Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Similarity Matching Networks: Hebbian Learning and Convergence Over Multiple Time Scales

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Under two empirically supported conjectures, the three-timescale similarity matching network provably converges to the principal subspace projection of the input data, with the composed solution a global minimizer of the similarity…

desk verdict A continuous-time similarity matching network with two solid early theorems and an honest but incomplete convergence story: the full coupled-network convergence is not proven because the time-scale reduction is informal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06134 v1 pith:UMGOMBZJ submitted 2025-06-06 q-bio.NC cs.LGmath.OC

Veronica Centorrino , Francesco Bullo , Giovanni Russo This is my paper
classification q-bio.NCcs.LGmath.OC MSC 92B2037N2568T0765K10
keywords similaritymatchingHebbianlearninganti-Hebbianprincipalsubspaceprojectionmulti-time-scaledynamicscontractiontheorygradientflowconvergencedimensionalityreduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Similarity matching, which asks that pairwise similarities in a low-dimensional output match those of the input, is a biologically motivated way to do dimensionality reduction, but its neural implementations have lacked a full convergence proof. This paper supplies one for a continuous-time network whose fast neural activity, intermediate lateral synapses, and slow feedforward weights evolve on three separate time scales. Level by level, the paper shows a strongly convex problem with exponential convergence, a strongly concave problem with exponential convergence in the positive-definite cone, and a nonconvex slow problem whose gradient flow converges almost surely to a global minimizer under two technical conjectures. Composing the three optima yields the projection onto the principal subspace of the input covariance, the exact solution of the similarity matching problem. The result would close the gap between the biological plausibility of Hebbian and anti-Hebbian rules and rigorous guarantees for offline convergence.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the embedded min-max-min objective (6), which lifts the similarity matching problem into a space of neural activities $Y$, lateral weights $M$, and feedforward weights $W$, together with the three-level optimization scheme (12) that mirrors the three time scales. At the first two levels, strong convexity and strong concavity, combined with contraction theory, give global exponential convergence to uniquely defined optima. At the third level, the cost is nonconvex and nonsmooth; the proof characterizes stationary points via singular value decomposition, establishes coercivity, and invokes a strict-saddle argument to conclude almost-sure convergence to $W^\star$ from random initialization. The load-bearing identities are $Y^\star = M^{-1}WX$, $M^\star = (W C_X W^\top)^{1/3}$, and $W^\star = U\Lambda_C^m(V_C^m)^\top$.

