusively) driven by the demands of the task (i.e., the
discrepancies between actual and desired outputs).  In contrast, model
learning has the objective of learning an internal model of the
environment irrespective of specific tasks.  From a machine learning
perspective, task learning amounts to learning the conditional
probability distribution of the output upon the input, while model
learning amounts to learning the entire (joint) probability
distribution \cite[e.g.,]{RubinsteinHastie97}\footnote{As implemented
  in Hebbian learning, model learning really amounts to representing
  only the correlational aspects of the environmental structure, not
  the entire joint probability distribution.}.  Given that Hebbian and
error-driven learning have complementary objectives, combining them
makes sense, and can generally lead to a more constrained, strongly
biased learning algorithm.

At a more detailed level, the benefits and limitations of Hebbian and
error-driven learning can be understood in terms of how locally they
operate.  Hebbian learning is limited in what it can learn because
each unit is driven only by the local correlational structure present
in its inputs --- there is no overall objective function guiding these
local weight changes to achieve a more distal output pattern somewhere
else in the network.  In contrast, error-driven learning is ultimately
driven by just such a distal error function, which is why it can learn
complex problems using intermediate hidden layers.

One of the benefits of combining Hebbian with error-driven learning
can thus be understood as enabling learning to take place even when
the distal error signals are weak or inconsistent across trials.
Furthermore, units in a purely error-driven network are typically
underconstrained by the task at hand, and are also highly dependent on
the responses of other units for determining what they end up
representing.  This extreme interdependence and lack of local
constraint can lead to slow and ineffective learning in large,
many-layered networks.  To the extent that Hebbian learning provides a
useful bias that is applied locally to each unit, it can shape
learning locally and apply individual constraints on unit
representations, limiting the co-dependence problems.

From a biological perspective, the combination of error-driven GeneRec
learning and Hebbian learning actually provides a better fit to the
known properties of synaptic modification (LTP/LTD) than does GeneRec
alone \cite{OReilly96}.  The qualitative signs of GeneRec and Hebbian
weight changes are consistent except in two cases: (a) when the
sending and receiving units are persistently active in both phases,
Hebbian predicts a weight increase (LTP) while GeneRec predicts no
weight change; and (b) GeneRec predicts a weight decrease (LTD) when
the units are erroneously active (i.e., when the plus-phase activation
co-product is greater than that of the minus phase in the GeneRec
learning rule, equation~\ref{eq.chl}), while Hebbian predicts no
weight change (assuming the the plus phase co-product is zero).
Therefore, the combination of Hebbian and GeneRec is essentially just
like Hebbian, except that LTD should occur when the units are
erroneously active, meaning that the known Hebbian mechanisms are
largely sufficient.

Hebbian synaptic modification appears to operate on the concentration
of postsynaptic calcium ions --- lower levels of calcium produce LTD,
and higher levels produce LTP
\cite{ArtolaBrocherSinger89,Lisman89,Lisman94,BearMalenka94}.  Under
this mechanism, Hebbian LTP results from the calcium influx produced
by persistent activation of sending and receiving neurons.  This
mechanism can also produce the LTD required by GeneRec for erroneously
active units.  Because erroneous activation means that there is
initial activation (in the minus or expectation phase, where the
actual network output is produced) followed by inactivation (in the
plus or outcome phase, where the target network output is
experienced), the initial activation will allow calcium to enter the
cell, but the subsequent inactivation prevents the concentration from
reaching LTP levels, resulting in LTD.

In the context of the generalization problem, Hebbian learning can
facilitate good generalization by encouraging units to represent the
strongest aspects of the correlational structure in the input, which
are the correlations present both in the activations of individual
lines within a given slot, and in the input/output mapping between
lines and line identity units.  Thus, Hebbian learning should
encourage units to specialize on representing intra-slot information,
producing a more componential representation that can be recombined
for novel inputs to produce good generalization.

The implementation of Hebbian learning in Leabra is essentially the
same as in competitive learning \cite{RumelhartZipser86,Nowlan90}:
\begin{equation}
  \Delta \wij = \epsilon (x^+_i y^+_j - y^+_j \wij) = \epsilon y^+_j (x^+_i - \wij)
  \label{eq.hebb}
\end{equation}
for sending unit activation $x^+_i$ and receiving unit activation
$y^+_j$ (both in the plus phase) with learning rate $\epsilon$.
\incite{RumelhartZipser86} showed that this equation can be
interpreted as producing weight values that converge on the
conditional probability that the sending unit is active given that the
receiving unit is active, $P(x_i=1 | y_i=1)$, assuming that the
activation states reflect the probability that the unit is active
(detailed derivation provided in the Appendix).  In the context of a
competitive activation function, a given receiving unit is only active
when a relatively large number of inputs align with its weights,
meaning that this conditional probability learning comes to reflect
the strong correlations in the inputs.  As explained in detail in the
Appendix, this Hebbian learning term is combined additively with the
GeneRec error-driven learning term at every connection in the network.

