Panel
Discussion #1:
“Future
Challenges in Soft Computing: Theory? Computational Paradigms? Applications?”
Panel Organizer: Jacek M. Zurada
[other details to be announced
later]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel
Discussion #2:
“Oh
sure, my method is connectionist too. Who said it’s not?”
Panel
Organizer: Asim
Roy
Decription:
Some
claim that the notion of connectionism is an evolving one. Since the publication
of the PDP book (which enumerated the then accepted principles of
connectionism), many new ideas have been proposed and many new developments have
occurred. So according to these claims, the connectionism of today is different
from connectionism of yesterday. Examples of such new developments in
connectionism include hybrid connectionist-symbolic models (Sun 1995, 1997),
neuro-fuzzy models (Keller 1993, Bezdek 1992), reinforcement learning models (Kaelbling
et al. 1994, Sutton and Barto 1998), genetic/evolutionary algorithms (Mitchell
1994), support vector machines (references), and so on. In these newer
connectionist models, there are many violations of the “older” connectionist
principles. One of the simplest violations is the reading and setting of
connection weights in a network by an external agent in the system.
The means and mechanisms of external setting and reading of weights were
not envisioned in early connectionism. Why
do we need local learning laws if an external source can set the weights of a
network? So this and other features of these newer methods are obviously in
direct conflict with early connectionism.
In
the context of these algorithmic developments, it has been said that maybe
nobody at this stage has a clear definition of connectionism, that everyone
makes things up (in terms of basic principles) as they go along. Is this the
case? If so, does this pose a problem for the field? To defend this situation,
some argue that connectionism is not just one principle, but many? Is that the
case? If not, should we redefine connectionism given the needs of these new
types of learning methods and on the basis of our current knowledge of how the
brain works?
This
panel intends to closely examine this issue in a focused and intensive way.
Debates are expected. We hope to at least clarify some fundamental
notions and issues concerning connectionism, and hopefully also make some
progress on understanding where it needs to go in the near future.
Panelists (tentative):