Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing Lecture, and the 2018 Turing Award for Deep Learning

Jürgen Schmidhuber
Pronounce: You_again Shmidhoobuh
AI Blog
Technical Report IDSIA-77-21 (v1), IDSIA, 24 Sep 2021

Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing Lecture, and the 2018 Turing Award for Deep Learning

This is a point-for-point critique of ACM's justification of the ACM A. M. Turing Award for deep learning, as well as a critique of the Turing Lecture given by the awardees (published by ACM in July 2021). In brief, three Europeans went to North America, where they republished methods and concepts first published by other Europeans whom they did not cite—not even in later surveys. Instead, they credited each other at the expense of the field's pioneers. Apparently, the ACM was not aware of this. This work can also be seen as a short history of deep learning, at least as far as ACM's erroneous laudation and the Turing Lecture are concerned.

Note of September 2021: Following the great success of massive open online peer review (MOOR) for my 2015 survey of deep learning[DL1] (now the most cited article ever published in the journal Neural Networks), this extended version of a June 2020 article[T20a][R12] is currently undergoing MOOR as well. Please send suggestions for improvements and additional relevant references to juergen@idsia.ch. To cite this article in publications use: J. Schmidhuber. Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing Lecture, and the 2018 Turing Award for Deep Learning. Technical Report IDSIA-77-21 (v1), IDSIA, Lugano, Switzerland, 24 Sep 2021.

Abstract. ACM's 2018 A. M. Turing Award was about deep learning in artificial neural networks. ACM lauds Dr. LeCun, Dr. Bengio, and Dr. Hinton (LBH) for work based on algorithms and conceptual foundations first published by other researchers whom the awardees failed to cite (see Executive Summary and Sec. I, V, II, XII, XIX, XXI, XIII, XIV, XX, XVII). ACM explicitly mentions "astonishing" deep learning breakthroughs in 4 fields: (A) speech recognition, (B) natural language processing, (C) robotics, (D) computer vision, as well as "powerful" new deep learning tools in 3 fields: (VII) medicine, astronomy, materials science. Most of these breakthroughs and tools, however, were direct consequences of the breakthroughs of my lab and other labs in the past 3 decades (see Sec. A, B, C, D, VII, XVII, VI, XVI). I correct ACM's distortions of deep learning history (see Sec. II, V, XX, XVIII) and mention no fewer than 10 of our direct priority disputes with Dr. Bengio & Dr. Hinton (see Sec. XVII, I). Furthermore, I respond to LBH's recent ACM article (July 2021).

Outline. This document (over 20,000 words) expands material in my Critique of the 2019 Honda Prize[HIN] (~3,000 words). It has several layers of hierarchical abstraction: Abstract & Outline (~300 words), Introduction (~300 words), Critique of LBH's ACM article (Turing Lecture) of July 2021[DL3a] (~800 words: a compact list of many issues—hurried readers may start here, then follow the links to the details in later sections), Executive summary of what's wrong with ACM's laudation (~1,000 words), 21 comments on 21 claims by ACM (~8,000 words), Conclusion and Acknowledgments (~2,000 words). All backed up by over 250 references (~9,000 words). The text contains numerous hyperlinks to relevant overview sites from the AI Blog.

1. Introduction

We must stop crediting the wrong people for inventions made by others. Instead let's heed the recent call in the journal Nature: let us value "those who ensure that science is self-correcting."[SV20] Like those who know me can testify, finding and citing original sources of scientific and technological innovations is important to me, whether they are mine or other people's.[DL1-2][HIN][NASC1-9] The present page is offered as a resource for all good computer scientists who share this inclination. By grounding research in its true intellectual foundations and crediting the original inventors, I am not diminishing important contributions made by popularizers of those inventions. My goal is to encourage the entire community to be more scholarly in its efforts, to recognize the foundational work that sometimes gets lost in the frenzy of modern AI and machine learning, and to fight plagiarism, collusion rings,[LIT21] and systemic academic corruption in all of their more and less subtle forms.[FAKE] I am also inviting others to contribute additional relevant references (please send any and all directly to me at juergen@idsia.ch).

Sec. 2 will start with a critique of LBH's 2021 ACM article[DL3a] which necessitated an extension of the first version of this post.[T20a][R12] Subsequent sections will focus on contributions praised by ACM's official justification[T19] of the 2018 A.M. Turing Award[R1] published in 2019. After the Executive Summary in Sec. 3, Sec. 4 will split ACM's full text[T19] into 21 parts labeled by "ACM:" I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI. Each part is marked by a blue bar and followed by a critique. Most of the critiques are based on references to original papers and material from the AI Blog.[AIB][MIR][DEC][HIN] They'll point out that highly cited publications of the awardees ignored fundamental relevant prior work—this may be the reason for some of ACM's misattributions.

2. Critique of LBH's ACM article of July 2021 (Turing Lecture)

As recently as of July 2021, Dr. LeCun, Dr. Bengio, Dr. Hinton (LBH) and the ACM have continued to promulgate their revisionist "history" of deep learning by publishing yet another misleading overview of the field, this time based on LBH's Turing Lecture.[DL3a] In the new piece, LBH credit again themselves for fundamental work first done by others, and fail to correct LBH's well-known earlier omissions.[DLC][HIN][T20a]

★1. LBH claim to "briefly describe the origins of deep learning"[DL3a] without even mentioning the world's first working deep learning nets by Ivakhnenko and Lapa in 1965[DEEP1-2][R8] (see Sec. II).

★2. LBH dedicate an extra section to their unsupervised pre-training of deep neural networks (NNs) around 2006, without mentioning that this class of methods was pioneered in 1991[UN-UN2] (see Sec. II, III).

★3. LBH mention the "most popular class of convolutional net architecture for computer vision," the "ResNet family," without clarifying that ResNet is just an (open-gated) Highway Net, the first really deep feedforward NN.[HW1-3] The so-called "ResNet family" is actually the "Highway Net family" (see Sec. D, VI).

★4. In this context, LBH devote an extra section to the importance of NN depth, without mentioning that the relevant breakthroughs emphasized by LBH were all driven by my lab:[MOST] In 1991, I had the first very deep NNs based on unsupervised pre-training;[UN-UN2] soon afterwards our LSTMs brought essentially unlimited depth to gradient-based supervised recurrent NNs;[LSTM0-17] later our Highway Nets[HW1-3] brought it to feedforward NNs.

★5. LBH cite Hinton et al.'s work on speech recognition since 2009 without mentioning our earlier and superior methods from 2007[LSTM4,14] based on LSTM[LSTM0-6] (1990s-2005) and CTC (2006).[CTC] By the time the Turing Award was handed out, our CTC-LSTM-based speech recognition (not that of Hinton) had been on most smartphones for years[GSR][GSR15-19][DL4] (see Sec. A, VI, XI, XV). Similarly for machine translation (see Sec. B).

★6. LBH cite Hinton (2012) for "dropout" without mentioning that dropout is just a variant of Hanson's 1990 stochastic delta rule[Drop1-2] (see Sec. XIV).

★7. Several times, LBH mention backpropagation—and LBH's papers on applications of this method—but neither its inventor Linnainmaa (1970)[BP1-5][BPA-C] nor Werbos, who first applied it to NNs in 1982 (see Sec. XII, XIX, XXI).

★8. LBH devote an extra section to rectified linear units (ReLUs), citing papers of the 2000s by Hinton and his former students, without citing von der Malsburg who introduced ReLUs in 1973[CMB] (see Sec. XIV).

★9. LBH claim ReLUs enabled deep learning to outperform previous methods for object recognition, referring to their GPU-based ImageNet 2012 winner called AlexNet,[GPUCNN4] without mentioning that our earlier groundbreaking deep GPU-based DanNet[GPUCNN1-3,5-8][DAN] did not need ReLUs at all to win 4 earlier object recognition competitions and to achieve superhuman results already in 2011[GPUCNN1-8][R5-6] (see Sec. XIV).

★10. LBH refer to LeCun's work on CNNs, citing neither Fukushima—who created the basic CNN architecture in the 1970s[CNN1-4]—nor Waibel, who in 1987 was the first to combine NNs with convolutions with backpropagation[BP1-6] and weight sharing (see Sec. D, XVIII).

★11. LBH cite Hinton (1981) for multiplicative gating, without mentioning Ivakhnenko and Lapa who had multiplicative gating in deep networks already in 1965[DEEP1-2][R8] (see Sec. II).

★12. LBH cite the "fast weights" of Hinton (1987) without mentioning the earlier fast weights of von der Malsburg (1981) and Feldman (1982).[FAST,FASTa-b][FWP] LBH refer to Hinton's 2014 paper on "a high-capacity, short-term memory" through fast weights without clarifying that this was first described in the 1991-93 papers on Fast Weight Programmers and linear Transformers[FWP0-1,6] (see Sec. XVI, XVII-2).

★13. LBH dedicate an extra section to attention-based Transformers,[TR1-6] citing Bengio's team (2014) for "soft attention"[ATT14] without citing the much earlier original work of 1991-1993 on soft attention and linear Transformers[FWP,FWP0-2,6][ATT] (see Sec. XVII-1, XVI).

★14. LBH claim that Bengio's team[NPM] first showed in 2002 on real sentences that "activity vectors can be used to model the structure inherent in a set of symbol strings by learning appropriate activity vectors for each symbol and learning non-linear transformations that allow the activity vectors that correspond to missing elements of a symbol string to be filled in." However, this was shown on real sentences already in 1995 in the context of text compression[SNT] (see Sec. XVI, XVII-1).

★15. LBH cite Bengio's 2014 paper on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)[GAN0-1] without mentioning that GANs are instances of the Adversarial Curiosity Principle of 1990[AC90-20][MIR](Sec. 5) (see Sec. XVII).

In summation, LBH have repeatedly chosen to ignore the previous well-known critiques[DLC][HIN][T20a] and deep learning surveys,[DL1-2] and ACM's peer review process failed to catch this. The repetitive nature of LBH's and ACM's failures to uphold basic scientific standards represents a serious attack on the integrity of the field of Artificial Intelligence. If we, in turn, choose to ignore this, then we will be committing a grievous sin against ourselves and our scientific predecessors. It is clear from the dilligence with which Turing cited his predecessors, such as Gödel and Church[GOD][CHU][TUR] (see Sec. IV), that he would have never approved of being associated with something like this.

3. Executive Summary of Critique of ACM's Laudation

While Dr. LeCun, Dr. Bengio, and Dr. Hinton (LBH for short) have made useful improvements of algorithms for artificial neural networks (NNs) and deep learning (e.g., Sec. I), ACM lauds them for more visible work based on fundamental methods whose inventors they did not cite—not even in later surveys (this may actually explain some of ACM's misattributions). I correct ACM's distortions of deep learning history. Numerous references can be found under the relevant section links I-XXI which adhere to the sequential order of ACM's text[T19] (while this summary groups related sections together).

Sec. II: In contrast to ACM's claims, NNs for pattern recognition etc. were introduced long before the 1980s. Deep learning with multilayer perceptrons started in 1965 through Ivakhnenko & Lapa long before LBH who have never cited them—not even in recent work. In the 1980s, "modern" gradient-based learning worked only for rather shallow NNs, but it became really deep in 1991 in my lab, first through unsupervised pre-training of NNs, then through the supervised LSTM. Sec. I contains 4 subsections A, B, C, D on the 4 deep learning "breakthroughs" explicitly mentioned by ACM. ACM does not mention that they were mostly based on the deep learning techniques developed by my team:

Sec. A: Speech Recognition (see also Sec. VI & XI & XV): The first superior end-to-end neural speech recognition combines two methods from my lab: LSTM (1990s-2005) and CTC (2006), which were applied to speech in 2007. Hinton (2012) and Bengio (XV) still used an old hybrid approach of the 1980s and 90s: Hinton et al. (2012) did not compare it to our revolutionary CTC-LSTM which was soon on most smartphones.

