Top-Down Connections and its Applications to 3D Object Recognition - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

top down connections and its
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Top-Down Connections and its Applications to 3D Object Recognition - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Topographic Class Grouping through Top-Down Connections and its Applications to 3D Object Recognition Matthew D. Luciw and Juyang Weng Embodied Intelligence Laboratory Department of Computer Science Michigan State University East Lansing MI


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Topographic Class Grouping through Top-Down Connections and its Applications to 3D Object Recognition

Matthew D. Luciw and Juyang Weng Embodied Intelligence Laboratory Department of Computer Science Michigan State University East Lansing MI 48824 USA Email: {luciwmat, weng}@cse.msu.edu

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Michigan State University 2

Some Background

 Roles of top-down connections in cerebral cortex

are unclear

 Found some brain areas where neurons grouped

by class

 E.g., fusiform face area (FFA) and

parahippocampal place area (PPA)

 Neurons in inferotemporal cortex: object

recognition with some invariance

 How do such abstract meaning carrying neurons

develop?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Michigan State University 3

Introduction

Novelty: Topographic Class Grouping (TCG) mechanism.

TCG: Top-down connections can enable cortical neurons to group by class.

Understanding how cerebral cortex develops

Discriminating features

Invariance

Motor-initiated abstraction

Application

Can apply to any pattern recognition application

This study: 3D object recognition of center-normalized, background controlled objects.

TCG enabled

Significant reduction of the recognition errors.

Increased neuronal purity

Decreased class-response scatter

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Michigan State University 4

Potential Towards Human Level AI

 Human-level intelligence must be developed [1]  Model cortical developmental principals

 Not modality specific  Not application specific

 Architecture capable of brain-like development + Experience

 Intelligence development

 This work: Invariance & Abstraction

 When output is label: invariance  But motor output does not have to be class label  General framework for motor-biased abstraction via supervision

from downstream

[1]: Weng, McClelland, Pentland, Sporns, Stockman, Sur and Thelen, Autonomous mental development by robots and animals, Science, 2001

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Multilevel In-Place Learning Networks (MILN)

Biologically inspired developmental networks

Hebbian-based firing rules on every layer develops feature detectors (neurons)

Hierarchical: from sensors (e.g., cameras) to motors (e.g., class label)

Three types of projections:

Bottom-up

Lateral

Top-down

Here we examine the effect of the top-down connections

Advantages:

Lowest complexity

Deals with high dimensional raw input

Fast and parallelizable

No local minima problem (does not use backpropagation for training)

Weng et al. IJHR 2007

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Michigan State University 6

Related Work

 SOM (Kohenen, 1997)

 Idea of using expanded input with input & output vectors

 HDR (Zhang et al, 2005)

 Used expanded input

 AGREL (Roelfsema & Van Ooyen 2005)

 Top-down connections for attention

 LISSOM (Sit & Mikkulainen 2006)

 Top-down connections for correlations (no motors)

 MILN (Weng & Luciw, 2006, Weng et al. 2007)

 Top-down connections to generate invariance

slide-7
SLIDE 7

3D Object Recognition

MSU Dataset: 25 Rotating Objects (25 classes) 200 images from each class 4/5 for training Used grayscale

NORB (5 classes) [2] – Left: training objects, Right: testing objects variations of elevation, lighting, rotation

[2]: Y. LeCun, F.J. Huang, and L. Bottou. Learning methods for generic object recognition with invariance to pose and lighting. CVPR, 2004.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Michigan State University 8

Two-Layer Architecture

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Layer Development

 Three types of projections: Bottom-up, Lateral, Top-down  Layer-one arranged in 2D plane

  • 1. Neuron’s pre-response
  • Similarity of bottom-up weight to bottom-up excitation
  • Similarity of top-down weight to top-down excitation
  • Bottom-up vs. Top-down weighted by Beta
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Layer Development (Cont.)

  • 2. Lateral Inhibition (Competition)

Top-k firing neurons not inhibited

  • 3. Lateral Excitation (Smoothing)

Non-inhibited neurons boost

local firing rates (e.g., neighbors)

3 x 3 neighbors fire and update

Lateral excitation, Do For each winner neuron j:

Lateral inhibition

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Layer Self-Organization (Cont.)

  • 4. Hebbian Weight Adjustment

Optimal adaptation of winners

Plasticity enabled Hebbian adaptation (LCA):

Lobe component i: the principal component

  • f the region Ri

Partition the input space Input space is top-down boosted if Beta nonzero

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Michigan State University 12

Two Causes of TCG

Lateral Excitation Top-Down Connections

No Yes No

No TCG No TCG

Yes

No TCG

TCG

Both lateral excitation and top-down connections are required!

