Neuromorphic computing implementation of pole balancing

Re:Neuromorphic computing implementation of pole balancing by philipov on Sunday September 11, 2016 @06:04PM (#12475985)

I understand that some of the inputs don't affect the behavior and so don't connect to anything, but why do some of the synapses not connect to anything? In particular, what is the meaning of the two nodes above and below the outputs. They are on long chains that appear meaningless. Why did the network grow there; is it just evolutionary noise?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuromorphic computing implementation of pole balancing by gbruer on Sunday September 11, 2016 @06:44PM (#12476113)

Unless I'm looking at it wrong, the synapse above the output takes input from 2 up and 2 to the left, which is a path that leads back to an input.

But you're right that the synapse right below the outputs has no input, which doesn't make any sense. The original generated network had a neuron with no inputs at (6,12) just to the left of the outputs, left over from the evolutionary algorithm like you suggested. We ran a program that was supposed to prune the network by removing the evolutionary noise that had no effect on the outputs. It looks like that program just removed any neurons with no inputs, leaving behind that meaningless path of synapses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuromorphic computing implementation of pole balancing by parkerm7 on Sunday September 11, 2016 @06:42PM (#12476105)

The evolutionary process does not automatically prune elements. It is possible that previous non-useful features of a network become helpful at a later stage of evolution.

[ Parent | on HN ]