Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) trained with Backpropagation (BP) show astounding performance and are increasingly often used in performing our daily life tasks. However, ANNs are highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks, which alter inputs with small targeted perturbations that drastically disrupt the models' performance. The most effective method to make ANNs robust against these attacks is adversarial training, in which the training dataset is augmented with exemplary adversarial samples. Unfortunately, this approach has the drawback of increased training complexity since generating adversarial samples is very computationally demanding. In contrast to ANNs, humans are not susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, in this work, we investigate whether biologically-plausible learning algorithms are more robust against adversarial attacks than BP. In particular, we present an extensive comparative analysis of the adversarial robustness of BP and Present the Error to Perturb the Input To modulate Activity (PEPITA), a recently proposed biologically-plausible learning algorithm, on various computer vision tasks. We observe that PEPITA has higher intrinsic adversarial robustness and, with adversarial training, has a more favourable natural-vs-adversarial performance trade-off as, for the same natural accuracies, PEPITA's adversarial accuracies decrease in average by 0.26% and BP's by 8.05%.

"Forward-only" algorithms, which train neural networks while avoiding a backward pass, have recently gained attention as a way of solving the biologically unrealistic aspects of backpropagation. Here, we first discuss the similarities between two "forward-only" algorithms, the Forward-Forward and PEPITA frameworks, and demonstrate that PEPITA is equivalent to a Forward-Forward with top-down feedback connections. Then, we focus on PEPITA to address compelling challenges related to the "forward-only" rules, which include providing an analytical understanding of their dynamics and reducing the gap between their performance and that of backpropagation. We propose a theoretical analysis of the dynamics of PEPITA. In particular, we show that PEPITA is well-approximated by an "adaptive-feedback-alignment" algorithm and we analytically track its performance during learning in a prototype high-dimensional setting. Finally, we develop a strategy to apply the weight mirroring algorithm on "forward-only" algorithms with top-down feedback and we show how it impacts PEPITA's accuracy and convergence rate.

As AI algorithms increasingly participate in daily activities that used to be the sole province of humans, we are inevitably called upon to consider how much machines are really like us. To address this question, we turn to the Turing test and systematically benchmark current AIs in their abilities to imitate humans. We establish a methodology to evaluate humans versus machines in Turing-like tests and systematically evaluate a representative set of selected domains, parameters, and variables. The experiments involved testing 769 human agents, 24 state-of-the-art AI agents, 896 human judges, and 8 AI judges, in 21,570 Turing tests across 6 tasks encompassing vision and language modalities. Surprisingly, the results reveal that current AIs are not far from being able to impersonate human judges across different ages, genders, and educational levels in complex visual and language challenges. In contrast, simple AI judges outperform human judges in distinguishing human answers versus machine answers. The curated large-scale Turing test datasets introduced here and their evaluation metrics provide valuable insights to assess whether an agent is human or not. The proposed formulation to benchmark human imitation ability in current AIs paves a way for the research community to expand Turing tests to other research areas and conditions. All of source code and data are publicly available at https://tinyurl.com/8x8nha7p

Plasticity circuits in the brain are known to be influenced by the distribution of the synaptic weights through the mechanisms of synaptic integration and local regulation of synaptic strength. However, the complex interplay of stimulation-dependent plasticity with local learning signals is disregarded by most of the artificial neural network training algorithms devised so far. Here, we propose a novel biologically inspired optimizer for artificial (ANNs) and spiking neural networks (SNNs) that incorporates key principles of synaptic integration observed in dendrites of cortical neurons: GRAPES (Group Responsibility for Adjusting the Propagation of Error Signals). GRAPES implements a weight-distribution dependent modulation of the error signal at each node of the neural network. We show that this biologically inspired mechanism leads to a systematic improvement of the convergence rate of the network, and substantially improves classification accuracy of ANNs and SNNs with both feedforward and recurrent architectures. Furthermore, we demonstrate that GRAPES supports performance scalability for models of increasing complexity and mitigates catastrophic forgetting by enabling networks to generalize to unseen tasks based on previously acquired knowledge. The local characteristics of GRAPES minimize the required memory resources, making it optimally suited for dedicated hardware implementations. Overall, our work indicates that reconciling neurophysiology insights with machine intelligence is key to boosting the performance of neural networks.