4.7 Article

Dynamical analysis of contrastive divergence learning: Restricted Boltzmann machines with Gaussian visible units

Journal

NEURAL NETWORKS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 78-87

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2016.03.013

Keywords

Deep learning; Restricted Boltzmann machine; Contrastive divergence; Component analysis; Stability of learning algorithms

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [26 . 8282]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14J08282] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) is an essential constituent of deep learning, but it is hard to train by using maximum likelihood (ML) learning, which minimizes the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence. Instead, contrastive divergence (CD) learning has been developed as an approximation of ML learning and widely used in practice. To clarify the performance of CD learning, in this paper, we analytically derive the fixed points where ML and CDn learning rules converge in two types of RBMs: one with Gaussian visible and Gaussian hidden units and the other with Gaussian visible and Bernoulli hidden units. In addition, we analyze the stability of the fixed points. As a result, we find that the stable points of CDn learning rule coincide with those of ML learning rule in a Gaussian-Gaussian RBM. We also reveal that larger principal components of the input data are extracted at the stable points. Moreover, in a Gaussian-Bernoulli RBM, we find that both ML and CDn learning can extract independent components at one of stable points. Our analysis demonstrates that the same feature components as those extracted by ML learning are extracted simply by performing CD1 learning. Expanding this study should elucidate the specific solutions obtained by CD learning in other types of RBMs or in deep networks. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available