Associative Learning Using Ising-Like Model

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 240)

Abstract

In this paper, a new computational model of associative learning is proposed, which is based on the Ising model. Application of the stochastic gradient descent algorithm to the proposed model yields an on-line learning rule. Next, it is shown that the obtained new learning rule generalizes two well-known learning rules, i.e., the Hebbian rule and the Oja’s rule. Later, the fashion of incorporating the cognitive account into the obtained associative learning rule is proposed. At the end of the paper, experiments were carried out for testing the backward blocking and the reduced overshadowing and blocking phenomena. The obtained results are discussed and conclusions are drawn.

Keywords

associative learning Ising model energy-based model Hebbian rule Oja’s rule Rescorla-Wagner model backward blocking reduced overshadowing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackley, D.H., Hinton, G.E., Sejnowski, T.J.: A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines. Cognitive Science 9(1), 147–169 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashby, F.G., O’Brien, J.B.: Category learning and multiple memory systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2), 83–89 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop, C.M.: Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cipra, B.A.: An introduction to the Ising model. American Mathematical Monthly 94(10), 937–959 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dayan, P., Kakade, S., Montague, P.R.: Learning and selective attention. Nature Neuroscience 3, 1218–1223 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halford, G.S., Baker, R., McCredden, J.E., Bain, J.D.: How many variables can humans process? Psychological Science 16(1), 70–76 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hebb, D.O.: The Organization of Behavior. Wiley & Sons, New York (1949)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hopfield, J.J.: Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79(8), 2554–2558 (1982)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruschke, J.K.: Bayesian approaches to associative learning: From passive to active learning. Learning & Behavior 36(3), 210–226 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lis, M., Pintal, L., Swiatek, J., Cwiklik, L.: GPU-Based Massive Parallel Kawasaki Kinetics in the Dynamic Monte Carlo Simulations of Lipid Nanodomains. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 8(11), 4758–4765 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marr, D.: Vision. W.H. Freeman, San Fransisco (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacKay, D.J.: Information theory. inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McClelland, J.L.: Is a machine realization of truly human-like intelligence achievable? Cognitive Computation 1(1), 17–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, R.R., Barnet, R.C., Grahame, N.J.: Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin 117(3), 363–386 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, C.J., De Houwer, J., Lovibond, P.F.: The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(02), 183–198 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oja, E.: Simplified neuron model as a principal component analyzer. Journal of Mathematical Biology 15(3), 267–273 (1982)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen, K.B., Pedersen, M.S.: The matrix cookbook (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rescorla, R.A., Wagner, A.R.: A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory, pp. 64–99 (1972)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shanks, D.R.: Learning: From association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 61, 273–301 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sternberg, D.A., McClelland, J.L.: Two mechanisms of human contingency learning. Psychological Science 23(1), 59–68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sznajd-Weron, K., Sznajd, J.: Opinion evolution in closed community. International Journal of Modern Physics C 11(06), 1157–1165 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L., Kemp, C.: Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7), 309–318 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceWrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations