2
$\begingroup$

Boltzmann machines were introduced by Hinton and Sejnowski as taking values in $\{0,1\}$. The Wikipedia entry also uses this convention. However, Hopfield Networks, which are the deterministic version of Boltzmann machines, are usually introduced as taking values in $\{-1,1\}$. Ising models also follow this convention.

With the energy function being defined equivalently in both models as $$ E(x) = \sum_i b_ix_i + \sum_{i<j}w_{ij}x_ix_j$$ it seems that the two conventions would behave differently. For example, how would the $\{0,1\}$ model learn a preference for checkered patterns?


More generally, in an undirected graphical model where the nodes take values in $\{a,b\}$, we can define the interaction (energy) between two neighbouring nodes $x$ and $y$ as $$E(x,y) = \begin{cases} w_{aa}, & \text{if}\ x=a,y=a \\ w_{ab}, & \text{if}\ x=a,y=b \\ w_{ba}, & \text{if}\ x=b,y=a \\ w_{bb}, & \text{if}\ x=b,y=b \end{cases}$$ or equivalently represented by the matrix $ \begin{bmatrix} w_{aa} & w_{ab} \\ w_{ba} & w_{bb} \end{bmatrix} $.

Boltzmann machines restrain the interactions between two neighbouring nodes to being described by a single scalar $w_{ij}$. In the case when our values $\{a,b\}$ are $\{0,1\}$, we get $$ E(x_i,x_j) = \begin{bmatrix} w_{ij} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $$ If we set $\{a,b\}$ to $\{1,-1\}$, we instead get $$ E(x_i,x_j) = \begin{bmatrix} w_{ij} & -w_{ij} \\ -w_{ij} & w_{ij} \end{bmatrix} $$

Are these two formalisms really equivalent? It seems unlikely...

$\endgroup$

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.