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Top Down Projections Lead to Class- Discriminating Features

The top-down connections boost the variations in the neuronal between class directions during the training phase, leading to class discriminating features.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Lateral Excitation Leads to Class ``Groups’’ to Grow and Compete For Space

Lateral excitation ``pulls’’ nearby neurons in the neural plane to represent nearby features in the input space, which is boosted by the top-down connections.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Example With Toy Data

Two classes, two manifolds, high energy along noise direction, black squares are location of neurons’ bottom-up weight, lines are neighbor connections. (a): After neuron initialization (no training) (b): After training without top-down connections: lateral excitation pulled between manifolds (c): After training with top-down connections: fewer between manifold neighbors and most neurons lie on a class manifold.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Michigan State University 16

Experiment Setup

 Two parameters tested

 Weight of top-down connections (Beta)

 Zero or 0.3

 Size of neuronal map on layer-one

 25 Objects: 20 x 20, 30 x 30, 40 x 40  NORB: 40 x 40, 60 x 60

 5 trials for each set of parameters

 Average values reported  Each trial trained for 50,000 image/label pairs  Error: disjoint testing samples  Other metrics: used training data

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Visualization of TCG

 (a): No Top-Down Excitation (Beta = 0)  (b): Used Top-Down Connections (Beta = 0.3)  Shows % of neuronal updating history for highest class

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Motor-Initiated Abstraction

Invariance and abstraction are analogous

From top-down connections

1.

Within-class variation is disregarded

2.

Between-class variation is kept

Abstract class neurons are manifested in the representation.

Develops meaning: the features are tuned & organized from top-down to solve the imposed problem (here: classification, but could be something else)

No abstraction With abstraction

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Michigan State University 19

Error Results – 25 Objects

Neural plane size

  • Avg. error

without TCG

  • Avg. error

with TCG Error difference 20 x 20 8.13% 3.03% 5.1% 30 x 30 2.62% 0.83% 1.79% 40 x 40 0.63% 0.33% 0.30%

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Michigan State University 20

Error Results – NORB

Method Resource Disjoint Test Error KNN+L2 24,000 18.4 No TCG TCG Diff MILN 1,600 3,600 26.5 17.7 8.8 26.2 15.7 10.5 MILN + Top-Down Connections achieves better performance than KNN using 1,600 elements compared to 24,000

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Michigan State University 21

Developmental Purity

 Neuron purity: measured statistically by the average entropy of the

neurons’ development.

 Use probability that neuron updated for each class  Purer neurons are more “abstract,” -- characterizing class-specific (or

motor-specific) input information, resulting in better classification rates.

 If purity is one, neuron i developed using samples from a single class.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Michigan State University 22

Example Entropy Maps

 Entropy is (1-purity)  (a): Without Top-Down  (b): Using Top-Down

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Michigan State University 23

Class-Response Scatter

 Neurons that respond to the same class become relatively nearer.  Measured statistically by a smaller within-class scatter of responses when

the neuronal plane has a fixed size.

 c: # classes, n: # neurons, A: neuron probability matrix, N: neuron position

(2D), M: mean class firing positions

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Michigan State University 24

Example of Weights and Firing

 (a): Eight images from a class  (b): Bottom-up weight without TCG  (c): Top-responding neuron for

each image without TCG

 High class-response scatter

 (d): Bottom-up weight with TCG  (e): Top-responding neuron for

each image with TCG

 Low class response scatter

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Michigan State University 25

Grouping Results – 25 Objects

Top-down (¯ ) Neural plane size

Developmental purity Class- response scatter Connectedness*

No (0) Yes (0.3) 20 x 20 0.775 0.814 49.48 6.58 1.7 1 No (0) Yes (0.3) 30 x 30 0.785 0.855 174.84 10.84 2.3 1 No (0) Yes (0.3) 40 x 40 0.799 0.919 310.84 15.08 3.2 1

  • Connectedness of one means there is a single area for each class.

See paper for details.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Michigan State University 26

Grouping Results – NORB

Top-down (¯ ) Edge Wrap Neural plane size

Purity Scatter Connected

No (0) Yes (0.3) Yes (0.3) N N Y 40 x 40 0.5 0.87 0.93 270.6 102.59 171.01 8.1 1 1.24 No (0) Yes (0.3) Yes (0.3) N N Y 60 x 60 0.51 0.89 0.91 635.84 174.79 386.88 13.8 1 1.23

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Michigan State University 27

Conclusions

 New Topographic Class Grouping mechanism  Top-down connections in MILN develop class-

discriminating features

 Led to lower error rates, more pure neurons, and

lower spatial scatter of neuronal firing

 Towards a better understanding of how intelligent

systems can develop to handle invariance

 Development of abstract, meaning carrying neurons  General developmental principle for emergence-

capable architectures: towards human level AI