Sec. B: Natural Language Processing (see also Sec. VI & XI & XVI): The first superior end-to-end neural machine translation (soon used for several billions of translations each day by the big platform companies) was also based on our LSTM.

Sec. C: Robotics. Our LSTM trained by Reinforcement Learning (RL) was also the core of the most visible breakthroughs in robotics and video games.

Sec. D: Computer Vision (see also Sec. XVIII & XIV & XI & VI) was revolutionized by convolutional NNs (CNNs). The basic CNN architecture is due to Fukushima (1979). NNs with convolutions were later (1987) combined by Waibel with backpropagation and weight sharing, and applied to speech. All before LeCun's CNN work (XVIII). We showed twice (1991-95 and 2006-10) that deep NNs don't need unsupervised pre-training (in contrast to Hinton's claims). Our DanNet was the first CNN fast & deep enough for superior computer vision in 2011, winning 4 image recognition contests in a row before Hinton's team won one. ResNet (ImageNet 2015 winner) is an open-gated version of our earlier Highway Nets.

Sec. XIV: Again ACM recognizes work that failed to cite the pioneers. Long before Hinton (2012), Hanson (1990) had a variant of dropout, and v. d. Malsburg (1973) had rectified linear neurons; Hinton did not cite them. Already in 2011, our deep & fast CNN more than "halved the error rate for object recognition" (ACM's wording) in a computer vision contest (where LeCun participated), long before Hinton's similar CNN (2012). Sec. XI: ACM mentions GPU-accelerated NNs pioneered by Jung & Oh (2004). LBH did not cite them. Our deep GPU-NN of 2010 debunked unsupervised pre-training (introduced by myself in 1991 and later championed by Hinton), and our GPU-CNN of 2011 (DanNet) was the first to win contests in computer vision (explicitly mentioned by ACM).

Sec. XVIII: ACM credits LeCun for developing CNNs. However, the foundations of CNNs were laid earlier by Fukushima and Waibel (see Sec. D). ACM also explicitly mentions autonomous driving and medical image analysis. The first team to win relevant international contests in these fields through deep CNNs was ours (2011, 2012, 2013). Sec. VII: ACM explicitly mentions medicine and materials science. Our deep NNs were the first to win medical imaging competitions in 2012 and 2013, and the first to apply deep NNs to material defect detection in industry (since 2010).

Sec. XII & XIX & XXI: Modern backpropagation was first published by Linnainmaa (1970), not by LeCun or Hinton or their collaborators (1985) who did not cite Linnainmaa, not even in later surveys. Sec. XIII & II & V (& III & IX & X & XX): Ivakhnenko's deep feedforward nets (since 1965) learned internal representations long before Hinton's shallower ones (1980s). Hinton has never cited him. Sec. XX: ACM credits LeCun for work on hierarchical feature representation which did not cite Ivakhnenko's much earlier work on this (since 1965). Sec. XXI: ACM credits LeCun for work on automatic differentiation which did not cite its inventor Linnainmaa (1970). And also for work on deep learning for graphs that failed to cite the earlier work by Sperduti & Goller & Küchler & Pollack.

Sec. XV: ACM credits Bengio for hybrids of NNs and probabilistic models of sequences. His work was not the first on this topic, and is not important for modern deep learning speech recognition systems (mentioned by ACM) based on our CTC-LSTM (see Sec. A & B). Sec. XVI: ACM credits Bengio for neural probabilistic language models. Our 1995 neural probabilistic text model greatly predates Bengio's. ACM mentions NNs that learn sequential attention. We started this in 1990-93 long before LBH who did not cite the relevant prior work.

Sec. XVII: ACM mentions Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs, 2010-14) of Bengio's team, an instance of my Adversarial Artificial Curiosity (1990) which he did not cite. I list 9 of our additional priority disputes with Bengio & Hinton (many more than can be explained by chance), on vanishing gradients (1991), metalearning (1987), unsupervised pre-training (1991), compressing or distilling one NN into another (1991), learning sequential attention with NNs (1990), transformer-like attention-based fast weight programmers using outer products (1991), and other topics.[R2-R6]

Sec. IV is on Turing (1936) and his predecessors Gödel (1931) and Church (1935). The 21 comments also contain details of issues raised in the Critique of LBH's ACM article (Turing Lecture) of July 2021.

Sec. Conclusion: In the recent decade of deep learning, most major AI applications mentioned by ACM (speech recognition, language translation, etc.) on billions of devices (also healthcare applications) heavily depended on my lab's deep learning techniques and conceptual foundations, while LBH's most visible work ignored essential prior art since the 1960s—see, e.g., Sec. II & III & V & XII & XIII & XVII & XIV & XIX & XX & XXI. But in science, by definition, the facts will always win in the end. As long as the facts have not yet won it's not yet the end.

4. 21 comments on 21 claims

In what follows, ACM's full text [T19] is split into 21 parts labeled by "ACM:" I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI. Each part is marked by a blue bar and followed by a critique.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

I. ACM: ACM named Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun recipients of the 2018 ACM A.M. Turing Award for conceptual and engineering breakthroughs that have made deep neural networks a critical component of computing. ... Working independently and together, Hinton, LeCun and Bengio developed conceptual foundations for the field, identified surprising phenomena through experiments, and contributed engineering advances that demonstrated the practical advantages of deep neural networks. In recent years, deep learning methods have been responsible for astonishing breakthroughs in computer vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, and robotics—among other applications.

Comment: LBH and their co-workers have contributed certain useful improvements of existing deep learning methods.[CNN2,4][CDI][LAN][RMSP][XAV][ATT14][CAPS] However, the essential "conceptual foundations" of deep learning (mentioned by ACM) were laid by others, e.g., deep learning multilayer perceptrons that learn internal representations (1965),[DEEP1-2][R8] modern backpropagation (1970),[BP1-2][R7] architectures of recurrent NNs (1943-56)[MC43][K56] and convolutional NNs (1979),[CNN1] principles of generative adversarial NNs and artificial curiosity (1990),[AC90,90b][AC20] unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs (1991),[UN1-2] vanishing gradients (1991)[VAN1] & Long Short-Term Memory or LSTM (Sec. A), supervised GPU-accelerated NNs (2004),[GPUNN][DAN][DAN1][GPUCNN5] super deep NNs with over 100 layers (2015),[HW1-3][R5] transformer-like[TR1-6][FWP] attention[FWP][ATT] through fast weight programmers (1991).[FWP0-2,6] [DL1-2][R2-R8] Often LBH failed to cite essential prior work, even in their later surveys.[DL3,DL3a][DLC][HIN][MIR](Sec. 21)[R2-R5, R7-R8] This may explain some of ACM's misattributions.[T19] See also Sec. II & III & V & XIII & X & XVII & XII & XVIII & XX.

Although ACM does not literally claim that LBH were somehow responsible for the "astonishing breakthroughs in computer vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, and robotics," ACM's wording seems to suggest this. In particular, ACM does not mention that these breakthroughs were fundamentally derived from three decades of research that came out of other deep learning groups—including my own (e.g., A & B & C). The deep NNs of our team, for example, revolutionised Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. By the 2010s,[DEC] they were heavily used in academia and industry,[DL4] in particular, by Microsoft, Google & Facebook, former employers of Hinton & LeCun. I will focus on the 4 fields explicitly mentioned by ACM (labeled as A, B, C, D) below:

A. Speech recognition. The first superior end-to-end neural speech recogniser that outperformed the state of the art was based on two methods from my lab: (A1) Long Short-Term Memory or LSTM (1990s-2005)[LSTM0-6] which overcomes the famous vanishing gradient problem first analysed by my student Sepp Hochreiter in 1991.[VAN1] This happened long before the similar work of Bengio (see Sec. XVII).[MIR] (Sec. 3,Sec. 4) LSTM was refined with my student Felix Gers[LSTM2] through "forget gates" based on end-to-end-differentiable fast weights.[MIR](Sec. 8)[FWP,FWP0-1] (A2) Connectionist Temporal Classification by my student Alex Graves et al. (2006).[CTC] Our team successfully applied CTC-trained LSTM to speech in 2007[LSTM4] (also with hierarchical LSTM stacks[LSTM14]). This was very different from previous hybrid methods since the late 1980s which combined NNs and traditional approaches such as hidden Markov models (HMMs)[BW][BRI][BOU] (Sec. XV). Hinton et al. (2012) still used the old hybrid approach[HYB12] and did not compare it to CTC-LSTM. In 2009, through the efforts of Alex, CTC-trained LSTM became the first recurrent NN (RNN) to win international competitions. He later reused our end-to-end neural speech recognizer[LSTM4][LSTM14] as a postdoc in Hinton's lab.[LSTM8] By 2015, when compute had become cheap enough, CTC-LSTM dramatically improved Google's speech recognition.[GSR][GSR15][DL4] By the time the Turing Award was handed out, this had been on most smartphones for years; Google's 2019 on-device speech recognition[GSR19] (not any longer on the server) is still based on LSTM[MIR](Sec. 4) (see Sec. VI & XI & XV).

B. Natural Language Processing (NLP). The first superior end-to-end neural machine translation was also based on our LSTM. In 1995, we already had excellent neural probabilistic models of text[SNT] (see Sec. XVI). In 2001, we showed that LSTM can learn languages unlearnable by traditional models such as HMMs,[LSTM13] i.e., a neural "subsymbolic" model suddenly excelled at learning "symbolic" tasks. Compute still had to get 1000 times cheaper, but by 2016-17, both Google Translate[GT16]—whose whitepaper[WU] mentions LSTM over 50 times—and Facebook Translate[FB17] were based on two connected LSTMs,[S2S] one for incoming texts, and one for outgoing translations—much better than what existed before.[DL4] By 2017, Facebook's users made 30 billion LSTM-based translations per week[FB17][DL4] (the most popular youtube video needed 2 years to achieve only 6 billion clicks). See also Sec. VI & XI & XV. It should be mentioned that further improvements were due to an attention mechanism tailored by Bengio's team.[ATT14][FWP] However, such attention mechanisms also have their roots in my lab (1991);[FWP][FWP0-2,6] see Sec. XVI.