What would settle it

Run the slow flow (26) from a full-rank $W_0$ and monitor the smallest singular value of $W(t)$; if it reaches zero at any finite time, Conjecture 1 fails and the dynamics is no longer defined. Alternatively, compare a trajectory of the full network (7) with fixed small $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$ to the corresponding reduced flow (26) over the same horizon: if the error does not vanish as $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2\to 0$, the time-scale reduction that carries the proof breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the three-timescale similarity matching network (7) solves the principal subspace projection problem. Formally, under Conjectures 1 and 2, the slow feedforward gradient-flow dynamics (26) converge almost surely from random full-rank initialization to $W^\star = U\Lambda_C^m (V_C^m)^\top$, where $\Lambda_C^m$ contains the $m$ largest eigenvalues of the input covariance $C_X$ and $V_C^m$ the corresponding eigenvectors. The neural and lateral dynamics converge, under the same separation, to $Y^\star = M^{-1} W X$ and $M^\star = (W C_X W^\top)^{1/3}$. Substituting the converged values gives $Y^\star(M^\star,W^\star) = U\Sigma_X^m (V_X^m)^\top$, which is a global minimizer of the similarity matching cost (3) and exactly the projection of the data onto the principal subspace. The paper also claims, informally, that the full coupled network inherits this convergence through the time-scale separation, a step it does not prove at finite $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that the three coupled dynamics can be reduced, in the limit where the time-scale parameters go to zero, to three sequential gradient flows, so that convergence of the reduced flows transfers to the full network; no singular-perturbation theorem is proved for finite small time-scale parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fast neural dynamics globally exponentially converge to $Y^\star = M^{-1}WX$, so the network's activity settles at the unique best output for the current weights.
  • The lateral dynamics preserve symmetry and positive definiteness and converge exponentially to $M^\star = (W C_X W^\top)^{1/3}$, giving the first formal proof of this invariance property.
  • The slow Hebbian weights converge almost surely to $W^\star = U\Lambda_C^m(V_C^m)^\top$, whose singular vectors are the top $m$ eigenvectors of the input covariance.
  • Composed, these limits give $Y^\star(M^\star,W^\star) = U\Sigma_X^m(V_X^m)^\top$, a global minimizer of the similarity matching problem, so the network provably computes a principal subspace projection rather than merely a stationary point.
  • Because the first two levels are contracting, the fast and intermediate dynamics are robust to noise and insensitive to initial conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the convergence result extends to finite time-scale parameters, the same network can serve as a local, biologically plausible PCA algorithm whose offline behavior is certified; the paper's simulations with $\epsilon_1=0.01$, $\epsilon_2=0.5$ suggest that the separation is not a serious obstacle in practice.
  • The three-level proof pattern, contractive fast layers paired with a strict-saddle slow layer, may transfer to other similarity-matching variants such as non-negative or sparse matching, though each variant would require its own convexity and saddle analysis.
  • The unresolved singular-perturbation step means that the formal guarantee applies to the reduced flows rather than directly to the full coupled system at finite $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$; a rigorous tracking theorem would complete the proof.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a continuous-time Hebbian/anti-Hebbian network derived from an embedded similarity matching objective, with neural, lateral-synaptic, and feedforward-synaptic variables evolving on three time scales. Using a multilevel optimization viewpoint, it studies three decoupled gradient flows: fast neural dynamics (20), intermediate lateral dynamics (24), and slow feedforward dynamics (26). For the first two, it proves strong convexity/concavity and global exponential convergence, and it gives explicit equilibrium formulas. For the slow level, it characterizes stationary points and global minima and proves, under two (plus one auxiliary) empirically motivated conjectures, almost sure convergence of the slow flow to a global minimizer. Projecting the composed optimum back to the output space yields the principal subspace projection. The paper's informal statement claims convergence of the full coupled network (7), but no theorem analyzes the finite-epsilon coupled system directly.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide the first continuous-time convergence analysis of a biologically plausible similarity matching network, with clean contraction-based proofs, explicit closed-form equilibria, a formal proof of positive-definiteness invariance for the lateral dynamics, and a plausible landscape analysis of the non-convex slow level. The conjectures are stated clearly and tested numerically, and the code is provided. Theorems 1 and 2 appear sound and are useful in their own right. However, the gap between the analyzed reduced flows and the actual multi-time-scale system prevents the paper from delivering the advertised complete convergence analysis of the network (7); the main convergence claim is therefore conditional on an unproved singular-perturbation step and on two unproved conjectures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, eqs. (8)–(11); Section 5, Informal statement]
