Nice! Thank you!

---------
Matt Taylor
OS Community Flag-Bearer
Numenta


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Doug King <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matt, here is a transcript. Some names may need to be corrected, ??? means
> I did not recognize the speaker.
>
> There are some good discussions here. Last comment around 54:00 is a great
> idea and something I was thinking about: We should share PSO tuning setting
> from the community to find out what are common setting ranges that always
> come up in any model. It would be efficient to minimize the work the the
> PSO has to do. Maybe a common directory under source control?
>
> -Doug
> =========================================
>
>
> Summarized and paraphrased interpretation (not literal) transcript of
> "NuPIC Office Hours - Oct 23, 2013" video
>
> Apologies if I mangled a name or talking point. - Doug King
>
>
>
> 1:50-3:00 ??? : Questions about goals of community members and Numenta.
> Are people only focusing on specific practical problems?
>
> 3:20 Jeff: Nupic goals, Jeff’s goals, practical vs. research advances
>
> 5:04 ??? :
>
> 5:40 Jeff: long term goals - push theoretical into practical
>
> 7:00 ??? : Community is focused on getting system up and running right
> now, concepts are hard, we need to reduce startup/adoption friction in the
> toolset.
>
> 8:20 ??? : Impressions of community is not a lot of interest in theory /
> big ideas, as opposed to interest in getting system running.
>
> 9:00 Jeff: don't be afraid to post theoretical questions, we need that
> kind of discussion. It's appropriate for the list.
>
> 10:40 Jeff: "I’m working on sensory motor integration" - next big
> theoretical problem. Open to discussions / question on the list.
>
> 11:30 Chetan: Questions about how regions are wired up in a hierarchy?
>
> 12:15 Jeff: complicated, condense time up the hierarchy, pooling time up
> the hierarchy. We see this in biology. Not being used in the NuPic CLA, but
> code seems to be there, but disabled.
>
> 15:00 Jeff: want to focus on sensory motor integration, this can be done
> today, hierarchy is not easy and will take time to implement.
>
> 15:50 ??? : should we use active columns and decode at each level of
> hierarchy?
>
> 16:00 Jeff / Chetan: discuss biology and model, vision, language
>
> 17:40 Jeff / Subati: discuss some earlier experiments with Numenta doing
> hierarchy
>
> 19:10 Jeff: explains specifics of how he thinks hierarchy should work, all
> active cells wired up to next level, no classifiers between levels.
>
> 21:00 Jeff: more specifics of how to do hierarchy, subsampling, simplify
> first level CLAs, etc.
>
> 22:10 technical / audio problems
>
> 23:40 Anaka question - Is using NuPic as reference for his own version of
> CLA, wants to know, how does multiple variable / value input impact number
> of columns and topology.
>
> 26:15 Subati / Jeff: too many values give diminishing returns. 4-5 max
> input per region seems best.
>
> 27:40 ???: use strong signal values / fields
>
> 28:30 Jeff: For more than 4-5 inputs, use ensemble approach, multiple
> models / metrics, multiple CLAs, combine results with traditional ensemble
> techniques. Always get better results from Ensemble techniques.
>
> 29:30 Chetan: would using hierarchy allow you to effectively use more
> input signals?
>
> 30:10 Jeff: explains difficulty of doing hierarchy correctly.
>
> 31:17 Chetan:
>
> 31:35 Jeff:
>
> 32:00 Chetan: clarify question – do you mean using all active cells vs.
> active columns for feeding next level of hierarchy?
>
> 32:40 Jeff: explains - state of CLA is all the active cells, which retains
> temporal information.
>
> 33:26 – 35:00 technical diff / audio
>
> 35:00 Chetan, last man standing :-)
>
> 35:10 Marek question: how do you interpret / reconstruct hierarchy?
>
> 35:40 Jeff: can't reconstruct top level of hierarchy easily.
>
> 36:30 ?? & Jeff & Subati debate reconstructing top level of hierarchy. All
> cells determine state all the way up, no decode /reconstruct at levels, vs
> reconstructing (with classifier) each level and feed up. Jeff on principles
> says you can’t reconstruct at each level (based on biology), but Subati
> concedes you could deconstruct at each level and re-encode. There is a
> difference of opinion about models / implementation of hierarchy among
> participants.
>
> 41:00 interesting views on why certain approaches were taken at Numenta -
>
> 41:50 Jeff: brings discussion back to biology / hard to reconstruct
> hierarchy. Temporal memory causes problems. Without it, hierarchy would be
> easy.
>
> 43:20 Grandmother cells, oh my!
>
> 43:50 Marek gets audio back, applause.
>
> 43:50 Marek: does hierarchical CLA have less value then a single large
> region in the accuracy of prediction?
>
> 45:30 Jeff: You can make detailed predictions with hierarchy
>
> 46:36 Anaka: CLA white paper def. about pooling / classifier / sliding
> window
>
> 47:50 Jeff:
>
> Anaka: What are the implementation differences between classifier and
> pooler ?
>
> Jeff: temporal pooler represents encoding of sequences over varying
> periods of time and creates stable output. Different from what classifier
> does.
>
> 49:20 Anaka: how is PSO being utilized?
>
> 49:50 Subati: explains PSO and parameter tuning
>
> 59:40 Jeff: PSO is similar to "evolution" by tuning basic cortex algorithm.
>
> 52:40 Jeff: New version of Grok product does not use PSO, but a few base
> models that have been proven to work well.
>
> 53:40 Jeff: Surprising that some settings can be optimized without PSO,
> always end up around a center weight.
>
> 54:00  ???: Someone proposes a good idea: We should share tuning setting
> from the community to find out what are common setting ranges that always
> come up in any model. It would be efficient to minimize the work the PSO
> has to do.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nupic mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
nupic mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org

Reply via email to