C. Robotics & RL etc. Since 2003, our team has used LSTM for Reinforcement Learning (RL) and robotics.[LSTM-RL][RPG][LSTMPG] In the 2010s, combinations of RL and LSTM have become standard, in particular, our LSTM trained by policy gradients—or PGs (2007).[RPG07][RPG][LSTMPG] For example, in 2018, a PG-trained LSTM was the core of OpenAI's famous Dactyl which learned to control a dextrous robot hand without a teacher.[OAI1][OAI1a] Similar for Video Games: In 2019, DeepMind (co-founded by a student from my lab) famously beat a pro player in the game of Starcraft, which is theoretically harder than Chess or Go[DM2] in many ways, using Alphastar whose brain has a deep LSTM core trained by PG.[DM3] An RL LSTM (with 84% of the model's total parameter count) also was the core of the famous OpenAI Five which learned to defeat human experts in the Dota 2 video game (2018).[OAI2] Bill Gates called this a "huge milestone in advancing artificial intelligence".[OAI2a][MIR](Sec. 4)[LSTMPG]

Apart from A, B, C above, the 2010s saw many additional LSTM applications, e.g., in healthcare, chemistry, molecular design, lip reading, speech synthesis,[AM16] stock market prediction, self-driving cars, mapping brain signals to speech, predicting what's going on in nuclear fusion reactors, and so on.[DEC][DL4] By 2016, more than a quarter of the power of all the Tensor Processing Units in Google's data centers was being used for LSTM (only 5% for the CNNs of Sec. D).[JOU17] Apparently the first LSTM journal paper[LSTM1][R5] is now the most frequently cited computer science paper of the 20th century—though citations are a highly questionable measure of true impact.[NAT1]

D. Computer Vision was revolutionized in the 2010s by a particular feedforward NN called the convolutional NN (CNN).[CNN1-4] The basic CNN architecture with convolutional and downsampling layers is due to Fukushima (1979).[CNN1] The popular downsampling variant called max-pooling was introduced by Weng et al. (1993).[CNN3] In 1987, NNs with convolutions were combined by Waibel with weight sharing and backpropagation.[CNN1a] Waibel did not call this CNNs but TDNNs. LeCun's team later contributed improvements of CNNs, especially for images[CNN2,4] (see Sec. XVIII). Finally, my own team showed in 2010[MLP1] that unsupervised pre-training is not necessary to train deep NNs, contrary to claims by Hinton[VID1] who said that "nobody in their right mind would ever suggest" this. Then we greatly sped up the training of deep CNNs (Dan Ciresan et al. 2011). Our fast GPU-based CNN of 2011[GPUCNN1] known as DanNet[DAN,DAN1][R6] was a practical breakthrough. It was much deeper and faster than earlier GPU-accelerated CNNs of 2006.[GPUCNN] In 2011, DanNet was the first pure deep CNN to win computer vision contests. For a while, it enjoyed a monopoly. From 2011 to 2012 it won every contest it entered, winning four of them in a row (15 May 2011, 6 Aug 2011, 1 Mar 2012, 10 Sep 2012).[GPUCNN5] In particular, at IJCNN 2011 in Silicon Valley, DanNet blew away the competition and achieved the first superhuman visual pattern recognition[DAN1] in an international contest (where LeCun's team took a distant second place, with three times worse performance). Even the NY Times mentioned this. DanNet was also the first deep CNN to win: a Chinese handwriting contest (ICDAR 2011), an image segmentation contest (ISBI, May 2012), a contest on object detection in large images (ICPR, 10 Sept 2012), and— at the same time—a medical imaging contest on cancer detection.[GPUCNN8] In July 2012, our CVPR paper on DanNet[GPUCNN3] hit the computer vision community. All of this happened before the similar GPU-accelerated AlexNet (Dec 2012) of Hinton's student Krizhevsky won the ImageNet[IM09] 2012 contest[GPUCNN4-5][R6] (now also without unsupervised pre-training, citing DanNet). Our CNN image scanners were 1000 times faster than previous methods.[SCAN] This attracted tremendous interest from the healthcare industry. Today IBM, Siemens, Google and many startups are pursuing this approach. The VGG network (ImageNet 2014 winner)[GPUCNN9] and other highly cited CNNs[RCNN1-3] further extended the work of 2011.[MIR](Sec. 19) ResNet, the ImageNet 2015 winner[HW2] (Dec 2015) which currently gets more citations per year[MOST] than any other machine learning paper, is a version (with open gates) of our earlier Highway Net (May 2015).[HW1-3][R5] The Highway Net is actually the feedforward net version of vanilla LSTM.[LSTM2] It was the first working, really deep feedforward NN with hundreds of layers (previous NNs had at most a few tens of layers). See also Sec. XVIII & XIV & XI & VI.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

II. ACM: While the use of artificial neural networks as a tool to help computers recognize patterns and simulate human intelligence had been introduced in the 1980s, ...

Comment: Perhaps ACM's lack of knowledge about NN history is the reason why they praise works by LBH that failed to cite the original work. In fact, NNs of the kind mentioned by ACM appeared long before the 1980s. The most powerful NN architectures (recurrent NNs) were proposed already in the 1940s/50s[MC43][K56] (but don't forget prior work in physics since the 1920s[L20][I25][K41][W45]). Fukushima's now widely used deep convolutional NN architecture was proposed in the 1970s.[CNN1] Minsky's simple neural SNARC computer dates back to 1951. NNs without hidden layers learned in 1958[R58] (such "shallow learning" started around 1800 when Gauss & Legendre introduced linear regression and the method of least squares[DL1-2]). In the early 1960s, interesting ideas about deeper adaptive NNs[R61,R62] did not get very far. Successful learning in deep architectures started in 1965 when Ivakhnenko & Lapa published the first general, working learning algorithms for deep multilayer perceptrons with arbitrarily many hidden layers (already containing the now popular multiplicative gates).[DEEP1-2][DL1-2] A paper of 1971[DEEP2] already described a deep learning net with 8 layers, trained by their highly cited method which was still popular in the new millennium,[DL2] especially in Eastern Europe, where much of Machine Learning was born. Ivakhnenko did not call it an NN, but that's what it was.[MIR](Sec. 1)[R8] LBH failed to cite this. See also Sec. XIII & III & V & VIII & IX & X.

ACM seems to be influenced by a misleading "history of deep learning" propagated by LBH & co-authors, e.g., Sejnowski[S20] (see Sec. XIII). It goes more or less like this: "In 1969, Minsky & Papert[M69] showed that shallow NNs without hidden layers are very limited and the field was abandoned until a new generation of neural network researchers took a fresh look at the problem in the 1980s."[S20] However, as mentioned above, the 1969 book[M69] addressed a "problem" of Gauss & Legendre's shallow learning (~1800)[DL1-2] that had already been solved 4 years prior by Ivakhnenko & Lapa's popular deep learning method.[DEEP1-2][DL2] Minsky was apparently unaware of this and failed to correct it later.[HIN](Sec. I)

In the 1980s, "modern" gradient-based learning worked only for rather shallow NNs (but see a 1989 paper[MOZ]). However, it became really deep in 1991 in my lab,[UN-UN3] which has always focused on the depth in deep learning. See Sec. 1 of the overview:[MIR] First Very Deep NNs, Based on Unsupervised Pre-Training (1991). By 1993, my unsupervised pre-training helped to solve previously unsolvable "Very Deep Learning" tasks of depth > 1000.[UN2][DL1][UN] Then, however, we replaced it by the even better, purely supervised LSTM—see Sec. A.[MIR](Sec. 4) (By 2003, LSTM variants successfully dealt with language problems of depth up to 30,000[LSTM17] and more.) In fact, twice my lab drove the shift from unsupervised pre-training to purely supervised learning (1991-95; 2006-10).[HIN](Sec. II)[MIR] (Sec. 19) Also see Sec. III. Note that LSTMs brought essentially unlimited depth to supervised recurrent NNs; Highway Nets[HW1-3] brought it to feedforward NNs.[MOST]

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

III. ACM: ... by the early 2000s, LeCun, Hinton and Bengio were among a small group who remained committed to this approach. Though their efforts to rekindle the AI community's interest in neural networks were initially met with skepticism, their ideas recently resulted in major technological advances, and their methodology is now the dominant paradigm in the field.

Comment: However, it isn't "their" methodology because it was introduced much earlier by others (Sec. III).[DLC][DEEP1-2][BP1][DL1-2][R7-R8][R2-R4] As mentioned above, others introduced deep learning multilayer perceptrons (1965),[DEEP1-2][R8] modern backpropagation (1970),[BP1,2][R7] architectures of recurrent NNs (1943-56)[MC43][K56] and convolutional NNs (1979),[CNN1] principles of generative adversarial NNs and artificial curiosity (1990),[AC90,90b][AC20] unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs,[UN1-2] the vanishing gradient problem (1991)[VAN1] & solutions to it (Sec. A), supervised GPU-accelerated NNs (2004),[GPUNN][GPUCNN5] and other foundations.[DL1-2][R2-R8] Often LBH failed to cite essential prior work.[DLC][HIN][MIR](Sec. 21) Also see Sec. II & V & XIII & IX & X & XVII & XII & XVIII & XX & I.

ACM may have been misled by LBH's web site deeplearning.net which until 2019 advertised deep learning as "moving beyond shallow machine learning since 2006",[DL7] referring to Hinton's[UN4] and Bengio's[UN5] unsupervised layer-wise pre-training for deep NNs (2006) although we had this type of deep learning already in 1991;[UN][UN1-2] see Sec. II & XVII (5). Not to mention Ivakhnenko's even earlier supervised layer-wise training of deep NNs[DEEP1-2] which Hinton,[UN4] Bengio,[UN5] and LBH[DL3,DL3a] did not cite either. See Sec. X.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

IV. ACM: The ACM A.M. Turing Award, often referred to as the "Nobel Prize of Computing," carries a $1 million prize, with financial support provided by Google, Inc. It is named for Alan M. Turing, the British mathematician who articulated the mathematical foundation and limits of computing.

Comment: Skip this comment if you are not interested in deviating from the topic of LBH—this comment appears here only because my comments systematically track the sequential order of ACM's claims.[T19]

ACM's statement on Turing is greatly misleading, like some of its other statements.[T19] It is correct that Turing "articulated the mathematical foundation and limits of computing." However, many have done this over the decades, and when it comes to credit assignment in science, the important question is: Who did it first? It wasn't Turing. Turing published five years after the groundbreaking work of the Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel (1931)[GOD][GOD21,21a] and one year after the American Alonzo Church (1935),[CHU] Turing's PhD advisor. Of course, he cited both of them in his 1936 paper.[TUR] With that in mind, let us look more closely at the birth of modern computer science.

In the early 1930s, Gödel founded modern theoretical computer science.[GOD][GOD34][LEI21,21a] He introduced a universal coding language (1931-34).[GOD][GOD34-21a] It was based on the integers, and allows for formalizing the operations of any digital computer in axiomatic form. Gödel used it to represent both data (such as axioms and theorems) and programs[VAR13] (such as proof-generating sequences of operations on the data). He famously constructed formal statements that talk about the computation of other formal statements—especially self-referential statements which imply that they are not decidable, given a computational theorem prover that systematically enumerates all possible theorems from an enumerable set of axioms. Thus he identified fundamental limits of algorithmic theorem proving, computing, and any type of computation-based AI.[GOD][BIB3][MIR](Sec. 18)[GOD21,21a] Much of early AI in the 1940s-70s was actually about theorem proving[ZU48][NS56] and deduction in Gödel style through expert systems and logic programming.

In 1935, Church derived a corollary / extension of Gödel's result by demonstrating that Hilbert & Ackermann's Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) does not have a general solution.[CHU] To do this, he used his alternative universal coding language called Untyped Lambda Calculus, which forms the basis of the highly influential programming language LISP.

In 1936, Turing introduced yet another universal model: the Turing Machine.[TUR] He rederived the above-mentioned result,[CHU][TUR][HIN][GOD21,21a][TUR21][LEI21,21a] citing both Gödel and Church.[TUR] In the same year of 1936, Emil Post published yet another independent universal model of computing,[POS] also citing Gödel and Church. Today we know many such models. Nevertheless, although he was standing on the shoulders of others, Turing was certainly an important computer science pioneer. (See also my reply to Hinton who criticized my website on Turing without suggesting any fact-based corrections.[HIN])

The Gödel Prize for theoretical computer science is named after Gödel. The currently more lucrative ACM A. M. Turing Award was created in 1966 for contributions "of lasting and major technical importance to the computer field." It is funny—and at the same time embarrassing—that Gödel (1906-1978) never got one, although he not only laid the foundations of the "modern" version of the field, but also identified its most famous open problem "P=NP?" in his famous letter to John von Neumann (1956).[GOD56][URQ10] Neither did Church (1903-1995). There would have been plenty of time though—these pioneers died years after the award was introduced.