  2. [Section 5.3, Theorem 3; Conjectures 1 and 2]
  3. [Appendix B.3, proof of Lemma 3]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, eq. (10)]
  2. [Section 5.3 and Appendix D]
  3. [Theorem 2(iii)]
  4. [Section 6, simulations]
  5. [Throughout]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence results are derived from independently stated optimization problems and standard dynamical-systems tools, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The dynamics (7) are defined as gradient flows of the embedded similarity matching cost (6), which is obtained from the original similarity matching problem (3) via the algebraic identities in Lemma 6; no target equilibrium is inserted into the dynamics. The explicit equilibria Y* = M^{-1}WX, M* = (W C_X W^T)^{1/3}, and W* = U Lambda_C^m (V_C^m)^T are derived by stationarity conditions and by the analysis of the reduced cost functions, rather than assumed. Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are standard contraction/convexity arguments applied to independently defined costs. Theorem 3 is conditional on Conjectures 1 and 2, which are explicitly stated as assumptions and empirically supported, not derived from the theorem; the proof invokes a known convergence result for gradient flows with strict saddles, which is external evidence. The final projection Lemma 5 verifies that the equilibrium output equals the known solution of the similarity matching problem stated in Lemma 2, citing an external result [27]; this is a consistency check, not a self-referential prediction. The main gap noted by a skeptical reader is that the paper proves convergence of the three reduced gradient flows in the singular limits epsilon1, epsilon2 -> 0 but does not prove a singular-perturbation theorem guaranteeing that trajectories of the full coupled system (7) inherit this convergence for finite small epsilon. That is a missing technical justification, not a circularity: the reduced flows are not defined in terms of the full system's limit behavior, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations in the paper are to the authors' own prior work on contraction and neural-synaptic modeling, but they are used as background or as tools and do not carry the load-bearing convergence argument; the load-bearing support comes from standard external results and from the paper's own explicit assumptions. Therefore the paper warrants a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof rests on two unproved conjectures, full-rank invariance and strict-saddle classification, plus a third conjecture for the alternative minimization proof. There are no fitted constants; epsilon1 and epsilon2 are simulation hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Time-scale parameters epsilon1 and epsilon2 = epsilon1 in [0.001, 0.2], epsilon2 in [0.05, 0.5] in simulations
    These control the separation of neural, lateral, and feedforward dynamics. The theorems analyze the limit epsilon1, epsilon2 to 0, but no quantitative bound is given for convergence of the coupled system (7), so the simulations pick values by hand.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Input covariance C_X = X X^T / T is positive definite (C_X positive definite).
    Assumed throughout Theorems 2, 3, and Appendix D; requires the centered data matrix to have full row rank n.
  • ad hoc to paper The slow dynamics (26) is well posed because W(t) remains full row rank (Conjecture 1).
    Unproven; if a trajectory approaches rank deficiency, (W C_X W^T)^(-1/3) is undefined.
  • ad hoc to paper Every non-global stationary point of S3 in the full-rank set is a strict saddle or maximum (Conjecture 2).
    Unproven; it is the load-bearing step in the almost-sure convergence proof of Theorem 3.
  • ad hoc to paper If U^T Lambda1^T (Lambda1 U Lambda2 U^T Lambda1^T)^(-1/3) Lambda1 U is diagonal, then U is a permutation matrix (Conjecture 3).
    Used in the alternative proof of the global minima (Theorem 4, Appendix D); empirically tested only.
  • domain assumption Saddle point property for the min-max interchange in the embedding (5) from [37, Appendix A, Proposition 1].
    Invoked in Appendix A to swap min over Y and max over M; the proof is cited rather than reproduced.
  • standard math Kachurovskii theorem (Lemma 1), LaSalle invariance, and the strict-saddle escape result of [12, Corollary 4].
    Background tools used to turn strong convexity and concavity into exponential convergence and to apply strict-saddle escape arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Similarity Matching Networks: Hebbian Learning and Convergence Over Multiple Time Scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UMGOMBZJ