One limitation of the Hebbian learning algorithm is that the weights
linearly reflect the strength of the conditional probability.  This
linearity can limit the network's ability to focus on only the
strongest correlations, while ignoring weaker ones.  In the
combinatorial generalization task for example, any ``spurious''
correlations between input patterns across different slots will be
faithfully encoded by linear-Hebbian units, and prevent good
generalization.  Thus, it is useful to include a further bias on the
learning system to only encode the strongest correlations.  One way of
achieving this goal is to use subtractive normalization instead of the
multiplicative normalization used in the competitive learning rule,
because subtractive normalization moves the weights towards extrema,
while multiplicative normalization retains a linear proportionality to
the correlation strength \cite{MillerMacKay94,GoodhillBarrow94}.
However, the completely binary weights produced by subtractive
normalization are not likely to be generally useful, especially in
more complex tasks and in the context of error-driven learning, where
graded weight values are required to balance the contribution of
individual units to multiple different aspects of problems.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.cpca_contrast.epsi}
  \caption{\small Effective weight value as a function of underlying
    linear weight value, showing contrast enhancement of correlations
    around the middle values of the conditional probability as
    represented by the linear weight value.  The gain parameter,
    $\gamma=6$, controls the sharpness of the sigmoid, and the
    midpoint of the function is shifted upwards by the offset
    parameter $\theta=1.25$.}
  \label{fig.cpca_contrast}
\end{figure}

The approach taken here is to introduce a contrast enhancement
function that magnifies the stronger weights and shrinks the smaller
ones in a parametric, continuous fashion.  This contrast enhancement
is achieved by passing the linear weight values computed by the
learning rule through a sigmoidal nonlinearity of the following form
(Figure~\ref{fig.cpca_contrast}):
\begin{equation}
  \hat{w}_{ij} = \oneo{1 + \left(\theta \frac{\wij}{1-\wij}\right)^{-\gamma}}
  \label{eq.wt_off}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{w}_{ij}$ is the contrast-enhanced weight value, and the
sigmoidal function is parameterized by an offset $\theta$ and a gain
$\gamma$.  The offset (which is multiplicative, but moves the middle
of the sigmoid up or down in an offset-like fashion) determines where
the threshold for the nonlinearity is located, and the gain determines
how sharp the nonlinearity is.  A gain value of 6 and an offset of
1.25 works well for a wide range of problems \cite{OReillyMunakata00}.
In the combinatorial generalization problem, a higher threshold (i.e.,
a higher $\theta$) for correlations to be reflected in the weights
should produce even better isolation of the slot representations in
the hidden layer --- indeed, a threshold of 1.5 worked better than
1.25, and was used for the results reported here.

\section{Generalization with Inhibitory Competition and Hebbian Learning}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba.eps}
  \caption{\small Generalization results comparing Leabra (GeneRec plus
    inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning) with standard
    feedforward backpropagation (Bp) and interactive GeneRec.  The
    additional biases in Leabra result in much better generalization
    than even feedforward backpropagation.}
  \label{fig.lba}
\end{figure}

To test the importance of inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning
for improving the generalization performance of an interactive
error-driven network (GeneRec), a Leabra network was run on the
combinatorial generalization task.  The network had 100 hidden units
with the kWTA $k$ parameter set to 25 units active (25\% activity is
the standard default), the $k$ was set to 8 for the output layer, and
the learning rate was .01 (see Appendix for other standard parameters
and equations).  The results clearly indicate that these biases
greatly facilitate generalization in an interactive network
(Figure~\ref{fig.lba}, specifically the comparison between the two
interactive networks using exactly the same error-driven learning
rule, GeneRec and Leabra).  In the best case of the 10 Leabra
networks, generalization error was only .008.  If we extrapolate this
error on the 500 test cases to the entire space of test items, the
network has achieved nearly perfect generalization to over 4 million
different patterns based on learning only 100.  The average
generalization performance corresponds in the extrapolation to getting
over 3.5 million problems correct based on the 100 training patterns.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba_time.eps}
  \caption{\small Timecourse of generalization in Leabra (best
    generalizing network) and Bp, showing that generalization
    performance in Leabra only starts to improve well after the task
    has been learned by error-driven learning (which occurs within the
    first 10 epochs).  This identifies Hebbian learning as
    specifically important.  In contrast, generalization in Bp begins
    much more rapidly, and more closely parallels the timecourse of
    learning (Bp takes roughly 50 epochs to learn the task).}
  \label{fig.lba_time}
\end{figure}

One indication that Hebbian learning is specifically important for the
generalization performance of Leabra comes from the timecourse of
generalization over training (Figure~\ref{fig.lba_time}).  Although
the network learns the task after only 10 epochs or less of training,
generalization performance does not start to improve significantly
until roughly 200 or more epochs.  In contrast, the backpropagation
network starts to generalize much earlier, and this generalization
generally parallels learning performance on the task --- Bp takes
roughly 50 epochs to learn the task, during which time most of the
generalization is achieved.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba_lrn.eps}
  \caption{\small Timecourse of learning for a version of Leabra with
    only Hebbian learning (Hebb only), compared to the standard case
    with both error-driven and Hebbian learning (Leabra).  The kWTA
    inhibitory competition is present in both cases.}
  \label{fig.lba_lrn}
\end{figure}

