-
Neural Circuit Architectural Priors for Quadruped Locomotion
Authors:
Nikhil X. Bhattasali,
Venkatesh Pattabiraman,
Lerrel Pinto,
Grace W. Lindsay
Abstract:
Learning-based approaches to quadruped locomotion commonly adopt generic policy architectures like fully connected MLPs. As such architectures contain few inductive biases, it is common in practice to incorporate priors in the form of rewards, training curricula, imitation data, or trajectory generators. In nature, animals are born with priors in the form of their nervous system's architecture, wh…
▽ More
Learning-based approaches to quadruped locomotion commonly adopt generic policy architectures like fully connected MLPs. As such architectures contain few inductive biases, it is common in practice to incorporate priors in the form of rewards, training curricula, imitation data, or trajectory generators. In nature, animals are born with priors in the form of their nervous system's architecture, which has been shaped by evolution to confer innate ability and efficient learning. For instance, a horse can walk within hours of birth and can quickly improve with practice. Such architectural priors can also be useful in ANN architectures for AI. In this work, we explore the advantages of a biologically inspired ANN architecture for quadruped locomotion based on neural circuits in the limbs and spinal cord of mammals. Our architecture achieves good initial performance and comparable final performance to MLPs, while using less data and orders of magnitude fewer parameters. Our architecture also exhibits better generalization to task variations, even admitting deployment on a physical robot without standard sim-to-real methods. This work shows that neural circuits can provide valuable architectural priors for locomotion and encourages future work in other sensorimotor skills.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
-
Multilevel Interpretability Of Artificial Neural Networks: Leveraging Framework And Methods From Neuroscience
Authors:
Zhonghao He,
Jascha Achterberg,
Katie Collins,
Kevin Nejad,
Danyal Akarca,
Yinzhu Yang,
Wes Gurnee,
Ilia Sucholutsky,
Yuhan Tang,
Rebeca Ianov,
George Ogden,
Chole Li,
Kai Sandbrink,
Stephen Casper,
Anna Ivanova,
Grace W. Lindsay
Abstract:
As deep learning systems are scaled up to many billions of parameters, relating their internal structure to external behaviors becomes very challenging. Although daunting, this problem is not new: Neuroscientists and cognitive scientists have accumulated decades of experience analyzing a particularly complex system - the brain. In this work, we argue that interpreting both biological and artificia…
▽ More
As deep learning systems are scaled up to many billions of parameters, relating their internal structure to external behaviors becomes very challenging. Although daunting, this problem is not new: Neuroscientists and cognitive scientists have accumulated decades of experience analyzing a particularly complex system - the brain. In this work, we argue that interpreting both biological and artificial neural systems requires analyzing those systems at multiple levels of analysis, with different analytic tools for each level. We first lay out a joint grand challenge among scientists who study the brain and who study artificial neural networks: understanding how distributed neural mechanisms give rise to complex cognition and behavior. We then present a series of analytical tools that can be used to analyze biological and artificial neural systems, organizing those tools according to Marr's three levels of analysis: computation/behavior, algorithm/representation, and implementation. Overall, the multilevel interpretability framework provides a principled way to tackle neural system complexity; links structure, computation, and behavior; clarifies assumptions and research priorities at each level; and paves the way toward a unified effort for understanding intelligent systems, may they be biological or artificial.
△ Less
Submitted 25 August, 2024; v1 submitted 22 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
Grounding Neuroscience in Behavioral Changes using Artificial Neural Networks
Authors:
Grace W. Lindsay
Abstract:
Connecting neural activity to function is a common aim in neuroscience. How to define and conceptualize function, however, can vary. Here I focus on grounding this goal in the specific question of how a given change in behavior is produced by a change in neural circuits or activity. Artificial neural network models offer a particularly fruitful format for tackling such questions because they use n…
▽ More
Connecting neural activity to function is a common aim in neuroscience. How to define and conceptualize function, however, can vary. Here I focus on grounding this goal in the specific question of how a given change in behavior is produced by a change in neural circuits or activity. Artificial neural network models offer a particularly fruitful format for tackling such questions because they use neural mechanisms to perform complex transformations and produce appropriate behavior. Therefore, they can be a means of causally testing the extent to which a neural change can be responsible for an experimentally observed behavioral change. Furthermore, because the field of interpretability in artificial intelligence has similar aims, neuroscientists can look to interpretability methods for new ways of identifying neural features that drive performance and behaviors.