@misc{pith2026250606134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Similarity Matching Networks: Hebbian Learning and Convergence Over Multiple Time Scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UMGOMBZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06134}
}
read the original abstract

A recent breakthrough in biologically-plausible normative frameworks for dimensionality reduction is based upon the similarity matching cost function and the low-rank matrix approximation problem. Despite clear biological interpretation, successful application in several domains, and experimental validation, a formal complete convergence analysis remains elusive. Building on this framework, we consider and analyze a continuous-time neural network, the \emph{similarity matching network}, for principal subspace projection. Derived from a min-max-min objective, this biologically-plausible network consists of three coupled dynamics evolving at different time scales: neural dynamics, lateral synaptic dynamics, and feedforward synaptic dynamics at the fast, intermediate, and slow time scales, respectively. The feedforward and lateral synaptic dynamics consist of Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning rules, respectively. By leveraging a multilevel optimization framework, we prove convergence of the dynamics in the offline setting. Specifically, at the first level (fast time scale), we show strong convexity of the cost function and global exponential convergence of the corresponding gradient-flow dynamics. At the second level (intermediate time scale), we prove strong concavity of the cost function and exponential convergence of the corresponding gradient-flow dynamics within the space of positive definite matrices. At the third and final level (slow time scale), we study a non-convex and non-smooth cost function, provide explicit expressions for its global minima, and prove almost sure convergence of the corresponding gradient-flow dynamics to the global minima. These results rely on two empirically motivated conjectures that are supported by thorough numerical experiments. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of our approach via a numerical example.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Similarity matching network over three time scales. a) Single-sample block scheme: the feedforward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left Panel: Plot of the scalar function S2(m) = 2w 2 − m2 − 2(w 2x 2 )m−1 for w = 1 and x = 2. Right Panel: Plot of the scalar function S3(w) = 2w 2 − 3x 4/3w 4/3 for x = 2. corresponding dynamics at the slow timescale (17) has two locally stable equilibria w ⋆ = ±x 2 and an unstable equilibrium w ⋆ = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of (17) with x = 2, starting from 1000 different initial conditions picked in the interval [−15, 15]. The dynamics converge either to w ⋆ 2 = x 2 or w ⋆ 3 = −x 2 for all initial conditions, except 0. Finally, we project the optimal solutions back onto the output space to obtain the optimal y ⋆ . We compute y ⋆ = (m⋆ ) −1w ⋆x = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic diagram summarizing the main results in Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cost difference SM(Y ) − SM(Y ⋆ ) for the proposed dynamics (7) (up) and the algorithm in [37] (bottom) over 500 simulations. Both methods start from the same randomly generated initial condition. In simulation 100 and 200, W0 is initialized with rank equal to 2 and 1,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cost difference SM(Ydyn) − SM(Y ⋆ ) over 10 simulations of system (7) with Gaussian noise added to the contracting dynamics of the first and second level. In line with the contractivity results in Theorems 1 and 2, the system converges to the theoretical optimal soluti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cost difference SM(Ydyn) − SM(Y ⋆ ) over 100 simulations of system (7) for six different (ε1, ε2) pairs. In each case, the dynamics (7) converge to the theoretical optimal solution Y ⋆ . 7 Conclusion In this paper, we considered the similarity matching network over thr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Rank of W(t)W(t) ⊤ over time across the 10.000 independent runs for three different (m, n) pairs: (2, 10), (3, 30), and (5, 50). The matrix CX ≻ 0 is the same for each pair. The dynamics (26) are simulated over the time interval [0, 30], starting from full rank randoml…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cost function S3(W) as a function of one singular value σW i , while the others are held fixed at their values in W⋆ = Σm C V ⊤ C .The plot also shows the case where the first and last rows of VC are permuted. In the simulations, we set n, m, T = 5, 3, 10 and CX ≻ 0 is…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balavoine, J

    A. Balavoine, J. Romberg, and C. J. Rozell. Convergence and rate analysis of neural networks for sparse approximation.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 23(9):1377–1389, 2012. doi:10.1109/tnnls.2012.2202400

    work page arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    H. B. Barlow. Single units and sensation: a neuron doctrine for perceptual psychology?Perception, 1(4):371–394, 1972.doi:10.1068/p010371

    work page doi:10.1068/p010371 1972

  3. [3]

    Bullo.Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems

    F. Bullo.Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems. Kindle Direct Publishing, 1.2 edition, 2024, ISBN 979-8836646806. URL: https://fbullo.github.io/ctds

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Centorrino, F

    V. Centorrino, F. Bullo, and G. Russo. Modelling and contractivity of neural-synaptic networks with Hebbian learning.Automatica, 164:111636, 2024.doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2024.111636