An obvious way to determine the importance of Hebbian learning is to
run a Leabra network without it --- this is then just a GeneRec
network with inhibitory competition.  Such a network performs quite
badly on this task, having an average generalization error of .992
($\pm .00109$ SEM).  Thus, it is clear that Hebbian learning is
essential.  However, Hebbian learning cannot even begin to learn this
task on its own, as a run of Leabra with only Hebbian learning
(together with the kWTA inhibitory competition) demonstrates
(Figure~\ref{fig.lba_lrn}).  Note that Hebbian learning without
inhibitory competition doesn't typically work very well, because the
positive feedback nature of Hebbian learning requires the selection
and differentiation pressure of inhibitory competition.  Thus, even
though it is insufficient on its own in this task, inhibitory
competition is nevertheless playing an important role.  Other tasks
have shown that inhibitory learning can make an important contribution
on its own \cite{OReillyMunakata00}.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{fig.lba_net_wts.id}
  \caption{\small Weights for a typical hidden unit in the Leabra
    network after training (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig.chl_net_wts}
    for details).  Both feedforward weights from the input layer and
    feedback weights from the output layer are shown (the Leabra
    weights are symmetric so these feedback weights also indicate the
    nature of the hidden-to-output weights; also note that there are
    no within-layer connections, as indicated by the zero-value grey
    squares --- the kWTA inhibition in Leabra is computed directly,
    not via inhibitory weights).  It is clear that the units are
    dividing up the task into separable mappings for each slot ---
    each unit participates in mapping a single line within a slot (in
    this case the middle horizontal line in the lower left hand slot)
    to its corresponding identification output.  This division enables
    a combinatorial generalization, explaining the good generalization
    results.  Note that this unit, like many, also had a weak
    representation of inputs in other slots, presumably due to
    relatively strong spurious correlations across slots.}
  \label{fig.lba_net_wts}
\end{figure}

An examination of the weights of a trained Leabra network
(Figure~\ref{fig.lba_net_wts}) shows that individual hidden units are
parceling the task up into the logical separable components of
individual lines within a given slot.  Having represented the task in
such a separable fashion, the units in the network can easily be
recombined in novel ways to process the novel testing items, thereby
achieving good generalization.  As a useful simplification, one can
understand the interaction between error-driven and Hebbian learning
in forming these representations as follows: error-driven learning
(together with inhibitory competition) ensures that different units
take account of different aspects of the problem and that all aspects
are covered such that the problem is actually solved.  Hebbian
learning operates slowly and refines the hidden unit representations
so that they only encode the strongest correlations --- because these
are the individual line elements, the weights come to emphasize these
and exclude inputs from other slots, which are more weakly correlated.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba_12d_avg.id}
  \caption{\small Average pairwise overlap (normalized dot product or
    cosine) between hidden patterns corresponding to inputs that
    differ by a) 75\% (1 out of 4 slots different) and b) 50\% (2 out
    of 4 slots different).  Although with random weights the
    inhibitory competition in Leabra results in significant pattern
    separation (very different hidden representations for similar
    inputs), training produces a network with proportional responding
    to input differences.}
  \label{fig.lba_12d_avg}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba_12d_malformed.eps}
  \caption{\small Number of malformed outputs out of 500 total for the
    75\% and 50\% overlap inputs.  An output is well-formed if each of
    the slot outputs corresponds to one of the vocabulary of possible
    slot outputs, and malformed otherwise. The Leabra network produces
    largely well-formed outputs, consistent with the generalization
    results.}
  \label{fig.lba_12d_malformed}
\end{figure}

Given the kind of combinatorial representations learned by the Leabra
network, it is not too surprising that it exhibits an almost exactly
proportional response to the 75\% and 50\% overlapping test items used
to analyze the Bp and GeneRec networks previously
(Figure~\ref{fig.lba_12d_avg}).  Interestingly, the random initial
weights in the untrained Leabra network produce a significant amount
of pattern separation, which then disappears after training.  This is
consistent with the idea that sparser levels of activation, with
random weights, produces more pattern separation
\cite{OReillyMcClelland94}.  Thus, the benefits of inhibitory
competition for damping attractor dynamics come at the cost of
increasing pattern separation, {\em with random weight patterns}.
Over learning, the inhibitory competition provides a beneficial
pressure for shaping the weights (as discussed previously) and
overcomes the initial conjunctivity bias.

\section{Generalization with Exceptions}

One potential objection to the above results showing an advantage for
inhibitory competition and Hebbian learning is that these biases might
be so specific to the purely regular combinatorial case that the
network would break down in a task that also had irregularities or
exceptions to the general rule.  The ability to handle both
regularities and exceptions is important for dealing with many
language phenomena, including the well-studied cases of the English
past tense and spelling-to-sound mappings
\cite[e.g.,]{RumelhartMcClelland86pt,SeidenbergMcClelland89,PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96,PlunkettMarchman96}.
We can explore this issue by introducing exceptions into the
combinatorial generalization task explored here.

