| ▲ | cs702 3 hours ago | |||||||
~85% accuracy on MNIST. Sigh. How does it do on CIFAR-10, or even better, ImageNet? Interesting research, not sure it's a backprop alternative. === EDIT: accuracy on MNIST is not ~90%. It's ~85%. | ||||||||
| ▲ | qarl 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
They state replacing backprop is not their goal. Their goal is to understand how distributed systems which cannot do backprop (the brain) can still do learning. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Lerc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
It might be beneficial while not being optimal on its own. The obvious example is if it has different behaviour around local minima, it could be an altenate pathway out. I have often wondered if doing training with radically different aproaches for the first few iterarions would avoid any method specific artifacts before the weights had time to denoise. | ||||||||
| ▲ | bz_bz_bz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Their image classification benchmarks include both: https://pub.sakana.ai/pc-alm/assets/figures/benchmark_accura... | ||||||||
| ||||||||