*Experiment 1:*
off-line,
, ,
local input representation,
3 hidden units per predictor,
4 hidden units shared among the representational modules.
10 test runs with 20,000 epochs for the
representational modules were conducted.
In 8 cases this was sufficient to find a binary
(factorial) code.

*Experiment 2:*
on-line,
, ,
distributed input representation,
2 hidden units per predictor,
4 hidden units shared among the representational modules.
10 test runs were conducted. Less than 3,000 pattern
presentations (equivalent to ca. 700 epochs) were always
sufficient to find a binary factorial code.

*Experiment 3:*
off-line,
, ,
local input
representation (16 patterns),
3 hidden units per predictor,
16 hidden units shared among the representational modules.
10 test runs with 20,000 epochs for the
representational modules were conducted.
In 1 case the
system found an invertible factorial code.
In 4 cases
it created a near-factorial code with
only 15 different output patterns in response
to the 16 input patterns.
In 3 cases
it created only 13 different ouput patterns.
In 2 cases
it created only 12 different ouput patterns.

*Experiment 4:*
on-line,
, ,
distributed input representation (16 patterns),
6 hidden units per predictor,
8 hidden units shared among the representational modules.
10 test runs were conducted.
In all cases but one the system found a factorial code within less
than 4,000 pattern presentations (corresponding to less than 300 epochs).

Back to Independent Component Analysis page.