Exceptions were generated for any pattern having a vertical bar in the
last (right-most) position in the final (fourth) slot (like the
past-tense inflectional suffix that appears at the end of a word),
with the consequence that the output pattern for the third slot was
repeated in the fourth slot, instead of this fourth output slot
reflecting the actual inputs from the fourth slot.  Thus, these
exceptions required there to be interactions between slots, instead of
them being completely independent as in the regular mapping (which was
exactly as in the previous task).  To equalize the opportunity for
generalization compared to the fully regular task, the networks were
trained on 100 randomly generated regular cases (as before) plus 27
randomly generated irregulars (patterns were generated at random until
100 regulars had accumulated; the proportion of irregulars is close to
the expected 20\% having a vertical line in one out of five
positions).

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.lba_except.id}
  \caption{\small Generalization results (proportion error on test
    set of 500 items, and broken down into proportion error for
    regulars and exceptions separately) for the three algorithms
    (Leabra, Bp, and GeneRec) on the problem with exceptions.
    Although generalization performance is naturally worse than in the
    purely regular case, Leabra still performs better than the other
    algorithms (substantially better on regulars and marginally better
    on exceptions), indicating the advantages of the inhibitory
    competition and Hebbian learning biases.}
  \label{fig.lba_except}
\end{figure}

The generalization results for the three main algorithms (Leabra, Bp,
GeneRec) are shown in Figure~\ref{fig.lba_except}, where it is clear
that the biases in Leabra still enable better generalization even in a
task with exceptions.  The overall level of generalization was worse
than in the fully regular case, as one would expect given the more
complex task being trained.  However, the Leabra network is
generalizing on the exceptional mapping better than either of the
other networks (though not by much in the case of the Bp network),
meaning that it is capable of systematically encoding more complex
interactions between slots, and exhibiting substantial generalization
on that basis.  Because the regular performance is better than the
exception performance, it is clear that the biases in Leabra are
specifically advantageous for the regular mapping, but this does not
come at a cost to the exceptions.

The training error curves (not shown) were basically the same as the
fully regular case, with just one epoch more required on average to
reach a 0 error criterion (7.7 epochs in the fully regular case, 8.7
in the exception case).  In examining the weights of the Leabra
network (not shown), one could find units that encoded the exceptional
cases by having input weights from the last position of the final
slot, plus weights from the third slot, and a mapping to the fourth
slot output appropriate for the third slot weights.

\begin{figure}
  \centering\includegraphics[height=2in]{fig.bp_hids_except.id}
  \caption{\small Generalization results for Bp with different hidden
    layer sizes on the problem with exceptions.  Even with exceptions,
    a larger hidden layer improves generalization.}
  \label{fig.bp_hids_except}
\end{figure}

To follow up on the issue of the effect of number of hidden units on
generalization, Figure~\ref{fig.bp_hids_except} shows that even in the
task with exceptions, larger hidden layers produce better
generalization.  Again, these results can be understood in terms of
the benefits of a larger sample of idiosyncratic units that appear to
outweigh the overfitting costs associated with this task, which is
still deterministic, even if somewhat more complex.

\begin{table}
  \centering
  \begin{tabular}{lrrr} \hline
Nonword Set                    & Leabra & PMSP & People \\ \hline
Glushko regulars               & 95.3  & 97.7 & 93.8 \\
Glushko exceptions             & 97.6  & 100.0 & 95.9 \\
McCann \& Besner ctrls         & 85.9  & 85.0 & 88.6 \\
McCann \& Besner homoph        & 92.3  & n/a  & 94.3 \\
Taraban \& McClelland          & 97.9  & n/a  & 100.0$^1$ \\ \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{\small Summary of nonword reading performance (i.e.,
    generalization) in the Leabra model compared to the PMSP (Plaut et
    al., 1996) and human data. The Glushko data shows the results when
    alternative outputs that are consistent with the training corpus
    are allowed.  1. Human accuracy for the Taraban \& McClelland set
    was not reported but was presumably near 100 percent (the focus of
    the study was on reaction times).  Data from O'Reilly \& Munakata,
    in press.}
  \label{tab.nonwords}
\end{table}

In other work, the Leabra algorithm has also been shown to exhibit
systematic encodings of complexly interacting stimuli, resulting in
good generalization.  In particular, the spelling-to-sound model
presented in \incite{OReillyMunakata00} replicated the generalization
performance of the backprop networks reported in
\incite{PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96}, but did so using
simpler and more surface-valid input/output representations than the
carefully-crafted representations used by
\incite{PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96}.
Table~\ref{tab.nonwords} shows the nonword generalization data from
this model compared with the PMSP
\cite{PlautMcClellandSeidenbergPatterson96} and human data on a range
of different nonword lists.  To pronounce the nonwords correctly, the
model has to encode complex combinations of both independent and
interactive (i.e., taking into account multiple letters)
letter-phoneme mappings.  Thus, it should be clear that the benefits
of the biases in Leabra are not restricted to simple, purely regular
mappings.

\section{Generalization in Handwritten Digit Recognition}

To further substantiate the generality of the results on the tasks
studied above, an additional task with very different characteristics
was explored.  This task is handwritten digit recognition, which has
been widely used in the literature.  The specific digit set employed
came from \incite{Nowlan90}, which has 48 different samples of each of
the ten digits (0-9) encoded as thresholded binary intensities in a
16x16 input grid.  Because the digits are handwritten, they are highly
variable (noisy) within a category, and overlap considerably with
those in other categories.  The challenge is to form category
boundaries that are sufficiently general to provide reasonable
generalization performance to novel instances, based on these noisy
and overlapping training exemplars.  Because of the noisy inputs,
there is a strong possibility for overfitting in this domain.
Training was performed on 32 instances per digit, with generalization
testing on the remaining 16.

\begin{table}
  \centering

{\bf a)}  \begin{tabular}{lll} \hline
Algorithm & Gen Err & SEM \\ \hline
Leabra  & .131 & .00456 \\
Bp      & .151 & .00482 \\
AP      & .202 & .0126 \\
GeneRec & .279 & .0323 \\ \hline
  \end{tabular} \\

\vspace*{.1in}

{\bf b)}  \begin{tabular}{lllllll} \hline
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Leabra} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Bp} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GeneRec} \\
Hiddens & Gen Err & SEM    & Gen Err & SEM    & Gen Err & SEM \\ \hline
15      & .221    & .0127  & .12     & .00867 & .236 & .00809 \\
30      & .164    & .00878 & .131    & .0106  & .231 & .0106  \\
64      & .131    & .00456 & .151    & .00482 & .279 & .0323  \\ \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{\small {\bf a)} shows generalization results for digit
    recognition for the different algorithms (64 hidden units), shown
    as proportion generalization error on the 160 testing items.  SEM
    is standard error of the mean.  {\bf b)} shows effects of
    number of hidden units, with an indication of overfitting with
    larger hidden layers in Bp and to a lesser extent in GeneRec, but
    not in Leabra (which actually shows the opposite pattern).}
  \label{tab.digs}
\end{table}

The generalization results for the three basic algorithms with 64
hidden units each are shown in Table~\ref{tab.digs}a.  This replicates
the same pattern seen previously, where GeneRec generalizes
considerably worse than feedforward backpropagation (Bp), and
Almeida-Pineda (AP) performs intermediately (weight initialization
variance was .5, producing moderate amounts of feedback weights that
are not increased with training).  Critically, the extra biases in
Leabra produce much better generalization in a fully recurrent
network, with generalization error slightly better than the Bp network
with an equivalent number of hidden units.

The effect of number of hidden units, shown in Table~\ref{tab.digs}b,
shows an opposite pattern from previous results, with more hidden
units leading to worse generalization in Bp and to a lesser extent in
GeneRec, but not in Leabra (which actually shows the opposite
pattern).  This is to be expected because this task has noisy inputs,
which allow for the units to overfit the specific, idiosyncratic
features of the training inputs and thus not generalize as well to the
novel testing inputs.  However, the extra biases of the Leabra
algorithm prevent it from this overfitting (e.g., the Hebbian learning
forces the units to extract the central tendency of the input patterns
corresponding to a given digit category), and it appears to benefit
from a richer, more redundant distributed representation that comes
from having a larger hidden layer.  Finally, the fact that the best Bp
network (with 15 hidden units) performs slightly better than Leabra
(with 64 hiddens) is not of central relevance to the point of this
paper --- the critical thing is that Leabra performs {\em much} better
than GeneRec.

\section{Discussion}

This paper has shown that an attempt to make error-driven
backpropagation learning more biologically plausible by using
bidirectional activation propagation to communicate error signals has
the unfortunate consequence of producing bad generalization.  This
impaired generalization can be attributed to the conjunctive attractor
dynamics of an otherwise unconstrained interactive network, which
interfere with the ability to systematically form novel combinatorial
representations.  However, by adding inhibitory competition and
Hebbian learning to the interactive network, good generalization is
restored, and the resulting algorithm satisfies a variety of
constraints from the biological, psychological, and computational
perspectives.

The generalization results presented here demonstrate that neural
networks are capable of substantial levels of generalization based on
a relatively small sample of the environment (e.g., 100 training patterns
out of 4.1 million possible resulting in an average of 3.5 million
correct responses).  Such results should help to counter the
persistent claims that neural networks are incapable of producing
systematic behavior based on statistical learning of the environment
\cite[e.g.,]{Marcus98,PinkerPrince88}.

