Artificial neural networks (ANNs) usually represent neural transmission with fixed trainable weights during a training batch, which omits short-term changes in synaptic efficacy. In addition, the discrete time-step simulation requires additional temporal processing that many conventional ANN architectures do not use. To overcome these challenges, we propose Purin, a biology-inspired and ANN-compatible mechanism, that introduces synaptic efficacy modulation into conventional convolutional neural networks. Purin uses a time-interval-based abstraction for neural activities, which allows Purin to introduce short- and long-term synaptic efficacy changes without using discrete time-steps. Purin introduces a bounded factor to represent temporary synaptic efficacy changes, together with two weight matrices that represent input-side and output-side efficacy. The weight matrices are updated by backpropagation and interpreted as the long-term synaptic efficacy changes. Experimental results show that after removing the confounding factors in the AlexNet, VGG11, and GoogLeNet architectures, Purin improves the classification accuracies in all three models across the evaluated datasets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A schematic diagram of neurons in ANNs and biology. (a) neuron in ANN. (b) neuron in biology.
Figure 2: A flowchart describing how an ANN’s neuron and biological neuron process their inputs. We focus on the biological neuron using chemical synapses. (a) ANN’s neuron’s procedure. (b) biological neuron’s procedure.
Figure 3: An ANN neuron with Purin mechanism. This neuron receives 3 inputs ( x1,x2,x3 ) from the previous layer and generates 3 outputs ( y1,y2,y3 ) to 3 neurons in the next layer.
Model
UCM
AID
CIFAR-100
Oxford102
AlexNet
64.5±0.9
61.3±1.8
48.9±0.5
17.4±2.3
AlexNet+P
72.2±1.6
59.4±1.0
45.9±0.4
26.8±0.9
VGG11
51.9±2.4
55.4±1.5
32.4±0.4
7.4±0.9
VGG11+P
68.2±2.6
57.8±1.4
39.8±0.8
23.8±0.7
GoogLeNet
76.7±2.5
63.3±3.9
55.0±0.6
33.2±3.2
GoogLeNet+P
74.0±1.7
64.2±2.0
52.8±0.5
27.6±2.3
Table 1: OA (%) on different datasets. The average accuracy and the standard deviation are given. "P" means Purin mechanism.
Confounding factor
Models with Purin
Vanilla models
Input rescaling
[-1.0, 1.0]
[0.0, 1.0]
Activation function
Leaky ReLU
ReLU
Use dropout
No
Yes
Use batch normalization
No
Yes
Table 2: Confounding factors between vanilla models and models with Purin.
Model
UCM
AID
CIFAR-100
Oxford102
AlexNet
61.3±0.6
54.1±1.1
42.1±0.6
16.6±2.2
AlexNet+P
72.2±1.6
59.4±1.0
45.9±0.4
26.8±0.9
VGG11
51.3±3.4
50.2±1.3
33.3±1.1
10.5±0.7
VGG11+P
68.2±2.6
57.8±1.4
39.8±0.8
23.8±0.7
GoogLeNet
49.9±3.3
53.8±1.5
39.2±0.9
14.4±2.1
GoogLeNet+P
74.0±1.7
64.2±2.0
52.8±0.5
27.6±2.3
Table 3: Comparisons with matched benchmark models in OA (%). The average accuracy and the standard deviation are given. "P" means Purin mechanism.
Variant
Split weight
gstp
A
-
-
B
✓
-
C
✓
✓
Table 4: Ablation variants
Model
Variant
UCM
AID
CIFAR-100
Oxford102
AlexNet
A
61.3±0.6
54.1±1.1
42.1±0.6
16.6±2.2
B
72.4±0.9
58.7±1.2
44.5±0.4
26.6±1.2
C
72.2±1.6
59.4±1.0
45.9±0.4
26.8±0.9
VGG11
A
51.3±3.4
50.2±1.3
33.3±1.1
10.5±0.7
B
65.4±2.5
56.7±0.8
38.0±0.9
23.5±0.6
C
68.2±2.6
57.8±1.4
39.8±0.8
23.8±0.7
Table 5: OA (%) of ablation variants on four datasets.