Likewise, Konrad Zuse (1910-1995) never got a Turing award despite having created the world's first working programmable general-purpose computer 1935-41. His patent application of 1936[ZU36-38][Z36][RO98][ZUS21] described the digital circuits required by programmable physical hardware, predating Claude Shannon's 1937 thesis on digital circuit design.[SHA37] Zuse also created the first high-level programming language in the early 1940s.[BAU][KNU] Zuse's Z3 computer of 1941 was a working practical device, not just a theoretical and impractical pen & paper construct like those of Gödel (1931-34), Church (1935), Turing (1936), and Post (1936). Ignoring the inevitable storage limitations of any physical computer, the physical hardware of Z3 was indeed universal in the modern sense of the theory papers above—simple arithmetic tricks can compensate for its lack of an explicit conditional jump instruction.[RO98] (BTW, programming a Turing machine or Post machine is much more awkward than that.)

In sum, the two founders of the theory and practice of modern computing never got Turing awards.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

V. ACM: "Artificial intelligence is now one of the fastest-growing areas in all of science and one of the most talked-about topics in society," said ACM President Cherri M. Pancake. "The growth of and interest in AI is due, in no small part, to the recent advances in deep learning for which Bengio, Hinton and LeCun laid the foundation."

Comment: The foundations of deep learning were actually laid by others much earlier, e.g., deep learning multilayer perceptrons that learn internal representations (1965),[DEEP1-2][R8] modern backpropagation (1970),[BP1,2][R7] architectures of recurrent NNs (1943-56)[MC43][K56] and convolutional NNs (1979),[CNN1] principles of generative adversarial NNs and artificial curiosity (1990),[AC][AC90,90b][AC10][AC20] unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs (1991),[UN1-2][UN] vanishing gradients (1991)[VAN1] & solutions to it (Sec. A),[LSTM0-17][CTC] supervised GPU-accelerated NNs (2004),[GPUNN][GPUCNN5] record-breaking deep supervised NNs (2010)[MLP1-2] and contest-winning deep CNNs (2011),[DAN][DAN1][GPUCNN5] super deep NNs with over 100 layers (2015),[HW1-3][R5] transformer-like[TR1-6][FWP] attention[FWP][ATT] through fast weight programmers (1991),[FWP0-2,6] and more.[DL1-2][R2-R8] Often LBH failed to cite essential prior work.[DL3,DL3a][DLC][HIN][MIR](Sec. 21)[R2-R5,R7,R8,R11] Also see Sec. II & I & III & XIII & X & XVII & XII & XVIII & XX.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

VI. ACM: These technologies are used by billions of people. Anyone who has a smartphone in their pocket can tangibly experience advances in natural language processing and computer vision that were not possible just 10 years ago.

Comment: However, those "advances in natural language processing" and in speech in the past 10 years came mainly through the LSTM and CTC developed outside of LBH's groups. They were developed instead by our group[LSTM1-6][CTC] (1991-2007)—see Sec. B & Sec. A. And even the "advances in computer vision" were possible only through the speedups of supervised NNs and CNNs achieved by our group 2010-2011[MLP1-2][DAN][DAN1][GPUCNN5][R6] and through Highway Net-like NNs (2015),[HW1-3][R5] although the principles of CNNs were invented and developed by others since the 1970s.[CNN1-4] See Sec. D & XVIII & XIV as well as Sec. 4 & Sec. 19 of the overview.[MIR]

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

VII. ACM: In addition to the products we use every day, new advances in deep learning have given scientists powerful new tools—in areas ranging from medicine, to astronomy, to materials science."

Comment: But who really started this? ACM explicitly mentions medicine. Our DanNet[DAN][DAN1][GPUCNN5] was the first NN to win a medical imaging contest through deep learning (Sept 2012, on cancer detection).[GPUCNN5,8] ACM also explicitly mentions materials science. In 2010, we introduced our deep and fast GPU-based NNs to Arcelor Mittal, the world's largest steel producer, and were able to greatly improve steel defect detection.[ST] To the best of my knowledge, this was the first deep learning breakthrough in heavy industry. All of this happened before the similar GPU-accelerated AlexNet of Hinton's student Krizhevsky won ImageNet 2012.[GPUCNN5][R6] One year later, our team also won the MICCAI Grand Challenge on mitosis detection.[MGC][GPUCNN5,8] Our approach of 2012-2013 has transformed medical imaging, and many major companies are using it now (see Sec. D & XI). And of course, our LSTM (see Sec. A & B & C) is also massively used in healthcare and medical diagnosis—a simple Google Scholar search turns up thousands of such articles.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

VIII. ACM: "Deep neural networks are responsible for some of the greatest advances in modern computer science, helping make substantial progress on long-standing problems in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language understanding," said Jeff Dean, Google Senior Fellow and SVP, Google AI.

"At the heart of this progress are fundamental techniques developed starting more than 30 years ago by this year's Turing Award winners, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun."

Comment: As pointed out above, LBH actually used the "fundamental techniques" invented by others, including our team, often without citing them.[DL1][DLC][HIN][R2-R4][R7-R8] See Sec. V & XII & XIX & II & III & XIII & XVII & X & I.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

IX. ACM: By dramatically improving the ability of computers to make sense of the world, deep neural networks are changing not just the field of computing, but nearly every field of science and human endeavor."

Machine Learning, Neural Networks and Deep Learning

In traditional computing, a computer program directs the computer with explicit step-by-step instructions. In deep learning, a subfield of AI research, the computer is not explicitly told how to solve a particular task such as object classification. Instead, it uses a learning algorithm to extract patterns in the data that relate the input data, such as the pixels of an image, to the desired output such as the label "cat." The challenge for researchers has been to develop effective learning algorithms that can modify the weights on the connections in an artificial neural network so that these weights capture the relevant patterns in the data.

Geoffrey Hinton, who has been advocating for a machine learning approach to artificial intelligence since the early 1980s, looked to how the human brain functions to suggest ways in which machine learning systems might be developed. Inspired by the brain, he and others proposed "artificial neural networks" as a cornerstone of their machine learning investigations.

Comment: However, as mentioned above, those "others" mentioned by ACM proposed such systems decades before Hinton who failed to cite them, even in later work.[HIN][DLC][DL1-2][DEEP1-2][CMB][R7-R8] See Sec. II & III & XIII & V & X & XIV & I.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

X. ACM: In computer science, the term "neural networks" refers to systems composed of layers of relatively simple computing elements called "neurons" that are simulated in a computer. These "neurons," which only loosely resemble the neurons in the human brain, influence one another via weighted connections. By changing the weights on the connections, it is possible to change the computation performed by the neural network. Hinton, LeCun and Bengio recognized the importance of building deep networks using many layers—hence the term "deep learning."

Comment: The ancient term "deep learning" (explicitly mentioned by ACM) was actually first introduced to Machine Learning by Dechter (1986), and to NNs by Aizenberg et al (2000).[DL2] To my knowledge, LBH have never cited them. (Margin note: our 2005 paper on deep RL[DL6,6a] was the first machine learning publication with the word combination "learn deep" in the title.) Later LBH started talking about "deep learning ... moving beyond shallow machine learning since 2006",[DL7] referring to their unsupervised pre-training methods of 2006. See Sec. III.

It is true though that LBH "recognized the importance of building deep networks using many layers." However, others built careers on this notion long before LBH recognized this.[DEEP1-2][CNN1][HIN][R8][DL1][DLC] Even deep learning through unsupervised pre-training was introduced by others.[UN1-3][R4][HIN](Sec. II) See also Sec. II & III & XIII & V & I.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XI. ACM: The conceptual foundations and engineering advances laid by LeCun, Bengio and Hinton over a 30-year period were significantly advanced by the prevalence of powerful graphics processing unit (GPU) computers, as well as access to massive datasets. In recent years, these and other factors led to leap-frog advances in technologies such as computer vision, speech recognition and machine translation.

Comment: Again ACM lauds work that failed to cite the pioneers. As mentioned above, the essential "conceptual foundations" of deep learning were laid by others ignored by LBH's papers[HIN][R7-R8][R2-R5] (see Sec. V & II & III & I & XIII & XII & XIX & X & XVII).

ACM correctly mentions advancements through GPUs. The first to use GPUs for NNs were Jung & Oh (2004),[GPUNN][GPUCNN5] apparently never cited by LBH. In 2010, our team (Dan Ciresan et al.) was the one that made GPU-based NNs fast and deep enough to break an important benchmark record,[MLP1-2] demonstrating that unsupervised pre-training (pioneered by myself in 1991) is not necessary to train deep NNs, contrary to Hinton's claims.[VID1] By 2011, our CNNs were deep and fast enough[DAN][DAN1][GPUCNN5] to win competitions in computer vision (explicitly mentioned by ACM) for the first time[R6] (see Sec. D).

Furthermore, by the mid 2010s, speech recognition and machine translation (explicitly mentioned by ACM) were actually dominated by LSTM and CTC of our team.[LSTM1-4][CTC] In particular, as mentioned in Sec. A, the CTC-LSTM combination (2006-2007) was the first superior end-to-end neural speech recogniser, while previous methods since the late 1980s (including Bengio's and Hinton's) combined NNs with traditional models such as HMMs.[BW][BOU][BRI][HYB12] As mentioned in Sec. B and XVI, the first superior end-to-end neural machine translation was also based on LSTM.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XII. ACM: ... Select Technical Accomplishments ...

Geoffrey Hinton

Backpropagation: In a 1986 paper, "Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation," co-authored with David Rumelhart and Ronald Williams, Hinton demonstrated that the backpropagation algorithm allowed neural nets to discover their own internal representations of data, making it possible to use neural nets to solve problems that had previously been thought to be beyond their reach. The backpropagation algorithm is standard in most neural networks today.

Comment: ACM credits Hinton for work that failed to cite the origins of the backpropagation algorithm. ACM's statement is "less wrong" than Honda's[HIN](Sec. I) but still very misleading since non-experts (and apparently even other award committees[HIN](Sec. I) are left with the impression that Hinton and colleagues created this method. They didn't. In fact, Hinton was co-author of an article on backpropagation by Rumelhart et al. (1985-86)[RUM] which did not state that 3 years earlier, Werbos proposed to train NNs in this way (1982).[BP2] And the article[RUM] even failed to mention Linnainmaa, the inventor of this famous algorithm for credit assignment in networks (1970),[BP1] also known as "reverse mode of automatic differentiation." In 1960, Kelley already had a precursor thereof in the field of control theory;[BPA] see also later work of the early 1960s.[BPB][BPC][R7] By 1985, compute had become about 1,000 times cheaper than in 1970, and the first desktop computers had just become accessible in wealthier academic labs. Computational experiments then demonstrated that backpropagation can yield useful internal representations in hidden layers of NNs.[RUM] But this was essentially just an experimental analysis of a known method.[BP1-2] And the authors did not cite the prior art—not even in later surveys.[DL3,DL3a][DLC] More on the history of backpropagation can be found at Scholarpedia[DL2] and in my award-winning survey.[DL1] Also see Sec. XIX, II.

