| Literature DB >> 35615277 |
Shuangming Yang1, Bernabe Linares-Barranco2, Badong Chen3.
Abstract
Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are regarded as a promising candidate to deal with the major challenges of current machine learning techniques, including the high energy consumption induced by deep neural networks. However, there is still a great gap between SNNs and the few-shot learning performance of artificial neural networks. Importantly, existing spike-based few-shot learning models do not target robust learning based on spatiotemporal dynamics and superior machine learning theory. In this paper, we propose a novel spike-based framework with the entropy theory, namely, heterogeneous ensemble-based spike-driven few-shot online learning (HESFOL). The proposed HESFOL model uses the entropy theory to establish the gradient-based few-shot learning scheme in a recurrent SNN architecture. We examine the performance of the HESFOL model based on the few-shot classification tasks using spiking patterns and the Omniglot data set, as well as the few-shot motor control task using an end-effector. Experimental results show that the proposed HESFOL scheme can effectively improve the accuracy and robustness of spike-driven few-shot learning performance. More importantly, the proposed HESFOL model emphasizes the application of modern entropy-based machine learning methods in state-of-the-art spike-driven learning algorithms. Therefore, our study provides new perspectives for further integration of advanced entropy theory in machine learning to improve the learning performance of SNNs, which could be of great merit to applied developments with spike-based neuromorphic systems.Entities:
Keywords: brain-inspired intelligence; entropy-based learning; few-shot learning; spike-driven learning; spiking neural network
Year: 2022 PMID: 35615277 PMCID: PMC9124799 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.850932
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
FIGURE 1Influence functions based on the minimum mean square error (MMSE) or maximum correntropy criterion (MCC).
FIGURE 2Schematic block figure of the proposed heterogeneous ensemble-based spike-driven few-shot learning (HESFOL) model.
FIGURE 3An overview of the proposed HESFOL framework. We employ 2D convolution for the ConvNet, which is considered as a visual-pathway-inspired neural network (VNN). In addition, two subnetworks are realized, which are hippocampus-inspired SNN (HSNN) and PFC-inspired SNN (PSNN). The learning signals are transmitted from PSNN to HSNN.
Hyperparameter list used in the heterogeneous ensemble-based spike-driven few-shot online learning (HESFOL) architecture.
| Parameters | Description | Values |
| τ | Timing constant of membrane | 15 ms |
| τ | Timing constant of readout neurons | 10 ms |
|
| Synaptic transmission delay | 1 ms |
|
| Refractory period duration | 5 ms |
|
| Target firing rate | 20 Hz |
| η | Learning rate of outer loop | 2 × 10–3 |
| λ | Spike rate regularization | 1.0 |
|
| Threshold | 1.0 |
| λ | Voltage regularization | 10–2 |
|
| Number of time steps per image | 20 ms |
|
| Adaptation timing constant | 200 ms |
| η | Learning rate | 1.915 × 10–3 |
|
| Network size of HSNN | 447 |
|
| Neuron fractions using adaptation | 40.5% |
| β | Impact of threshold adaptation | 0.4902 |
|
| Batch size for outer loop optimization | 285 |
|
| Network size of the PSNN | 239 |
|
| Timing constant learning signals of readouts | 10 ms |
|
| Target firing rate for PSNN | 20 Hz |
FIGURE 4Comparison of the few-shot learning performance with non-Gaussian noise between the HESFOL model and the other models. (A) Few-shot learning accuracy with Poisson noise. (B) Few-shot learning accuracy with random deletion noise.
FIGURE 5Images with non-Gaussian salt-and-pepper noise in the Omniglot data set using signal-noise rate of 1, 0.9, 0.7, and 0.5.
FIGURE 6The evolution of the loss value based on the ensemble loss along with the iteration.