There is reason to believe that the particular combination of
mechanistic principles embodied by the Leabra algorithm have a wide
range of applicability.  One can identify six core such principles:
interactivity, inhibitory competition, distributed representations,
error-driven task learning, Hebbian model learning, and an overarching
concern for biological plausibility.  These principles reflect
important themes that have played a central role in a large number of
neural network models and theories over the years \cite[see][for a
review]{OReilly98}.  This paper adds to this existing body of research
by showing that there can be important computational advantages to
combining these mechanisms together into one coherent framework.  In
addition to the specific issue of generalization that was the focus of
this paper, this framework can be used to understand a wide range of
cognitive phenomena and provides a unified way of implementing a
number of existing cognitive models \cite{OReillyMunakata00}.

\newpage

\appendix

\section{Appendix: Implementational Details}

\subsection{Pseudocode}

The pseudocode for Leabra is given here, showing exactly how the
pieces of the algorithm described in more detail in the subsequent
sections fit together.

Outer loop: Iterate over events (trials) within an epoch.  For each event:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Iterate over minus and plus phases of settling for each event.
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item At start of settling, for all units:
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item Initialize all state variables (activation, \verb\v_m\, etc).
    \item Apply external patterns (clamp input in minus, input \&
      output in plus).
    \end{enumerate}
  \item During each cycle of settling, for all non-clamped units:
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item Compute excitatory netinput ($g_e(t)$ or $\eta_j$,
      eq~\ref{eq.net_in_avg}).
    \item Compute kWTA inhibition for each layer, based on $g_i^{\Theta}$
      (eq~\ref{eq.i_at_thr}):
      \begin{enumerate}
      \item Sort units into two groups based on $g_i^{\Theta}$: top $k$ and
        remaining $k+1$ to $n$.
      \item If basic, find $k$ and $k+1th$ highest; if
        avg-based, compute avg of $1\rightarrow k$ \& $k+1
        \rightarrow n$.
      \item Set inhibitory conductance $g_i$ from $g^{\Theta}_k$ and
        $g^{\Theta}_{k+1}$ (eq~\ref{eq.g_i}).
      \end{enumerate}
    \item Compute point-neuron activation combining excitatory input and
      inhibition (eq~\ref{eq.vm}).
    \end{enumerate}
  \item After settling, for all units:
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item Record final settling activations as either minus or plus
      phase ($y^-_j$ or $y^+_j$).
    \end{enumerate}
  \end{enumerate}
  \item After both phases update the weights (based on linear current
    weight values), for all connections:
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item Compute error-driven weight changes (eq~\ref{eq.err}) with
    soft weight bounding (eq~\ref{eq.err_soft_bound}).
  \item Compute Hebbian weight changes from plus-phase activations
    (eq~\ref{eq.hebb}).
  \item Compute net weight change as weighted sum of error-driven and
    Hebbian (eq~\ref{eq.k_hebb}).
  \item Increment the weights according to net weight change, and
    apply contrast-enhancement (eq~\ref{eq.wt_off}).
  \end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Point Neuron Activation Function}

Leabra uses a {\em point neuron} activation function that models the
electrophysiological properties of real neurons, while simplifying
their geometry to a single point.  This function is nearly as simple
computationally as the standard sigmoidal activation function, but the
more biologically-based implementation makes it considerably easier to
model inhibitory competition, as described below.  Further, using this
function enables cognitive models to be more easily related to more
physiologically detailed simulations, thereby facilitating
bridge-building between biology and cognition.

The membrane potential $V_m$ is updated as a function of ionic
conductances $g$ with reversal (driving) potentials $E$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
  \dxdy{V_m(t)}{t} = \tau \sum_c g_c(t) \overline{g_c} (E_c - V_m(t))
  \label{eq.vm}
\end{equation}
with 3 channels ($c$) corresponding to: $e$ excitatory input; $l$ leak
current; and $i$ inhibitory input.  Following electrophysiological
convention, the overall conductance is decomposed into a time-varying
component $g_c(t)$ computed as a function of the dynamic state of the
network, and a constant $\overline{g_c}$ that controls the relative
influence of the different conductances.  The equilibrium potential
can be written in a simplified form by setting the excitatory driving
potential ($E_e$) to 1 and the leak and inhibitory driving potentials
($E_l$ and $E_i$) of 0:
\begin{equation}
  V_m^\infty = \frac{g_e \overline{g_e}} {g_e
   \overline{g_e} + g_l \overline{g_l} + g_i \overline{g_i}}
\end{equation}
which shows that the neuron is computing a balance between excitation
and the opposing forces of leak and inhibition.  This equilibrium form
of the equation can be understood in terms of a Bayesian decision
making framework \cite{OReillyMunakata00}.

The excitatory net input/conductance $g_e(t)$ or $\eta_j$ is computed
as the proportion of open excitatory channels as a function of sending
activations times the weight values:
\begin{equation}
  \eta_j = g_e(t) = \langle x_i \wij \rangle = \oneo{n} \sum_i x_i \wij
  \label{eq.net_in_avg}
\end{equation}
The inhibitory conductance is computed via the kWTA function described
in the next section, and leak is a constant.