Variant
exponential recovery
range
A
-
gstp∼U(0.8,1.2)
B
-
(0.8,1.2)
C
✓
(0,+∞)
D
-
(0,+∞)
E
✓
(0.8,1.2)
Table 6: Variants of gstp
Architecture
Variant
CIFAR-100
UCM
VGG11
A
37.6±0.4
62.1±1.6
B
38.6±0.7
65.7±2.3
C
38.9±0.4
66.0±1.2
D
38.6±1.0
67.2±1.7
E
39.8±0.8
68.2±2.6
GoogLeNet
A
30.5±0.3
58.19±1.7
Table 7: OA (%) for architectures with different gstp variants
Model
CIFAR-100
UCM
GoogLeNet+conv SE block
38.4±1.1
56.4±0.9
GoogLeNet+SE block
35.9±1.9
57.7±4.3
GoogLeNet (matched)
39.2±0.9
49.9±3.3
GoogLeNet+Purin
52.8±0.5
74.0±1.7
Table 8: OA (%) on CIFAR-100 and UCM for different combinations of matched GoogLeNet
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: The ResNet20-like model used in our experiments. We build residual connections from the first convolution layer to the last layer in the same convolution block.
Model
Accuracy
vanilla ResNet20
69.53±0.61
Ours
69.35±2.64
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy (%) on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The average values and standard deviations are given.
Figure 5: gstp curves in an evaluation batch in convolution layers and fully connected layers in the Purin+VGG11 model. The last fully connected layer does not use gstp . (a) Convolution_0. (b) Convolution_2. (c) Convolution_4, (d) Convolution_5. (e) Convolution_7. (f) Convolution_8. (g) Convolution_10. (h) Convolution_11. (i) fully connected layer_14. (j) fully connected layer_15.
Model
Extra trainable parameter
Overhead
AlexNet
9344
0.0162%
VGG11
10944
0.0084%
GoogLeNet
7280
0.1199%
Appendix
Table 10: Relative overhead of additional trainable parameters for a dataset with 224×224 images, 100 categories.
The neurons of artificial neural networks were originally invented when much less was known about biological neurons than is known today. Our work explores a modification to the core neuron unit to make it more parallel to a biological neuron. The modification is made with the knowledge that biological dendrites are not simply passive activation funnels, but also compute complex non-linear functions as they transmit activation to the cell body. The paper explores a novel system of perforated'' backpropagation empowering the artificial neurons of deep neural networks to achieve better performance coding for the same features they coded for in the original architecture. After an initial network training phase, additional dendrite'' nodes are added to the network and separately trained with a different objective: to correlate their output with the remaining error of the original neurons. The trained dendrites are then frozen, and the original neurons are further trained, now taking into account the additional error signals provided by the dendrites. The cycle of training the original neurons and then adding and training dendrites can be repeated several times until satisfactory performance is achieved. Our algorithm was successfully added to modern state-of-the-art PyTorch networks across multiple domains, improving upon original accuracies and allowing for significant model compression without a loss in accuracy.
Rorry Brenner, Laurent Itti
Perforated AI Inc. · Computer Science and Neuroscience, University of Southern California
Artificial neural networks (ANNs), as core components of modern deep learning (DL) systems, lack the adaptive flexibility and long-term stability exhibited by biological systems. This limitation largely stems from the fact that conventional ANNs rely on uniform, local, and gradient-based parameter updates, while neglecting internal learning principles that are biological mechanisms such as neurotransmitters signalling or neuroplasticity. Consequently, many existing approaches focus on architectural expansion or mathematical fine-tuning techniques such as regularisation or parameter isolation. Inspired by the superior adaptability and plasticity of mammalian brains, we posit that neuromodulation with neurotransmitters constitutes a third axis of learning, complementary to neural activity and synaptic plasticity, and should be explicitly modelled in artificial neural networks. In this positional paper, we argue that incorporating neuromodulatory principles into ANN design represents a promising and underexplored research direction, and we advocate for greater attention to this perspective in the development of adaptive and continual learning systems.
Yupei Li, Manuel Milling, Berrak Sisman +1
Department of Computing and Chair of Health Informatics Imperial College London and Technical University of Munich London and Munich, United Kingdom and Germany · Chair of Health Informatics Technical University of Munich Munich, Germany · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering Baltimore, United States +1
From their inception in the 1950s, artificial neural networks (ANNs) started using the so-called point neuron model then prevalent in neuroscience, hoping that this analogy would allow for a better emulation of brain function. Over the years the neuroscience literature has shown that the point neuron model is too simplistic to properly represent many fundamental neural processes; however, the standard neuron model in ANNs still remains the same. Here we substitute it by a very recent model of cortical cells and demonstrate through theoretical analyses and experimental results how, simply by using a more realistic neural unit element without augmenting the number of parameters, the resulting ANNs offer a number of important advantages that include increases in expressivity, robustness and learning speed, and a reduction in memorization and the amount of training data needed.
Raul Mohedano, Thomas Batard, Erik Velasco-Salido +4
1Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain. · Center for Research in Mathematics (CIMAT), Guanajuato, Mexico. · 3Universidad Aut´onoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain. +1