The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.

The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.

The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.

This paper relates the computational power of Fahlman' s Recurrent Cascade Correlation (RCC) architecture to that of fInite state automata (FSA). While some recurrent networks are FSA equivalent, RCC is not. The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the RCC architecture in the form of a proof describing a large class of FSA which cannot be realized by RCC. 1 INTRODUCTION Recurrent networks can be considered to be defmed by two components: a network architecture, and a learning rule. The former describes how a network with a given set of weights and topology computes its output values, while the latter describes how the weights (and possibly topology) of the network are updated to fIt a specifIc problem. It is possible to evaluate the computational power of a network architecture by analyzing the types of computations a network could perform assuming appropriate connection weights (and topology).

This paper relates the computational power of Fahlman' s Recurrent Cascade Correlation (RCC) architecture to that of fInite state automata (FSA). While some recurrent networks are FSA equivalent, RCC is not. The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the RCC architecture in the form of a proof describing a large class of FSA which cannot be realized by RCC. 1 INTRODUCTION Recurrent networks can be considered to be defmed by two components: a network architecture, and a learning rule. The former describes how a network with a given set of weights and topology computes its output values, while the latter describes how the weights (and possibly topology) of the network are updated to fIt a specifIc problem. It is possible to evaluate the computational power of a network architecture by analyzing the types of computations a network could perform assuming appropriate connection weights (and topology).

This paper relates the computational power of Fahlman' s Recurrent Cascade Correlation (RCC) architecture to that of fInite state automata (FSA). While some recurrent networks are FSA equivalent, RCC is not. The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the RCC architecture in the form of a proof describing a large class of FSA which cannot be realized by RCC. 1 INTRODUCTION Recurrent networks can be considered to be defmed by two components: a network architecture, and a learning rule. The former describes how a network with a given set of weights and topology computes its output values, while the latter describes how the weights (and possibly topology) of the network are updated to fIt a specifIc problem. It is possible to evaluate the computational power of a network architecture by analyzing the types of computations a network could perform assuming appropriate connection weights (and topology).