Activation communicated to other cells ($y_j$) is a thresholded
($\Theta$) sigmoidal function of the membrane potential with gain
parameter $\gamma$:
\begin{equation}
  y_j(t) = \oneo{\left(1 + \oneo{\gamma [V_m(t) - \Theta]_+} \right)}
\end{equation}
where $[x]_+$ is a threshold function that returns 0 if $x<0$ and $x$
if $X>0$.  Note that if it returns 0, we assume $y_j(t) = 0$, to avoid
dividing by 0.  As it is, this function has a very sharp threshold,
which interferes with graded learning learning mechanisms (e.g.,
gradient descent).  To produce a less discontinuous deterministic
function with a softer threshold, the function is convolved with a
Gaussian noise kernel, which reflects the intrinsic processing noise
of biological neurons:
\begin{equation}
  y^*_j(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \oneo{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma}
  e^{-z^2/(2 \sigma^2)} y_j(z-x) dz
  \label{eq.conv}
\end{equation}
where $x$ represents the $[V_m(t) - \Theta]_+$ value, and $y^*_j(x)$
is the noise-convolved activation for that value.  In the simulation,
this function is implemented using a numerical lookup table, as an
analytical solution is not possible.

\subsection{k-Winners-Take-All Inhibition}

Leabra uses a kWTA function to achieve sparse distributed
representations, with two different versions having different levels
of flexibility around the $k$ out of $n$ active units constraint.
Both versions compute a uniform level of inhibitory current for all
units in the layer as follows:
\begin{equation}
  g_i = g^{\Theta}_{k+1} + q (g^{\Theta}_k - g^{\Theta}_{k+1})
  \label{eq.g_i}
\end{equation}
where $0<q<1$ is a parameter for setting the inhibition between the
upper bound of $g^{\Theta}_k$ and the lower bound of
$g^{\Theta}_{k+1}$.  These boundary inhibition values are computed as
a function of the level of inhibition necessary to keep a unit right
at threshold:
\begin{equation}
  g_i^{\Theta} = \frac{g^*_e \bar{g_e} (E_e - \Theta) +
    g_l \bar{g_l} (E_l - \Theta)}{\Theta - E_i}
  \label{eq.i_at_thr}
\end{equation}
where $g^*_e$ is the excitatory net input without the bias weight
contribution --- this allows the bias weights to override the kWTA
constraint.

In the basic version of the kWTA function, which is relatively rigid
about the kWTA constraint, $g^{\Theta}_k$ and $g^{\Theta}_{k+1}$ are
set to the threshold inhibition value for the $k$th and $k+1$th
most excited units, respectively.  Thus, the inhibition is placed
exactly to allow $k$ units to be above threshold, and the remainder
below threshold.  For this version, the $q$ parameter is almost always
.25, allowing the $k$th unit to be sufficiently above the inhibitory
threshold.

In the {\em average-based} kWTA version, $g^{\Theta}_k$ is the average
$g_i^{\Theta}$ value for the top $k$ most excited units, and
$g^{\Theta}_{k+1}$ is the average of $g_i^{\Theta}$ for the remaining
$n-k$ units.  This version allows for more flexibility in the actual
number of units active depending on the nature of the activation
distribution in the layer and the value of the $q$ parameter (which is
typically between .5 and .7 depending on the level of sparseness in
the layer, with a standard default value of .6).  The present
simulations used the average-based version for the hidden layer (which
can take advantage of the flexibility) with $q=.6$ (standard default),
and the basic version for the output layer (which does not need the
flexibility), with $q=.25$ (standard default).  Performance using just
the basic version for all layers was significantly worse
(generalization error of 0.239) than the more appropriately biased
case with average-based in the hidden layer (0.138), but was still
better than backpropagation (0.401).

Activation dynamics similar to those produced by the kWTA function
have been shown to result from simulated inhibitory interneurons that
project both feedforward and feedback inhibition
\cite{OReillyMunakata00}.  Thus, although the kWTA function is
somewhat biologically implausible in its implementation (e.g., requiring
global information about activation states and using sorting
mechanisms), it provides a computationally effective approximation to
biologically plausible inhibitory dynamics.

\subsection{Error-Driven Learning}

As indicated in the text, Leabra uses the symmetric midpoint version
of the GeneRec algorithm \cite{OReilly96}, which is functionally
equivalent to the deterministic Boltzmann machine and contrastive
Hebbian learning (CHL) \cite{Hinton89,Movellan90}.  The network
settles in two phases, an expectation (minus) phase where the
network's actual output is produced, and an outcome (plus) phase where
the target output is experienced, and then computes a simple
difference of a pre and postsynaptic activation product across these
two phases (as shown in Equation~\ref{eq.chl} and reproduced here):
\begin{equation}
  \Delta_{err} \wij = (x^+_i y^+_j) - (x^-_i y^-_j)
  \label{eq.err}
\end{equation}
for sending unit $x_i$ and receiving unit $y_j$ in the two phases.

