An input vector in the feature space is transformed into an internal representation which is a codeword in the code space, and then error correction decoded in this space to classify the input feature vector to its class. Two classes of codes which give high performance are the Hadamard matrix code and the maximal length sequence code. We show that the number of classes stored in an N-neuron system is linear in N and significantly more than that obtainable by using the Hopfield type memory as a classifier. I. INTRODUCTION Associative recall using neural networks has recently received a great deal of attention. Hopfield in his papers [1,2) deSCribes a mechanism which iterates through a feedback loop and stabilizes at the memory element that is nearest the input, provided that not many memory vectors are stored in the machine. He has also shown that the number of memories that can be stored in an N-neuron system is about O.15N for N between 30 and 100. McEliece et al. in their work (3) showed that for synchronous operation of the Hopfield memory about N /(2IogN) data vectors can be stored reliably when N is large. Abu-Mostafa (4) has predicted that the upper bound for the number of data vectors in an N-neuron Hopfield machine is N. We believe that one should be able to devise a machine with M, the number of data vectors, linear in N and larger than the O.15N achieved by the Hopfield method.

It can be shown that neural-like networks containing a single hidden layer of nonlinear activation units can learn to do a piece-wise linear partitioning of a feature space [2]. One result of such a partitioning is a complex gradient surface on which decisions about new input stimuli will be made. The generalization, categorization and clustering propenies of the network are therefore detennined by this mapping of input stimuli to this gradient swface in the output space. This gradient swface is a function of the conditional probability distributions of the output vectors given the input feature vectors as well as a function of the error relating the teacher signal and output.

An input vector in the feature space is transformed into an internal representation which is a codeword in the code space, and then error correction decoded in this space to classify the input feature vector to its class. Two classes of codes which give high performance are the Hadamard matrix code and the maximal length sequence code. We show that the number of classes stored in an N-neuron system is linear in N and significantly more than that obtainable by using the Hopfield type memory as a classifier. I. INTRODUCTION Associative recall using neural networks has recently received a great deal of attention. Hopfield in his papers [1,2) deSCribes a mechanism which iterates through a feedback loop and stabilizes at the memory element that is nearest the input, provided that not many memory vectors are stored in the machine. He has also shown that the number of memories that can be stored in an N-neuron system is about O.15N for N between 30 and 100. McEliece et al. in their work (3) showed that for synchronous operation of the Hopfield memory about N /(2IogN) data vectors can be stored reliably when N is large. Abu-Mostafa (4) has predicted that the upper bound for the number of data vectors in an N-neuron Hopfield machine is N. We believe that one should be able to devise a machine with M, the number of data vectors, linear in N and larger than the O.15N achieved by the Hopfield method.

An input vector in the feature space is transformed into an internal representation which is a codeword in the code space, and then error correction decoded in this space to classify the input feature vector to its class. Two classes of codes which give high performance are the Hadamard matrix code and the maximal length sequence code. We show that the number of classes stored in an N-neuron system is linear in N and significantly more than that obtainable by using the Hopfield type memory as a classifier. I. INTRODUCTION Associative recall using neural networks has recently received a great deal of attention. Hopfield in his papers [1,2) deSCribes a mechanism which iterates through a feedback loop and stabilizes at the memory element that is nearest the input, provided that not many memory vectors are stored in the machine. He has also shown that the number of memories that can be stored in an N-neuron system is about O.15N for N between 30 and 100. McEliece et al. in their work (3) showed that for synchronous operation of the Hopfield memory about N/(2IogN) data vectors can be stored reliably when N is large. Abu-Mostafa (4) has predicted that the upper bound for the number of data vectors in an N-neuron Hopfield machine is N. We believe that one should be able to devise a machine with M, the number of data vectors, linear in N and larger than the O.15N achieved by the Hopfield method.

The Fourth Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence workshop was held 19-21 August 1988. The workshop featured significant developments in application of theories of representation and reasoning under uncertainty. A recurring idea at the workshop was the need to examine uncertainty calculi in the context of choosing representation, inference, and control methodologies. The effectiveness of these choices in AI systems tends to be best considered in terms of specific problem areas. These areas include automated planning, temporal reasoning, computer vision, medical diagnosis, fault detection, text analysis, distributed systems, and behavior of nonlinear systems. Influence diagrams are emerging as a unifying representation, enabling tool development. Interest and results in uncertainty in AI are growing beyond the capacity of a workshop format.

Despite their different perspectives, artificial intelligence (AI) and the disciplines of decision science have common roots and strive for similar goals. This paper surveys the potential for addressing problems in representation, inference, knowledge engineering, and explanation within the decision-theoretic framework. Recent analyses of the restrictions of several traditional AI reasoning techniques, coupled with the development of more tractable and expressive decision-theoretic representation and inference strategies, have stimulated renewed interest in decision theory and decision analysis. We describe early experience with simple probabilistic schemes for automated reasoning, review the dominant expert-system paradigm, and survey some recent research at the crossroads of AI and decision science. In particular, we present the belief network and influence diagram representations.

In Lemmer, J. F. and Kanal, L. N. (Eds.), UAI 2, pp. 149–163. Elsevier/North-Holland.

Proc. AAAI-88, Vol. 2, pp. 607–611

This article examines the direction in which knowledge bases are constructed for diagnosis and decision making. When building an expert system, it is traditional to elicit knowledge from an expert in the direction in which the knowledge is to be applied, namely, from observable evidence toward unobservable hypotheses. However, experts usually find it simpler to reason in the opposite direction-from hypotheses to unobservable evidence-because this direction reflects causal relationships. Therefore, we argue that a knowledge base be constructed following the expert's natural reasoning direction, and then reverse the direction for use. This choice of representation direction facilitates knowledge acquisition in deterministic domains and is essential when a problem involves uncertainty. We illustrate this concept with influence diagrams, a methodology for graphically representing a joint probability distribution. Influence diagrams provide a practical means by which an expert can characterize the qualitative and quantitative relationships among evidence and hypotheses in the apporiate direction. Once constructed, the relationships can easily be reserved into the less intuitive direction in order to perform inference inference and diagnosis. In this way, knowledge acquisition is made cognitively simple; the machine carries the burden of translating the representation.

Chapman and Hall. See also: Influence diagrams for Bayesian decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 40, Issue 3, 15 June 1989, Pages 363–376 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377221789904293). Bayesian Decision Analysis: Principles and Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2010 (https://books.google.com/books/about/Bayesian_Decision_Analysis.html?id=O1lXnQAACAAJ).