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Centorrino, A

    V. Centorrino, A. Gokhale, A. Davydov, G. Russo, and F. Bullo. Positive competitive networks for sparse reconstruction.Neural Computation, 36(6):1163–1197, 2024.doi:10.1162/neco_a_01657

    doi:10.1162/neco_a_01657 2024

  6. [6]

    Chang and D

    L. Chang and D. Y. Tsao. The code for facial identity in the primate brain.Cell, 169(6):1013–1028.e14, June 2017.doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.011

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.011 2017

  7. [7]

    N. M. Chapochnikov, C. Pehlevan, and D. B. Chklovskii. Normative and mechanistic model of an adaptive circuit for efficient encoding and feature extraction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(29), 2023.doi:10.1073/pnas.2117484120

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2117484120 2023

  8. [8]

    M. M. Churchland, J. P. Cunningham, M. T. Kaufman, J. D. Foster, P. Nuyujukian, S. I. Ryu, and K. V. Shenoy. Neural population dynamics during reaching.Nature, 487(7405):51–56, 2012.doi:10.1038/ nature11129

    work page 2012

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    D. G. Clark and L. F. Abbott. Theory of coupled neuronal-synaptic dynamics.Physical Review X, 14(2):021001, 2024.doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021001

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Cothren, F

    L. Cothren, F. Bullo, and E. Dall’Anese. Online feedback optimization and singular perturbation via contraction theory.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, August 2024. Submitted.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2310.07966

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    T. F. Cox and M. A. Cox.Multidimensional Scaling. CRC Press, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    A. C. B. de Oliveira, M. Siami, and E. D. Sontag. Convergence analysis of overparametrized LQR formu- lations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15456, 2024. 26

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    D. W. Dong and J. J. Hopfield. Dynamic properties of neural networks with adapting synapses.Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 3(3):267–283, 1992.doi:10.1088/0954-898x_3_3_002

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    F¨ oldi´ ak

    P. F¨ oldi´ ak. Forming sparse representations by local anti-Hebbian learning.Biological Cybernetics, 64(2):165–70, 1990.doi:10.1007/BF02331346

    1990 doi

  7. [15]

    Galtier, O

    M. Galtier, O. Faugeras, and P. Bressloff. Hebbian learning of recurrent connections: A geometrical perspective.Neural Computation, 24:2346–83, 05 2012.doi:10.1162/NECO_a_00322

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Gerstner and W

    W. Gerstner and W. Kistler. Mathematical formulations of Hebbian learning.Biological Cybernetics, 87:404–15, 2003.doi:10.1007/s00422-002-0353-y

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    Gerstner, W

    W. Gerstner, W. M. Kistler, R. Naud, and L. Paninski.Neuronal Dynamics: From Single Neurons To Networks and Models of Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 9781107635197. URL: https: //neuronaldynamics.epfl.ch

    2014

  10. [18]

    D. O. Hebb.The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1949. doi:10.1002/sce.37303405110

    1949 doi

  11. [19]

    M. W. Hirsch and S. Smale.Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems and Linear Algebra. Academic Press, 1974, ISBN 0123495504

    1974

  12. [20]

    J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank. Computing with neural circuits: A model.Science, 233(4764):625–633, 1986.doi:10.1126/science.3755256

    1986 doi

  13. [21]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2012, ISBN 0521548233

    2012

  14. [23]

    D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex.The Journal of Physiology, 195(1):215–243, 1968.doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008455

    1968 doi

  15. [24]

    R. I. Kachurovskii. Monotone operators and convex functionals.Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk, 15(4):213–215, 1960

    1960

  16. [25]

    Kozachkov, M

    L. Kozachkov, M. Lundqvist, J.-J. E. Slotine, and E. K. Miller. Achieving stable dynamics in neural circuits.PLoS Computational Biology, 16(8):1–15, 2020.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007659

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    Lipshutz, C

    D. Lipshutz, C. Pehlevan, and D. B. Chklovskii. Biologically plausible single-layer networks for nonnegative independent component analysis.Biological Cybernetics, 2022.doi:10.1007/s00422-022-00943-8