△ Less
Submitted 13 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Testing the Tools of Systems Neuroscience on Artificial Neural Networks
Authors:
Grace W. Lindsay
Abstract:
Neuroscientists apply a range of common analysis tools to recorded neural activity in order to glean insights into how neural circuits implement computations. Despite the fact that these tools shape the progress of the field as a whole, we have little empirical evidence that they are effective at quickly identifying the phenomena of interest. Here I argue that these tools should be explicitly test…
▽ More
Neuroscientists apply a range of common analysis tools to recorded neural activity in order to glean insights into how neural circuits implement computations. Despite the fact that these tools shape the progress of the field as a whole, we have little empirical evidence that they are effective at quickly identifying the phenomena of interest. Here I argue that these tools should be explicitly tested and that artificial neural networks (ANNs) are an appropriate testing grounds for them. The recent resurgence of the use of ANNs as models of everything from perception to memory to motor control stems from a rough similarity between artificial and biological neural networks and the ability to train these networks to perform complex high-dimensional tasks. These properties, combined with the ability to perfectly observe and manipulate these systems, makes them well-suited for vetting the tools of systems and cognitive neuroscience. I provide here both a roadmap for performing this testing and a list of tools that are suitable to be tested on ANNs. Using ANNs to reflect on the extent to which these tools provide a productive understanding of neural systems -- and on exactly what understanding should mean here -- has the potential to expedite progress in the study of the brain.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Divergent representations of ethological visual inputs emerge from supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning
Authors:
Grace W. Lindsay,
Josh Merel,
Tom Mrsic-Flogel,
Maneesh Sahani
Abstract:
Artificial neural systems trained using reinforcement, supervised, and unsupervised learning all acquire internal representations of high dimensional input. To what extent these representations depend on the different learning objectives is largely unknown. Here we compare the representations learned by eight different convolutional neural networks, each with identical ResNet architectures and tra…
▽ More
Artificial neural systems trained using reinforcement, supervised, and unsupervised learning all acquire internal representations of high dimensional input. To what extent these representations depend on the different learning objectives is largely unknown. Here we compare the representations learned by eight different convolutional neural networks, each with identical ResNet architectures and trained on the same family of egocentric images, but embedded within different learning systems. Specifically, the representations are trained to guide action in a compound reinforcement learning task; to predict one or a combination of three task-related targets with supervision; or using one of three different unsupervised objectives. Using representational similarity analysis, we find that the network trained with reinforcement learning differs most from the other networks. Using metrics inspired by the neuroscience literature, we find that the model trained with reinforcement learning has a sparse and high-dimensional representation wherein individual images are represented with very different patterns of neural activity. Further analysis suggests these representations may arise in order to guide long-term behavior and goal-seeking in the RL agent. Finally, we compare the representations learned by the RL agent to neural activity from mouse visual cortex and find it to perform as well or better than other models. Our results provide insights into how the properties of neural representations are influenced by objective functions and can inform transfer learning approaches.
△ Less
Submitted 8 February, 2022; v1 submitted 3 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Neuromatch Academy: Teaching Computational Neuroscience with global accessibility
Authors:
Tara van Viegen,
Athena Akrami,
Kate Bonnen,
Eric DeWitt,
Alexandre Hyafil,
Helena Ledmyr,
Grace W. Lindsay,
Patrick Mineault,
John D. Murray,
Xaq Pitkow,
Aina Puce,
Madineh Sedigh-Sarvestani,
Carsen Stringer,
Titipat Achakulvisut,
Elnaz Alikarami,
Melvin Selim Atay,
Eleanor Batty,
Jeffrey C. Erlich,
Byron V. Galbraith,
Yueqi Guo,
Ashley L. Juavinett,
Matthew R. Krause,
Songting Li,
Marius Pachitariu,
Elizabeth Straley
, et al. (10 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Neuromatch Academy designed and ran a fully online 3-week Computational Neuroscience summer school for 1757 students with 191 teaching assistants working in virtual inverted (or flipped) classrooms and on small group projects. Fourteen languages, active community management, and low cost allowed for an unprecedented level of inclusivity and universal accessibility.
Neuromatch Academy designed and ran a fully online 3-week Computational Neuroscience summer school for 1757 students with 191 teaching assistants working in virtual inverted (or flipped) classrooms and on small group projects. Fourteen languages, active community management, and low cost allowed for an unprecedented level of inclusivity and universal accessibility.
△ Less
Submitted 15 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Convolutional Neural Networks as a Model of the Visual System: Past, Present, and Future
Authors:
Grace W. Lindsay
Abstract:
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were inspired by early findings in the study of biological vision. They have since become successful tools in computer vision and state-of-the-art models of both neural activity and behavior on visual tasks. This review highlights what, in the context of CNNs, it means to be a good model in computational neuroscience and the various ways models can provide insi…
▽ More
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were inspired by early findings in the study of biological vision. They have since become successful tools in computer vision and state-of-the-art models of both neural activity and behavior on visual tasks. This review highlights what, in the context of CNNs, it means to be a good model in computational neuroscience and the various ways models can provide insight. Specifically, it covers the origins of CNNs and the methods by which we validate them as models of biological vision. It then goes on to elaborate on what we can learn about biological vision by understanding and experimenting on CNNs and discusses emerging opportunities for the use of CNNS in vision research beyond basic object recognition.
△ Less
Submitted 10 February, 2020; v1 submitted 20 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
