Equilibria of Perceptrons for Simple Contingency Problems

The contingency between cues and outcomes is fundamentally important to theories of causal reasoning and to theories of associative learning. Researchers have computed the equilibria of Rescorla-Wagner models for a variety of contingency problems, and have used these equilibria to identify situation...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transaction on neural networks and learning systems 2012-08, Vol.23 (8), p.1340-1344
Hauptverfasser: Dawson, M. R. W., Dupuis, B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The contingency between cues and outcomes is fundamentally important to theories of causal reasoning and to theories of associative learning. Researchers have computed the equilibria of Rescorla-Wagner models for a variety of contingency problems, and have used these equilibria to identify situations in which the Rescorla-Wagner model is consistent, or inconsistent, with normative models of contingency. Mathematical analyses that directly compare artificial neural networks to contingency theory have not been performed, because of the assumed equivalence between the Rescorla-Wagner learning rule and the delta rule training of artificial neural networks. However, recent results indicate that this equivalence is not as straightforward as typically assumed, suggesting a strong need for mathematical accounts of how networks deal with contingency problems. One such analysis is presented here, where it is proven that the structure of the equilibrium for a simple network trained on a basic contingency problem is quite different from the structure of the equilibrium for a Rescorla-Wagner model faced with the same problem. However, these structural differences lead to functionally equivalent behavior. The implications of this result for the relationships between associative learning, contingency theory, and connectionism are discussed.
ISSN:2162-237X
2162-2388
DOI:10.1109/TNNLS.2012.2199766