Some claim that "backpropagation is just the chain rule of Leibniz (1676) & L'Hopital (1696)." No, it is the efficient way of applying the chain rule to big networks with differentiable nodes (there are also many inefficient ways of doing this). It was not published until 1970.[BP1]

See the recent debate:[HIN] It is true that in 2018, Hinton[AOI] did not credit himself but his co-author Rumelhart[RUM] with the "invention" of backpropagation. Nevertheless, he accepted the Honda Prize for "creating" the method and for other things he didn't do.[HIN] Neither in a popular book[AOI] nor in other recent work[DL3,DL3a] did he cite Linnainmaa (1970),[BP1] the true creator.[BP4-5] It should be mentioned that his 2015 survey[DL3] does cite Werbos (1974) who however described the method correctly only later in 1982[BP2] and also failed to cite Linnainmaa[BP1] (compare Amari's work of 1977[BP6]). Linnainmaa's method was well-known.[BP5][DL1-2][DLC] It wasn't created by "lots of different people" as Hinton suggested[AOI][HIN][R11] but by exactly one person who published first[BP1] and therefore should get the credit.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XIII. ACM: Boltzmann Machines: In 1983, with Terrence Sejnowski, Hinton invented Boltzmann Machines, one of the first neural networks capable of learning internal representations in neurons that were not part of the input or output.

Comment: Again ACM credits work that failed to cite the pioneers. I have once called the Boltzmann Machine (BM)[BM] a significant contribution to deep learning.[HIN] Recently, however, I learnt through a reader that even the BM paper[BM] did not cite prior relevant work by Sherrington & Kirkpatrick[SK75] and Glauber.[G63] (Compare related work.[H86][H88][S93])

The BM paper should also have mentioned that already two decades earlier, in 1965, Ivakhnenko & Lapa published the first general, working learning algorithms for deep multilayer perceptrons with arbitrarily many layers.[DEEP1-2][HIN] These networks were fully "capable of learning internal representations in neurons that were not part of the input or output." The BM paper[BM] did not cite this. LBH have never cited this—not even in recent work. See also Sec. II & V & X.[MIR](Sec. 1)[R8]

As mentioned in Sec. II, Sejnowski's rather self-serving "history of deep learning" [S20] claims: In 1969, Minsky & Papert[M69] showed that shallow NNs are very limited "and the field was abandoned until a new generation of neural network researchers took a fresh look at the problem in the 1980s."[S20] However, the 1969 book[M69] addressed a "deep learning problem" (a limitation of Gauss & Legendre's shallow learning around 1800[DL1-2]) that had already been solved four years prior (see Sec. II), and deep learning research was alive and kicking also in the 1970s, especially outside of the Anglosphere.[DEEP2][BP6][CNN1][DL1-2]

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XIV. ACM: Improvements to convolutional neural networks: In 2012, with his students, Alex Krizhevsky and Ilya Sutskever, Hinton improved convolutional neural networks using rectified linear neurons and dropout regularization. In the prominent ImageNet competition, Hinton and his students almost halved the error rate for object recognition and reshaped the computer vision field.

Comment: Again ACM recognizes work that failed to cite the pioneers. Rectified linear neurons (ReLUs) were actually known much earlier—see v. d. Malsburg's work (1973).[CMB] Hinton's 2012 paper[GPUCNN4] did not cite their origins. Instead, it cited another paper by Hinton which also did not cite the original work. Dropout is actually a variant of Hanson's much earlier stochastic delta rule (1990).[Drop1-2] Hinton's 2012 paper and his later patent did not cite this either.

Apart from this, as we showed already in 2011 in a contest where LeCun's team participated as well,[DAN1] neither dropout nor ReLUs are necessary to win computer vision competitions and achieve superhuman results—see Sec. D above. Back then, the only really important CNN-related task was to greatly accelerate the training of deep CNNs through GPUs.[GPUCNN1,3,5][R6] Already before ImageNet 2012,[R6] our earlier fast deep CNN called DanNet (using neither ReLUs nor dropout / Hanson's rule) had a monopoly on winning computer vision competitions.[GPUCNN5] It more than "halved the error rate for object recognition" (ACM's wording) in a contest already in 2011[GPUCNN2][DAN,DAN1][R6] long before the similar system of Hinton's student. See Sec. D as well as Sec. 19 of the overview.[MIR]

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XV. ACM: Yoshua Bengio

Probabilistic models of sequences: In the 1990s, Bengio combined neural networks with probabilistic models of sequences, such as hidden Markov models. These ideas were incorporated into a system used by AT&T/NCR for reading handwritten checks, were considered a pinnacle of neural network research in the 1990s, and modern deep learning speech recognition systems are extending these concepts.

Comment: However, such hybrids of NNs and hidden Markov models (HMMs) etc. have existed since the late 1980s.[BW][BRI][BOU] It is not true that "modern deep learning speech recognition systems are extending these concepts" (ACM's wording) because they basically abandon HMMs and are based on two methods from my lab: LSTM (1990s-2005)[LSTM0-6] and CTC[CTC] (2006), which were applied to speech in 2007.[LSTM4][LSTM14] CTC-LSTM is end-to-end-neural and thus very different from (and superior to) the hybrid methods since the late 1980s.[BW][BRI][BOU][HYB12] By the time the 2018 Turing Award was handed out, our CTC-LSTM-based speech recognition was on most smartphones. See also Sec. A.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XVI. ACM: High-dimensional word embeddings and attention: In 2000, Bengio authored the landmark paper, "A Neural Probabilistic Language Model," that introduced high-dimension word embeddings as a representation of word meaning. Bengio's insights had a huge and lasting impact on natural language processing tasks including language translation, question answering, and visual question answering. His group also introduced a form of attention mechanism which led to breakthroughs in machine translation and form a key component of sequential processing with deep learning.

Comment: 5 years earlier, in 1995, we already had a similar, excellent neural probabilistic text model.[SNT] Bengio[NPM] characterizes it only briefly as "related" (see also Pollack's earlier work on embeddings of words and other structures[PO87][PO90]). In the 2010s, the central method in the mentioned fields of "language translation, question answering, and visual question answering" was actually the LSTM of our team,[LSTM0-6] which Bloomberg called the "arguably the most commercial AI achievement."[AV1][MIR](Sec. 4) See Sec. B.

A particular attention mechanism tailored to NLP by Bengio's team[ATT14] has indeed become important. For example, it helped to further improve Facebook's LSTM-based translation (see Sec. B). However, already in 1990-93, we had both of the now common types of adaptive neural sequential attention: end-to-end-differentiable "soft" attention in the latent space of Fast Weight Programmers (FWPs),[FWP2][FWP] and "hard" attention (in observation space) in the context of RL[ATT][ATT0-1] (1990).

In fact, the now widely used attention-based Transformers[TR1-6] are closely related to my FWPs of 1991[FWP0-1] which have become a popular alternative to RNNs. A traditional slow neural net (NN) learns by gradient descent to program the changes of the fast weights of another NN. Like RNNs, FWPs can learn to memorize past data. My FWP of 1991[FWP0-1] computed its fast weight changes through additive outer products of self-invented activation patterns (now often called keys and values for self-attention).[TR1-6][FWP] Transformers combine this with projections and softmax. Towards the end of the 2010s,[DEC] despite their limited time windows, Transformers[TR1-2] started to excel at Natural Language Processing, a traditional LSTM domain (see Sec. B). Nevertheless, there are still many language tasks that LSTM can rapidly learn to solve quickly[LSTM13,17] (in time proportional to sentence length) while plain Transformers can't—see[TR3-4] for additional limitations of Transformers. For long input sequences, the efficiency of Transformers was improved through linear Transformers or Performers[TR5-6] which are formally equivalent to my 1991 FWPs (apart from normalization).[FWP6][FWP] In 1993, I introduced the attention terminology[FWP2] now used in this context,[ATT] and extended the approach to RNNs that program themselves.

See[MIR](Sec. 9)[R4] for my related priority dispute on attention with Hinton. He was the reviewer of my 1990 paper[ATT2] which summarised in its Section 5 our early work on attention, to my knowledge the first implemented neural system for combining glimpses that jointly trains a recognition & prediction component with an attentional component (the fixation controller). Two decades later Hinton wrote about his own work:[ATT3] "To our knowledge, this is the first implemented system for combining glimpses that jointly trains a recognition component ... with an attentional component (the fixation controller)."

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XVII. ACM: Generative adversarial networks: Since 2010, Bengio's papers on generative deep learning, in particular the Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) developed with Ian Goodfellow, have spawned a revolution in computer vision and computer graphics. In one fascinating application of this work, computers can actually create original images, reminiscent of the creativity that is considered a hallmark of human intelligence.

Comment: Again ACM lauds Bengio for work that failed to cite the original work. GANs[GAN0-1] (2010-2014) are actually a simple application[AC] of the adversarial curiosity (AC) principle from 1990[AC90,90b][AC20] (see also surveys[AC09-10]). This principle is now widely used for exploration in RL (e.g., Sec. C) and for image synthesis[GAN1] (also mentioned by ACM in Sec. XVIII). It works as follows. One NN—the controller—probabilistically generates outputs. Another NN—the world model—sees the outputs of the controller and predicts environmental reactions to them. Using gradient descent, the predictor NN minimizes its error, while the generator NN tries to make outputs that maximize this error: one net's loss is the other net's gain. 4 years before the GAN paper,[GAN1] a well-known 2010 survey[AC10] summarised the generative adversarial NNs of 1990 as follows: a "neural network as a predictive world model is used to maximize the controller's intrinsic reward, which is proportional to the model's prediction errors" (which are minimized). GANs are a version of this where the trials are very short (like in bandit problems) and the environment simply returns 1 or 0 depending on whether the controller's (or generator's) output is in a given set.[AC20][AC] (Other early adversarial machine learning settings[S59][H90] were very different—they neither involved unsupervised NNs nor were about modeling data nor used gradient descent.[AC20]) Bengio et al. neither cited the original work[AC90,90b][AC20] nor corrected their erroneous claims[GAN1] about the other adversarial NNs using "predictability minimization" (PM) for creating disentangled representations (1991).[PM1-2][AC20][R2][MIR](Sec. 5)

The priority dispute above was picked up by the popular press, e.g., Bloomberg,[AV1] after a particularly notable encounter between me and Bengio's student Dr. Goodfellow at a N(eur)IPS conference. He gave a talk on GANs, encouraging people to ask questions. I did, addressing problems in their NIPS 2014 paper[GAN1] and some of the erroneous claims it made about my prior work.[AC20] Subsequent efforts to correct these issues in a common paper didn't work out. Goodfellow eventually admitted that PM is adversarial (his paper[GAN1] still claims the opposite), but emphasized that it's not generative. However, the even earlier AC[AC90,90b][AC10][AC20] is both adversarial and generative (its generator contains probabilistic units[AC90] like in StyleGANs[GAN2]). When the authors[GAN1] did not produce an erratum, I published one myself in the hopes of correcting the annals of history.[AC20] Remarkably, Bengio was backed by LeCun who called GANs "the coolest idea in machine learning in the last twenty years" without mentioning that they are instances of my earlier work.[R2][AC20]

XVII-1. Additional priority disputes with Bengio's group, mostly going back 3 decades and more

(B2) 3 years after my student Sepp Hochreiter had published his analysis of the famous vanishing gradient problem,[MIR](Sec. 3)[VAN1] Bengio published his own,[VAN2] without citing Sepp. At the 1996 N(eur)IPS conference, this dispute was settled in favor of Sepp.[VAN1] However, even after a common publication,[VAN3] Bengio published papers[VAN4][XAV] that cited only his own 1994 paper but not Sepp's original work (1991). Disturbingly, this has apparently helped him to get more citations for vanishing gradients than Sepp—another sign that citation counts are poor indicators of truly pioneering work.[NAT1] (Margin note: Bengio states[YB20] that in 2018 he "ranked as the most cited computer scientist worldwide"—the above illustrates what such citation counts are really worth.) The deontology of science requires: If one "re-invents" something that was already known, and only becomes aware of it later, one must at least clarify it later,[DLC] and correctly give credit in all follow-up papers and presentations.