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    X. Liu, Z. Wen, and Y. Zhang. An efficient Gauss–Newton algorithm for symmetric low-rank product matrix approximations.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25(3):1571–1608, 2015.doi:10.1137/140971464

    2015 doi

  19. [28]

    Lohmiller and J.-J

    W. Lohmiller and J.-J. E. Slotine. On contraction analysis for non-linear systems.Automatica, 34(6):683– 696, 1998.doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(98)00019-3

    1998 doi

  20. [29]

    Lojasiewicz

    S. Lojasiewicz. Sur les trajectoires du gradient d’une fonction analytique.Seminari di Geometria 1982- 1983, pages 115–117, 1984. Istituto di Geometria, Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit` a di Bologna, Italy

    1982

  21. [30]

    E. Oja. Simplified neuron model as a principal component analyzer.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 15(3):267–273, 1982.doi:10.1007/bf00275687

    1982 doi

  22. [31]

    B. A. Olshausen and D. J. Field. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images.Nature, 381(6583):607–609, 1996.doi:10.1038/381607a0. 27

    1996 doi

  23. [32]

    Pehlevan and D

    C. Pehlevan and D. Chklovskii. A normative theory of adaptive dimensionality reduction in neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 2015

    2015

  24. [33]

    Pehlevan and D

    C. Pehlevan and D. B. Chklovskii. A Hebbian/Anti-Hebbian network derived from online non-negative matrix factorization can cluster and discover sparse features. InAsilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, pages 769–775, 2014.doi:10.1109/ACSSC.2014.7094553

    2014

  25. [34]

    Pehlevan and D

    C. Pehlevan and D. B. Chklovskii. Neuroscience-inspired online unsupervised learning algorithms: Artificial neural networks.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 36(6):88–96, 2019.doi:10.1109/msp.2019.2933846

    2019

  26. [35]

    Pehlevan, T

    C. Pehlevan, T. Hu, and D. B. Chklovskii. A Hebbian/Anti-Hebbian neural network for linear subspace learning: A derivation from multidimensional scaling of streaming data.Neural Computation, 27(7):1461– 1495, 2015.doi:10.1162/neco_a_00745

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    Pehlevan, S

    C. Pehlevan, S. Mohan, and D. B. Chklovskii. Blind nonnegative source separation using biological neural networks.Neural Computation, 29(11):2925–2954, 2017.doi:10.1162/neco_a_01007

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    Pehlevan, A

    C. Pehlevan, A. M. Sengupta, and D. B. Chklovskii. Why do similarity matching objectives lead to Hebbian/anti-Hebbian networks?Neural Computation, 30(1):84–124, 2017.doi:10.1162/neco_a_01018

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    Russo, M

    G. Russo, M. Di Bernardo, and E. D. Sontag. Global entrainment of transcriptional systems to periodic inputs.PLoS Computational Biology, 6(4):e1000739, 2010.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000739

    2010 doi

  30. [39]

    Saxena and J

    S. Saxena and J. P. Cunningham. Towards the neural population doctrine.Current Opinion in Neurobi- ology, 55:103–111, 2019.doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.02.002

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Scellier and Y

    B. Scellier and Y. Bengio. Equilibrium propagation: Bridging the gap between energy-based models and backpropagation.Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 11:24, 2017.doi:10.3389/fncom.2017. 00024

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    P. M. Wensing and J.-J. E. Slotine. Beyond convexity — Contraction and global convergence of gradient descent.PLoS One, 15(8):1–29, 2020.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236661

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Wright and Y

    J. Wright and Y. Ma.High-Dimensional Data Analysis with Low-Dimensional Models: Principles, Com- putation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  34. [43]

    S. Xie, G. Russo, and R. H. Middleton. Scalability in nonlinear network systems affected by delays and disturbances.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 8(3):1128–1138, 2021.doi:10.1109/ TCNS.2021.3058934. 28

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.