4.6 Review

Evolutionary aspects of reservoir computing

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0377

关键词

reservoir computing; liquid brains; solid brains; evolution; evolutionary computation; morphospace

类别

资金

  1. Botin Foundation
  2. Banco Santander through its Santander Universities Global Division, a MINECO [FIS2015-67616]
  3. Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Economia i Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reservoir computing (RC) is a powerful computational paradigm that allows high versatility with cheap learning. While other artificial intelligence approaches need exhaustive resources to specify their inner workings, RC is based on a reservoir with highly nonlinear dynamics that does not require a fine tuning of its parts. These dynamics project input signals into high-dimensional spaces, where training linear readouts to extract input features is vastly simplified. Thus, inexpensive learning provides very powerful tools for decision-making, controlling dynamical systems, classification, etc. RC also facilitates solving multiple tasks in parallel, resulting in a high throughput. Existing literature focuses on applications in artificial intelligence and neuroscience. We review this literature from an evolutionary perspective. RC's versatility makes it a great candidate to solve outstanding problems in biology, which raises relevant questions. Is RC as abundant in nature as its advantages should imply? Has it evolved? Once evolved, can it be easily sustained? Under what circumstances? (In other words, is RC an evolutionarily stable computing paradigm?) To tackle these issues, we introduce a conceptual morphospace that would map computational selective pressures that could select for or against RC and other computing paradigms. This guides a speculative discussion about the questions above and allows us to propose a solid research line that brings together computation and evolution with RC as test model of the proposed hypotheses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据