(B3) Bengio also claims[YB20] that in 1995 he "introduced the use of a hierarchy of time scales to combat the vanishing gradients issue" although my publications on exactly this topic date back to 1991-93.[UN0-2][UN]

(B4) Another dispute was on metalearning (learning to learn—now a hot topic) which I started in 1987[META1][META] long before Bengio who suggested in public at N(eur)IPS 2019 that he did it before me.[R3]

(B5) Bengio also writes[YB20] that in 1999 he "introduced, for the first time, auto-regressive neural networks for density estimation" although we used a very similar set-up for text compression in 1995[SNT]—see Sec. XVI.

(B6) Regarding attention-based Transformers,[TR1-6] Bengio[DL3a] cites his own team (2014) for "soft attention" without citing my much earlier original work of 1991-1993 on soft attention and linear Transformers.[FWP,FWP0-2,6]

There is more. For example, Bengio has also heavily used our LSTM (see Sec. A-C), but for some reason he introduced in 2014 what he called "gated recurrent units (GRU)"[LSTMGRU] for a variant of our vanilla LSTM architecture[LSTM2] (2000) which he did not cite although our work[LSTM2] was the one that introduced gated recurrent units. In addition, our team automatically evolved lots of additional LSTM variants and topologies already in 2009[LSTM7] without changing the name of the basic method. (Margin note: GRU cells lack an important gate and can neither learn to count[LSTMGRU2] nor learn simple non-regular languages;[LSTMGRU2] they also do not work as well for challenging translation tasks, according to Google Brain.[LSTMGRU3])

XVII-2. Additional priority disputes with Hinton's group, going back 3 decades and more

(H1) The dispute on unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs.[UN0-4][HIN](Sec. II)[MIR](Sec. 1) Hinton's paper[UN4] (2006) appeared long after my earlier work on this[UN0-2] which introduced the first NNs shown to solve very deep problems (see Sec. II above).[UN] It was published in 1991-92[UN1] when compute was about 1000 times more expensive than in 2006. Hinton did not mention it—not even in LBH's later survey (2015),[DL3][DLC] although he and Bengio knew it well (also from discussions by email). See also Sec. II & III.

(H2) The dispute on compressing or distilling one NN into another.[UN0-2][DIST1-2][MIR](Sec. 2) Hinton[DIST2] (2006) did not cite my much earlier original work on this (1991),[UN1][UN] not even in his later patent application US20150356461A1.

(H3) The dispute on fast weight programmers[FWP][FWP0-4a] through tensor-like outer products (1991-2016) and their motivation[FWP2][FWP4a][MIR](Sec. 8) (see also Sec. XVI above).

(H4) The dispute on learning sequential attention with NNs.[MIR](Sec. 9) Hinton[ATT3] (2010) did not mention our much earlier work on this[ATT1][ATT] although he was both reviewer and editor of my summary[ATT2] (1990; see Sec. XVI above).

The ten priority disputes mentioned in the present Sec. XVII are not on the only ones.[R4] Remarkably, three of them are related to the 1991 paper[UN1][UN] which in many ways started what people now call deep learning, going beyond Ivakhnenko's "early" deep learning[DEEP1-2] (which LBH did not cite either[DLC]—see Sec. II & III). Most of them go back to work of 1990-91.[MIR] See Sec. I for additional related issues of credit assignment.

For decades, it seems like much of the more prominent work of Dr. Hinton and Dr. Bengio has simply been repackaged versions of earlier work that they produced without proper citation.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XVIII. ACM: Yann LeCun

Convolutional neural networks: In the 1980s, LeCun developed convolutional neural networks, a foundational principle in the field, which, among other advantages, have been essential in making deep learning more efficient.

In the late 1980s, while working at the University of Toronto and Bell Labs, LeCun was the first to train a convolutional neural network system on images of handwritten digits. Today, convolutional neural networks are an industry standard in computer vision, as well as in speech recognition, speech synthesis, image synthesis, and natural language processing. They are used in a wide variety of applications, including autonomous driving, medical image analysis, voice-activated assistants, and information filtering.

Comment: LeCun's team has made important contributions to CNNs since 1989.[CNN2,4] However, the basic CNN architecture with convolutional and downsampling layers is actually due to Fukushima (1979).[CNN1] NNs with convolutions were later (1987) combined by Waibel with weight sharing and backpropagation.[CNN1a] Waibel called this TDNN and also was the first to apply this to speech (explicitly mentioned by ACM). All of this happened before LeCun's work on CNNs. See Sec. D above and Sec. 21 of the overview of our Annus Mirabilis 1990-1991.[MIR]

ACM explicitly mentions autonomous driving. The first team to win a relevant international contest through deep CNNs was ours: at IJCNN 2011 in Silicon Valley, our DanNet[DAN][GPUCNN1-3] won the traffic sign recognition competition with superhuman performance while LeCun's team took a distant second place (with three times worse performance).[DAN1] Again see Sec. D.

ACM explicitly mentions medical image analysis. The first team to win a medical image analysis competition through deep CNNs was again ours: at ICPR 2012, our DanNet[GPUCNN1-3] won the medical imaging contest (Sept 2012, on detection of mitosis/cancer)[GPUCNN5,7,8] (before the similar AlexNet won ImageNet 2012[GPUCNN5][R6] and the similar VGG network[GPUCNN9] won ImageNet 2014). One year later, our team also won the MICCAI Grand Challenge on mitosis detection.[MGC][GPUCNN5,7,8] This approach has transformed medical imaging. Many major companies are using it now. See Sec. D & VII.

ACM also addresses image synthesis—see Sec. XVII. ACM also explicitly mentions speech recognition, speech synthesis,[AM16][DL1] natural language processing, voice-activated assistants, and information filtering. All of these fields were heavily shaped in the 2010s by our non-CNN methods.[DL1][DL4][AM16][GSR][GSR15][GT16][WU][FB17] See Sec. A, B, VI, XI.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XIX. ACM: Improving backpropagation algorithms: LeCun proposed an early version of the backpropagation algorithm (backprop), and gave a clean derivation of it based on variational principles. His work to speed up backpropagation algorithms included describing two simple methods to accelerate learning time.

Comment: ACM recognizes LeCun for work that did not cite the pioneers of this method. As mentioned in Sec. XII, backpropagation was actually proposed earlier as a learning method for NNs by Werbos (1982)[BP2-4] (see also Amari's work of 1977[BP6]). And already in 1970, the modern backpropagation algorithm itself—the real centerpiece of all this later applied work, also known as the reverse mode of automatic differentiation—was published by Linnainmaa[BP1,4][R7] (with a "clean derivation," of course). LeCun has never cited this—not even in recent work.[DL3,DL3a][DLC] In 1960, Kelley already had a precursor of the algorithm.[BPA] Furthermore, many besides LeCun have worked "to speed up backpropagation algorithms"[DL1] (ACM's wording). More on the history of backpropagation can be found at Scholarpedia.[DL2][BP4]

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XX. ACM: Broadening the vision of neural networks: LeCun is also credited with developing a broader vision for neural networks as a computational model for a wide range of tasks, introducing in early work a number of concepts now fundamental in AI. For example, in the context of recognizing images, he studied how hierarchical feature representation can be learned in neural networks—a concept that is now routinely used in many recognition tasks.

Comment: However, "hierarchical feature representation" in deep learning networks is what Ivakhnenko & Lapa (1965)[DEEP1-2] (and also Fukushima[CNN1][DL2]) had long before LeCun. ACM may have been misled by the fact that LeCun has never cited Ivakhnenko—not even in his later survey.[DL3][DLC] See Sec. D & II & XIII & V.

Critique of 2018 Turing Award

XXI. ACM: Together with Leon Bottou, he proposed the idea, used in every modern deep learning software, that learning systems can be built as complex networks of modules where backpropagation is performed through automatic differentiation. They also proposed deep learning architectures that can manipulate structured data, such as graphs.

Comment: What does ACM mean by "modules"? Neuron-like elements? Bigger modules? Anyway, LeCun et al. neither cited the origins[BP1] (1970) of this widely used type of automatic differentiation for differentiable networks of modules[DL2][BP4-5][DLC] nor a computer program (1980) for automatically deriving and implementing backpropagation for such systems.[S80] See also Sec. XIX & XII.

And "deep learning architectures that can manipulate structured data, such as graphs" were proposed by Sperduti, Goller, and Küchler in the 1990s[GOL][KU][SP93-97] before LeCun who did not cite them. See also Pollack's even earlier relevant work.[PO87-90]

(Furthermore, "complex networks of modules where backpropagation is performed" were the central theme of my much earlier habilitation thesis (1993).[UN2] For example, our adaptive subgoal generators (1991)[HRL0-2] were trained through end-to-end-differentiable chains of such modules.[MIR](Sec. 10) Same for my planning and reinforcement learning with recurrent neural world models (1990).[PLAN][MIR](Sec. 11) Same for my linear transformer-like fast weight programmers[FWP0-2][FWP][ATT][MIR](Sec. 8) since 1991 (see Sec. XVI) consisting of chains of several modules.)

5. Concluding Remarks

In the hard sciences, the only things that count are the facts. Science is not democratic. If 100 persons claim one thing, and only one person claims the opposite, but he/she can back it up through facts, then he/she wins. If you haven't already read it, see "100 Authors against Einstein."[AH1]

The deontology of science enforces proper scientific standards and behavior when it comes to identifying prior art and assigning credit. Unlike politics, science is immune to ad hominem attacks[AH2-3][HIN] true to the motto: "If you cannot dispute a fact-based message, attack the messenger himself."[HIN] Science has a well-established way of dealing with plagiarism and priority disputes, based on facts such as time stamps of publications and patents. Sometimes it may take a while to settle disputes, but in the end, the facts must always win. As long as the facts have not yet won it's not yet the end. No fancy award can ever change that.[HIN]

Dr. Hinton, Dr. LeCun, Dr. Bengio, and their co-workers have contributed useful improvements of deep learning methods.[CNN2,4][CDI][LAN][RMSP][XAV][ATT14][CAPS] But their most visible work (praised by ACM) mainly helped to popularize methods created by other researchers whom they did not cite (see, e.g., Sec. II, V, XII, XIX, XXI, XIII, XIV, XI, and XX, and 2). My lab is especially affected by ACM's misleading statements (see, e.g., Sec. I, A, B, C, D, XVII, VI, and XVI). As emphasized earlier:[DLC][HIN] "The inventor of an important method should get credit for inventing it. They may not always be the one who popularizes it. Then the popularizer should get credit for popularizing it—but not for inventing it." If one "re-invents" something that was already known, and only becomes aware of it later, one must at least clarify it later, and correctly give credit in follow-up papers and presentations.

It is a sign of our field's immaturity that popularizers are sometimes still credited for the creations of other researchers whom they ignored. Of course, ACM (or anyone for that matter) is free to hand out awards to anybody, but one should not decorate anybody for work based on unmentioned contributions of others. To fulfill its mandate, ACM should revise its statements so that it can preserve the reputation of the Turing award and its significance to computer science—others will. Similar for scientific journals, which "need to make clearer and firmer commitments to self-correction,"[SV20] as is already the standard in other scientific fields.

