As I understand it, instead of computing new values for each column/cell (as the brain does, because it's totally local and parallel), we would compute only those cells where some bit changed and is 1 (this requires we have links: "input bit"-to what cells), since only 2% are on in a SDR, this is the 50x. ..or I'm completely wrong :)
Cheers, Mark On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Oreste Villa <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to make sense to the following comment that I got a couple of > weeks ago from Subutai regarding 50x speedup on the new algorithm for the > TP. > > This is the comment: > > "TP is inherently slower and it was more challenging to optimize it. In > the TP now rather than iterating over all the cells we iterate over all the > ON input bits. The end result is identical but since we have about 2% > sparsity in input bits, the latter method is about 50x faster. After > optimizations, the SP and TP are now at roughly the same level in timing > profiles. When the TP is more "full" of segments it becomes slower than SP > again." > > Is there anybody available to explain how to exactly fit this into the > white-paper pseudocode for the TP? > > In return, if I understand it enough and the topic comes up, > I volunteer to help writing the "white paper 2.0" :-) > > Thanks, > > Oreste > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > > -- Marek Otahal :o)
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
