|
|
|
|
|
by dontwearitout
685 days ago
|
|
Are dendritic sub-compartments necessary to explicitly model, or does this work just imply that biological neurons are complicated and are better modeled as a multi-layered artificial network, rather than a single simple computational unit? Similarly, do you think that spiking networks are important, or just a specific mechanism used in the brain to transmit information, which dense (or sparse) vectors of floats do in artificial neural networks? |
|
If your goal is to produce a useful model on real hardware and it works...no
Remember the constraints of ANNs being universal approximaters (in theory)
1) The function you are learning needs to be continuous 2) Your model is over a closed, bounded subset of R^n 3) The activation function is bounded and monodial
Obviously that is the theoretical UAT constraints. For gradient decent typically used in real ML models, the constraint of finding only smooth approximations of continuous functions can be problematic depending on your needs.
But people leveraged phlogiston theory for beer brewing with great success and obviously Newtonian Mechanics is good enough for many tasks.
SNNs in theory should be able to solve problems that are challenging for perceptron models, but as I said, features like riddled basins are problematic so far.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.02160