Could it be that seemingly unbiased award committees are actually affected by PR efforts in popular science venues without peer review? For example, the narrator of a popular 2018 Bloomberg video[VID2] is thanking Hinton for speech recognition and machine translation, although both were actually done (at production time of the video) on billions of smartphones by deep learning methods developed in my labs in Germany and Switzerland (LSTM & CTC; see Sec. A) long before Hinton's methods. Similarly, in 2016, the NY Times published an article[NYT3] about the new, greatly improved, LSTM-based Google Translate without even mentioning our LSTM (instead featuring Hinton who had little to do with it), although Google's original 2016 paper on Google Translate[WU] mentions LSTM over 50 times (see Sec. B). In ad hominem style,[AH2-3] LeCun stated in the NY Times that "Jürgen ... keeps claiming credit he doesn't deserve for many, many things",[NYT1] without providing a single example. LeCun also called the GANs of Bengio's team[GAN1] "the coolest idea in machine learning in the last twenty years" without mentioning that GANs are variations of my work in 1990.[AC90,90b][AC20][R2] According to Bloomberg,[AV2] Bengio has simply "denied my claims" without backing up his denial by any facts; see Sec. XVII.

It has been requested that "scientists must be willing to speak out when they see false information being presented in social media, traditional print or broadcast press" and "must speak out against false information and fake science in circulation and forcefully contradict public figures who promote it."[FAKE] LBH, who called themselves the deep learning conspiracy,[DLC] have cited and otherwise supported each other through interviews and other PR at the expense of the true pioneers. Apparently this has earned them many citations, which is just another sign that citation counts are poor indicators of truly pioneering work—see Sec. XVII. As I pointed out in Nature (2011):[NAT1] like the less-than-worthless collateralized debt obligations that drove the 2008 financial bubble, citations are easy to print and inflate, providing an incentive for professors to maximize citation counts instead of scientific progress—witness how relatively unknown scientists can now collect more citations than the most influential founders of their fields.

In fact, many of my critical comments above do address highly cited work. Our LSTM paper[LSTM1] has got more citations than any paper by Bengio or LeCun,[R5] and more per year than any other computer science paper of the 20th century. Hinton's most cited paper (2012) is the one on GPU-based CNNs.[GPUCNN4][R5] It follows our earlier work on supervised deep NNs (2010)[MLP1] (which abandoned the unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs introduced by myself [UN][UN0-3] and later championed by Hinton;[UN4][VID1] see Sec. D). Hinton (2012)[GPUCNN4] characterizes our deep and fast DanNet (2011)[GPUCNN1-3] as "somewhat similar"—DanNet won 4 computer vision contests before Hinton's AlexNet won one;[R6] see Sec. D, XIV. The highly cited VGG network (2014)[GPUCNN9] further extended our work. Hinton's 2nd most cited paper[RUM][R5] is the one on experiments with backpropagation (note that in 2019 his Google Scholar page greatly exaggerated the citation count of Hinton's paper,[RUM] adding citations for a book by Rumelhart & McClelland[R5]). Backpropagation is a previously invented method[BP1] whose origins Hinton did not cite—not even in later surveys;[R7] see Sec. XII. His nets learned internal representations two decades after the nets of Ivakhnenko whom he has never cited;[DEEP1-2][R7-R8] see Sec. II, XIII. Bengio's 2nd most cited research paper is the one on GANs (2014),[GAN1] instances of my artificial curiosity (1990)[AC90,90b][AC20][R2] which he did not cite; see Sec. XVII. As of 2020, the machine learning paper with the most citations per year is the one on ResNet (2015),[HW2][R5] a version of our earlier Highway Net,[HW1-3] which was the first working feedforward NN with over 100 layers—see Sec. D (in fact, ResNets are just Highway Nets whose gates remain open). Hinton's highly cited papers on unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs (2006-)[UN4] were preceded by ours[UN0-2][UN] (1991-) by 15 years, but he did not cite them[UN0-2][R4][HIN](Sec. II)—see Sec. II & III. His papers/patents on dropout and rectified neurons were preceded by Hanson's[Drop1-2] and v. d. Malsburg's[CMB] by decades, but he did not cite them—see Sec. Sec. XIV. As recently as of 2021, ACM published yet another misleading deep learning "survey" by LBH,[DL3a] again heavily citing LBH without correcting the previous omissions. Consult the Executive Summary and Sec. I-XXI of this critique for more.

So virtually all the algorithms that have attracted many citations in the recent deep learning revolution have their conceptual and technical roots in my labs in Munich and Lugano,[MOST] apart from the old basic principles of deep learning MLPs since 1965[DEEP1-2] (see Sec. II, XX) and backpropagation (1960-70)[BPA][BP1] (see Sec. XIX, XII) and convolutional NNs since 1979[CNN1-4] (see Sec. XVIII, D). Here is an overview of our relevant work compressed into a few lines that link to subsections of the present article, where "A→B" indicates that A conceptually led to B: Our LSTM (1990s, see Sec. A, B; also for RL, 2003-, see Sec. C) → our Highway Net (May 2015) → ResNet (Dec 2015, see Sec. D). Our adversarial Artificial Curiosity (1990) → GANs (2010s, see Sec. XVII). We abandoned our own unsupervised pre-training of deep NNs (1991, see Sec. II & III) for recurrent NNs in the 1990s → our LSTM (see Sec. A-C) and for feedforward NNs in 2010 → our DanNet (2011) → AlexNet (2012); VGG Net (2014) (see Sec. D). As mentioned earlier, our LSTM brought essentially unlimited depth to supervised recurrent NNs in the 1990s; our Highway Nets[HW1-3] brought it to feedforward NNs in May 2015.[MOST] Even earlier, our DanNet brought superior computer vision (2011, see Sec. D, XVIII), medical diagnosis (2012, see Sec. VII, XVIII), and many other applications.[DEC] Our LSTM brought superior speech recognition (with our CTC, 2007-15, see Sec. A), machine translation (2016, see Sec. B), robotics & video game players (2018-19, see Sec. C), and many other applications.[DEC] Our Fast Weight Programmers (1991, see Sec. XVI) are formally equivalent to linear Transformers (now popular in NLP). In fact, our methods and conceptual foundations shaped most of the application areas mentioned by ACM—see, e.g., Sec. I, A, B, C, D, VII, XVIII.

As mentioned earlier,[MIR](Sec. 21) when only consulting surveys from the Anglosphere, it is not always clear[DLC] that Deep Learning was first conceived outside of it. It started in 1965 in the Ukraine (back then the USSR) with the first nets of arbitrary depth that really learned.[DEEP1-2][R8] Five years later, modern backpropagation was published "next door" in Finland (1970).[BP1] The basic deep convolutional NN architecture (now widely used) was invented in the 1970s in Japan[CNN1] where NNs with convolutions were later (1987) also combined with "weight sharing" and backpropagation.[CNN1a] We are standing on the shoulders of these authors and many others—see 888 references in the survey.[DL1] Our own work since the 1980s mostly took place in Germany and Switzerland.

Unfortunately, LBH's frequent failures to credit essential prior work by others cannot serve as a role model for PhD students who are told by their advisors to perform meticulous research on prior art, and to avoid at all costs the slightest hint of plagiarism. It is worrisome that the 2018 Turing award seems to reward LBH for this behavior.

Yes, this critique is also an implicit critique of certain other awards to LBH.[HIN] It is also related to some of the most popular posts and comments of 2019 at reddit.com/r/MachineLearning[R1-R12] (the largest machine learning forum with back then over 800k subscribers), many of them influenced by my overview.[MIR]

Dr. LeCun himself is well aware of the challenges to scientific integrity in our field:[LECP] "... citing an obscure paper, rather than an accepted paper by a prominent author is dangerous, and has zero benefits. Sure, author A might be upset, but who cares about upsetting some guy from the university of Oriental Syldavia that you will never have to confront at a conference and who will never be asked to write a letter for your tenure case? On the other hand, author B might be asked to write a review for your next paper, your next grant application, or your tenure case. So, voicing the fact that he doesn't deserve all the credit for the idea is very dangerous. Hence, you don't cite what's right. You cite what everybody else cites."[LECP]

Note that I am insisting on proper credit assignment not only in my own research field but also in quite disconnected areas,[HIN] as demonstrated by my numerous letters in this regard published in Science and Nature, e.g., on the history of aviation,[NASC1-2] the telephone,[NASC3] the computer,[NASC4-7] resilient robots,[NASC8] and scientists of the 19th century.[NASC9]

As Elvis Presley put it, "Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away." It is fun to speculate how future supersmart AI scientists and AI historians equipped with artificial curiosity[SA17][AC90-AC20][PP-PP2] will be fascinated by their own roots, and how they will rummage through all available data (old papers, email messages, videos, etc) to fully understand every little detail of their origins in human civilization. However, today's scientists won't have to wait for AI historians to establish proper credit assignment. It is easy enough to do the right thing right now.

6. Acknowledgments

Creative Commons LicenseThanks to many expert reviewers for useful comments. Since science is about self-correction, let me know under juergen@idsia.ch if you can spot any remaining error. Many additional relevant publications can be found in my publication page and my arXiv page. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

250+ References

[AC] J.  Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). 3 decades of artificial curiosity & creativity. Our artificial scientists not only answer given questions but also invent new questions. They achieve curiosity through: (1990) the principle of generative adversarial networks, (1991) neural nets that maximise learning progress, (1995) neural nets that maximise information gain (optimally since 2011), (1997) adversarial design of surprising computational experiments, (2006) maximizing compression progress like scientists/artists/comedians do, (2011) PowerPlay... Since 2012: applications to real robots.

[AC90] J.  Schmidhuber. Making the world differentiable: On using fully recurrent self-supervised neural networks for dynamic reinforcement learning and planning in non-stationary environments. Technical Report FKI-126-90, TUM, Feb 1990, revised Nov 1990. PDF. The first paper on planning with reinforcement learning recurrent neural networks (NNs) (more) and on generative adversarial networks where a generator NN is fighting a predictor NN in a minimax game (more).

[AC90b] J.  Schmidhuber. A possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. In J. A. Meyer and S. W. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, pages 222-227. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1991. PDF. More.

[AC91] J. Schmidhuber. Adaptive confidence and adaptive curiosity. Technical Report FKI-149-91, Inst. f. Informatik, Tech. Univ. Munich, April 1991. PDF.

[AC91b] J.  Schmidhuber. Curious model-building control systems. Proc. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Singapore, volume 2, pages 1458-1463. IEEE, 1991. PDF.

[AC06] J.  Schmidhuber. Developmental Robotics, Optimal Artificial Curiosity, Creativity, Music, and the Fine Arts. Connection Science, 18(2): 173-187, 2006. PDF.

[AC09] J. Schmidhuber. Art & science as by-products of the search for novel patterns, or data compressible in unknown yet learnable ways. In M. Botta (ed.), Et al. Edizioni, 2009, pp. 98-112. PDF. (More on artificial scientists and artists.)

[AC10] J. Schmidhuber. Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation (1990-2010). IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(3):230-247, 2010. IEEE link. PDF. With a brief summary of the generative adversarial neural networks of 1990[AC90,90b][AC20] where a generator NN is fighting a predictor NN in a minimax game (more).

[AC20] J. Schmidhuber. Generative Adversarial Networks are Special Cases of Artificial Curiosity (1990) and also Closely Related to Predictability Minimization (1991). Neural Networks, Volume 127, p 58-66, 2020. Preprint arXiv/1906.04493.