\subsection{Hebbian Learning}

The simplest form of Hebbian learning adjusts the weights in
proportion to the product of the sending ($x_i$) and receiving ($y_j$)
unit activations: $\Delta \wij = x_i y_j$.  The weight vector is
dominated by the principal eigenvector of the pairwise correlation
matrix of the input, but it also grows without bound.  Leabra uses
essentially the same learning rule used in competitive learning or
mixtures-of-Gaussians \cite{RumelhartZipser86,Nowlan90}, which can be
seen as a variant of the Oja normalization \cite{Oja82}.  This
learning rule was shown in Equation~\ref{eq.hebb}, and is reproduced
here:
\begin{equation}
  \Delta_{hebb} \wij = x^+_i y^+_j - y^+_j \wij = y^+_j (x^+_i - \wij)
\end{equation}
After \incite{RumelhartZipser86} and \incite{OReillyMunakata00}, we
can see that this equation converges on the conditional probability
that the sender is active given that the receiver is active.  First,
we write the activations as encoding the probability that the units
are active for the current input pattern, indexed by $t$, and sum the
weight changes over all patterns:
\begin{eqnarray}
  \Delta \wij & = & \epsilon \sum_t [P(y_j | t) P(x_i | t) -
  P(y_j | t) \wij] P(t) \nonumber \\
  & = & \epsilon \left( \sum_t P(y_j | t) P(x_i | t) P(t) - \right. \nonumber \\
  && \left. \sum_t P(y_j | t) P(t) \wij \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we set $\Delta \wij$ to zero and solve to find the equilibrium weight
value, resulting in:
\begin{eqnarray}
  0 & = & \epsilon \left( \sum_t P(y_j | t) P(x_i | t) P(t) -
    \right. \nonumber \\
    && \left. \sum_t P(y_j | t) P(t) \wij \right) \nonumber \\
  \wij & = & \frac{\sum_t P(y_j | t) P(x_i | t) P(t)}
    {\sum_t P(y_j | t) P(t)}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, the interesting thing to note here is that the numerator $\sum_t
P(y_j | t) P(x_i | t) P(t)$ is actually the definition of the
joint probability of the sending and receiving units both being active
together across all the patterns $t$, which is just $P(y_j, x_i)$.
Similarly, the denominator $\sum_t P(y_j | t) P(t)$ gives the
probability of the receiving unit being active over all the patterns,
or $P(y_j)$.  Thus, we can rewrite the above equation as:
\begin{eqnarray}
  \wij & = & \frac{P(y_j, x_i)}{P(y_j)} \nonumber \\
  & = & P(x_i | y_j)
\end{eqnarray}
at which point it becomes clear that this fraction of the joint
probability over the probability of the receiver is just the
definition of the conditional probability of the sender given the
receiver.

\subsection{Combining Error-driven and Hebbian Learning}

Error-driven and Hebbian learning are combined additively at each
connection to produce a net weight change.  Two equations are needed,
a {\em soft weight bounding} equation to to keep the error-driven
component within the same 0-1 range of the Hebbian term, and the
combination equation.

Soft weight bounding with exponential approach to the 0-1 extremes is
implemented using:
\begin{equation}
  \Delta_{sberr} w_{ik} = [\Delta_{err}]_+ (1-w_{ik}) + [\Delta_{err}]_- w_{ik}
  \label{eq.err_soft_bound}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{err}$ is the error-driven weight change, and the $[x]_+$
operator returns $x$ if $x>0$ and $0$ otherwise, while $[x]_-$ does
the opposite, returning $x$ if $x<0$, and $0$ otherwise.

The net weight change equation combining error-driven and Hebbian
learning (which also includes the learning rate parameter $\epsilon$),
uses a normalized mixing constant $k_{hebb}$:
\begin{equation}
  \Delta \wij = \epsilon[k_{hebb} (\Delta_{hebb}) + (1-k_{hebb}) (\Delta_{sberr})]
  \label{eq.k_hebb}
\end{equation}
Three different values of $k_{hebb}$ were used to explore the relative
contributions of error-driven and Hebbian learning: $k_{hebb} = 0$
gives purely error-driven learning (plus the kWTA inhibition
constraint), $k_{hebb} = .02$ is the value used for combining Hebbian
and error-driven, producing the main results, and $k_{hebb} = 1$ gives
purely Hebbian learning (plus the kWTA inhibition constraint).  Note
that only a relatively small amount of Hebbian learning is required to
achieve the benefits --- this is in part because the Hebbian learning
factor is so persistently present on each trial of learning and
shaping the learning so reliably according to the local correlations
present.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

I thank Yuko Munakata and Gary Cottrell for helpful comments.  This
work was supported in part by NIH program project grant MH47566 and
NSF grant IBN-9873492.

\newpage

\bibliography{ror_std,ror.ref,ror.bio,ror.chk,ror.cond,ror.cogn,ror.lang,ror.devo,ror.hip,ror.pfc,ror.ltp,ror.vis,ror.nets,ror.probit,ror.mem,ror.bg}

\end{document}

max_stars_repo_name: ccnlab/combgen

max_issues_repo_name: ccnlab/combgen

max_forks_repo_name: ccnlab/combgen