FIGURE 7One sample trial for the few-shot learning on the Omniglot data set using the HESFOL model. (A) Output of the readout neuron. (B) Spiking activities of neurons in the HSNN module. (C) Spiking activities of neurons in the PSNN module. (D) Learning signals of PSNN for HSNN neurons.
FIGURE 8Few-shot motor control of the end-effector of a two-joint robotic arm.
FIGURE 9Few-shot motor control performance of the proposed HESFOL model. It shows the one-shot learning of a new end-effector movement in 500 ms. It reveals control performance and spiking activities before and after training. (A1) Position in the x-direction based on HESFOL control before training and the target position in the x-direction. (A2) Position in the x-direction based on HESFOL control after training and the target position in the x-direction. (B1) Position in the y-direction based on HESFOL control before training and the target position in the y-direction. (B2) Position in the y-direction based on HESFOL control after training and the target position in the y-direction. (C1) Motor command in the form of joint angular velocity and target angular velocity in the x-direction before training. (C2) Motor command in the form of joint angular velocity and target angular velocity in the x-direction after training. (D1) Motor command in the form of joint angular velocity and target angular velocity in the y-direction before training. (D2) Motor command in the form of joint angular velocity and target angular velocity in the y-direction after training. (E1) Spiking activities of HSNN before training. (E2) Spiking activities of HSNN after training. (F1) Spiking activities of PSNN. (F2) Learning signals generated by PSNN for HSNN.
FIGURE 10Control performance based on the mean square error of original and HESFOL models.
Test accuracies (%) of different ensemble parameter settings in the Omniglot data set.
| Groups | Loss | Values | Omniglot accuracy | Groups | Loss | Values | Omniglot accuracy |
| Group 1 | MMCC | 0.1 | 90.6% | Group 5 | MMCC | 0.1 | 90.6% |
| Cross | 0.9 | Cross | 0.9 | ||||
| Rate | 0.5 | Rate | 0.5 | ||||
| Vol | 0.5 | Vol | 0.5 | ||||
| Group 2 | MMCC | 0.1 | 90.6% |
| MMCC |
|
|
| Cross | 1.3 |
|
| ||||
| Rate | 0.3 |
|
| ||||
| Vol | 0.3 |
|
| ||||
| Group 3 | MMCC | 0.1 | 92.2% | Group 7 | MMCC | 0.2 | 90.6% |
| Cross | 1.0 | Cross | 1.3 | ||||
| Rate | 0.45 | Rate | 0.25 | ||||
| Vol | 0.45 | Vol | 0.25 | ||||
| Group 4 | MMCC | 0.1 | 91.4% | Group 8 | MMCC | 0.2 | 89.8% |
| Cross | 0.7 | Cross | 0.6 | ||||
| Rate | 0.6 | Rate | 0.6 | ||||
| Vol | 0.6 | Vol | 0.6 |
The bolded values are the optimal configuration.
FIGURE 11(A) The effects of timing constant of membrane τm and timing constant of readout neurons τout on learning accuracy. (B) The effects of membrane potential threshold vth and timing constant of readout neuorns τout on learning accuracy.
Comparison with the representative liquid state machine (LSM) models with the recurrent architecture.
| Research | Application | Robustness | Few-shot learning |
|
| Video activity recognition | No | No |
|
| Image/speech recognition | No | No |
| Wang et al., 2020 | Sitting posture recognition | No | No |
| Luo et al. 2018 | Pattern classification | No | No |
|
| Emotion recognition | No | No |
|
| Visual recognition | Yes | No |
| HESFOL | Image classification | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| The training set |
| Base loss functions { |
|
|
| Parameter |
| 1: Initiate Ensemble Loss Function using { |
| 2: Initialize parameters |
| 3: |
| 4: Select a mini-batch of training samples { |
| 5: Perform a forward path, calculate the loss and regularization term: |
| 6: Perform a backward propagation by the BPTT algorithm |
| 7: Update W,λ1, λ2, λ3, λ4 by gradient descent algorithm. |
| 8: |