[AH1] Hentschel K. (1996) A. v. Brunn: Review of "100 Authors against Einstein" [March 13, 1931]. In: Hentschel K. (eds) Physics and National Socialism. Science Networks—Historical Studies, vol 18. Birkhaeuser Basel. Link.

[AH2] F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels. The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Journal Thinking & Reasoning, Vol. 18, 2012, Issue 3, p. 344-364. Link.

[AH3] D. Walton (PhD Univ. Toronto, 1972), 1998. Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.

[AIB] J. Schmidhuber. AI Blog. Includes variants of chapters of the AI Book.

[AM16] Blog of Werner Vogels, CTO of Amazon (Nov 2016): Amazon's Alexa "takes advantage of bidirectional long short-term memory (LSTM) networks using a massive amount of data to train models that convert letters to sounds and predict the intonation contour. This technology enables high naturalness, consistent intonation, and accurate processing of texts."

[AOI] M. Ford. Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it. Packt Publishing, 2018. Preface to German edition by J. Schmidhuber.

[ATT] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2020). 30-year anniversary of end-to-end differentiable sequential neural attention. Plus goal-conditional reinforcement learning. We had both hard attention (1990) and soft attention (1991-93).[FWP] Today, both types are very popular.

[ATT0] J. Schmidhuber and R. Huber. Learning to generate focus trajectories for attentive vision. Technical Report FKI-128-90, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 1990. PDF.

[ATT1] J. Schmidhuber and R. Huber. Learning to generate artificial fovea trajectories for target detection. International Journal of Neural Systems, 2(1 & 2):135-141, 1991. Based on TR FKI-128-90, TUM, 1990. PDF. More.

[ATT2] J.  Schmidhuber. Learning algorithms for networks with internal and external feedback. In D. S. Touretzky, J. L. Elman, T. J. Sejnowski, and G. E. Hinton, editors, Proc. of the 1990 Connectionist Models Summer School, pages 52-61. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1990. PS. (PDF.)

[ATT3] H. Larochelle, G. E. Hinton. Learning to combine foveal glimpses with a third-order Boltzmann machine. NIPS 2010. Very similar to [ATT0-2].

[ATT14] D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, Y. Bengio. Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. 2014-16. Preprint arXiv/1409.0473, 2014-16.

[AV1] A. Vance. Google Amazon and Facebook Owe Jürgen Schmidhuber a Fortune—This Man Is the Godfather the AI Community Wants to Forget. Business Week, Bloomberg, May 15, 2018.

[AV2] A. Vance. Apple and Its Rivals Bet Their Futures on These Men's Dreams. Business Week, Bloomberg, May 17, 2018.

[BAU] F. L. Bauer, H. Woessner (1972). The "Plankalkül" of Konrad Zuse: A Forerunner of Today's Programming Languages.

[BB2] J. Schmidhuber. A local learning algorithm for dynamic feedforward and recurrent networks. Connection Science, 1(4):403-412, 1989. (The Neural Bucket Brigade—figures omitted!). PDF. HTML. Compare TR FKI-124-90, TUM, 1990. PDF.

[BIB3] W. Bibel (2003). Mosaiksteine einer Wissenschaft vom Geiste. Invited talk at the conference on AI and Gödel, Arnoldsheim, 4-6 April 2003. Manuscript, 2003.

[BM] D. Ackley, G. Hinton, T. Sejnowski (1985). A Learning Algorithm for Boltzmann Machines. Cognitive Science, 9(1):147-169.

[BOU] H Bourlard, N Morgan (1993). Connectionist speech recognition. Kluwer, 1993.

[BPA] H. J. Kelley. Gradient Theory of Optimal Flight Paths. ARS Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 947-954, 1960. Precursor of modern backpropagation.[BP1-4]

[BPB] A. E. Bryson. A gradient method for optimizing multi-stage allocation processes. Proc. Harvard Univ. Symposium on digital computers and their applications, 1961.

[BPC] S. E. Dreyfus. The numerical solution of variational problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 5(1): 30-45, 1962.

[BP1] S. Linnainmaa. The representation of the cumulative rounding error of an algorithm as a Taylor expansion of the local rounding errors. Master's Thesis (in Finnish), Univ. Helsinki, 1970. See chapters 6-7 and FORTRAN code on pages 58-60. PDF. See also BIT 16, 146-160, 1976. Link. The first publication on "modern" backpropagation, also known as the reverse mode of automatic differentiation.

[BP2] P. J. Werbos. Applications of advances in nonlinear sensitivity analysis. In R. Drenick, F. Kozin, (eds): System Modeling and Optimization: Proc. IFIP, Springer, 1982. PDF. First application of backpropagation[BP1] to NNs (concretizing thoughts in his 1974 thesis).

[BP4] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2014; updated 2020). Who invented backpropagation? More.[DL2]

[BP5] A. Griewank (2012). Who invented the reverse mode of differentiation? Documenta Mathematica, Extra Volume ISMP (2012): 389-400.

[BP6] S. I. Amari (1977). Neural Theory of Association and Concept Formation. Biological Cybernetics, vol. 26, p. 175-185, 1977. See Section 3.1 on using gradient descent for learning in multilayer networks.

[BPTT1] P. J. Werbos. Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it. Proceedings of the IEEE 78.10, 1550-1560, 1990.

[BPTT2] R. J. Williams and D. Zipser. Gradient-based learning algorithms for recurrent networks. In: Backpropagation: Theory, architectures, and applications, p 433, 1995.

[BRI] Bridle, J.S. (1990). Alpha-Nets: A Recurrent "Neural" Network Architecture with a Hidden Markov Model Interpretation, Speech Communication, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 83-92.

[BW] H. Bourlard, C. J. Wellekens (1989). Links between Markov models and multilayer perceptrons. NIPS 1989, p. 502-510.

[CAPS] S. Sabour, N. Frosst, G. E. Hinton (2017). Dynamic routing between capsules. Proc. NIPS 2017, pp. 3856-3866.

[CDI] G. E. Hinton. Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence. Neural computation 14.8 (2002): 1771-1800.

[CHU] A. Church (1935). An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 41: 332-333. Abstract of a talk given on 19 April 1935, to the American Mathematical Society. Also in American Journal of Mathematics, 58(2), 345-363 (1 Apr 1936). First explicit proof that the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) does not have a general solution.

[CMB] C. v. d. Malsburg (1973). Self-Organization of Orientation Sensitive Cells in the Striate Cortex. Kybernetik, 14:85-100, 1973. See Table 1 for rectified linear units or ReLUs. Possibly this was also the first work on applying an EM algorithm to neural nets.

[CNN1] K. Fukushima: Neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position—Neocognitron. Trans. IECE, vol. J62-A, no. 10, pp. 658-665, 1979. The first deep convolutional neural network architecture, with alternating convolutional layers and downsampling layers. In Japanese. English version: [CNN1+]. More in Scholarpedia.

[CNN1+] K. Fukushima: Neocognitron: a self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biological Cybernetics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 193-202 (April 1980). Link.

[CNN1a] A. Waibel. Phoneme Recognition Using Time-Delay Neural Networks. Meeting of IEICE, Tokyo, Japan, 1987. First application of backpropagation[BP1][BP2] and weight-sharing to a convolutional architecture.

[CNN1b] A. Waibel, T. Hanazawa, G. Hinton, K. Shikano and K. J. Lang. Phoneme recognition using time-delay neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 328-339, March 1989.

[CNN2] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, L. D. Jackel: Backpropagation Applied to Handwritten Zip Code Recognition, Neural Computation, 1(4):541-551, 1989. PDF.

[CNN3] Weng, J., Ahuja, N., and Huang, T. S. (1993). Learning recognition and segmentation of 3-D objects from 2-D images. Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. Computer Vision, Berlin, Germany, pp. 121-128. A CNN whose downsampling layers use Max-Pooling (which has become very popular) instead of Fukushima's Spatial Averaging.[CNN1]

[CNN4] M. A. Ranzato, Y. LeCun: A Sparse and Locally Shift Invariant Feature Extractor Applied to Document Images. Proc. ICDAR, 2007

[CO1] J. Koutnik, F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber (2010). Evolving Neural Networks in Compressed Weight Space. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2010), Portland, 2010. PDF.

[CO2] J. Koutnik, G. Cuccu, J. Schmidhuber, F. Gomez. Evolving Large-Scale Neural Networks for Vision-Based Reinforcement Learning. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), Amsterdam, July 2013. PDF.

[CO3] R. K. Srivastava, J. Schmidhuber, F. Gomez. Generalized Compressed Network Search. Proc. GECCO 2012. PDF.

[CTC] A. Graves, S. Fernandez, F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. ICML 06, Pittsburgh, 2006. PDF.

[CUB0] R. J. Williams. Complexity of exact gradient computation algorithms for recurrent neural networks. Technical Report NU-CCS-89-27, Northeastern University, College of Computer Science, 1989.

[CW] J. Koutnik, K. Greff, F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber. A Clockwork RNN. Proc. 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), p. 1845-1853, Beijing, 2014. Preprint arXiv:1402.3511 [cs.NE].

[DAN] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). 10-year anniversary. In 2011, DanNet triggered the deep convolutional neural network (CNN) revolution. Named after my outstanding postdoc Dan Ciresan, it was the first deep and fast CNN to win international computer vision contests, and had a temporary monopoly on winning them, driven by a very fast implementation based on graphics processing units (GPUs). 1st superhuman result in 2011.[DAN1] Now everybody is using this approach.

[DAN1] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2011; updated 2021 for 10th birthday of DanNet): First superhuman visual pattern recognition. At the IJCNN 2011 computer vision competition in Silicon Valley, our artificial neural network called DanNet performed twice better than humans, three times better than the closest artificial competitor, and six times better than the best non-neural method.

[DEC] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 02/20/2020, revised 2021). The 2010s: Our Decade of Deep Learning / Outlook on the 2020s. The recent decade's most important developments and industrial applications based on our AI, with an outlook on the 2020s, also addressing privacy and data markets.

[DEEP1] Ivakhnenko, A. G. and Lapa, V. G. (1965). Cybernetic Predicting Devices. CCM Information Corporation. First working Deep Learners with many layers, learning internal representations.

[DEEP1a] Ivakhnenko, Alexey Grigorevich. The group method of data of handling; a rival of the method of stochastic approximation. Soviet Automatic Control 13 (1968): 43-55.

[DEEP2] Ivakhnenko, A. G. (1971). Polynomial theory of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, (4):364-378.

[DIST1] J. Schmidhuber, 1991.[UN-UN2]

[DIST2] O. Vinyals, J. A. Dean, G. E. Hinton. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. Preprint arXiv:1503.02531 [stat.ML], 2015.

[DL1] J. Schmidhuber, 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks, 61, 85-117. More. Got the first Best Paper Award ever issued by the journal Neural Networks, founded in 1988.

[DL2] J. Schmidhuber, 2015. Deep Learning. Scholarpedia, 10(11):32832.

[DL3] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton (2015). Deep Learning. Nature 521, 436-444. HTML. A "survey" of deep learning that does not mention the pioneering works of deep learning.

[DL3a] Y. Bengio, Y. LeCun, G. Hinton (2021). Turing Lecture: Deep Learning for AI. Communications of the ACM, July 2021. HTML. Local copy (HTML only). Another "survey" of deep learning that does not mention the pioneering works of deep learning.

[DL4] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2017). Our impact on the world's most valuable public companies: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon... By 2015-17, neural nets developed in my labs were on over 3 billion devices such as smartphones, and used many billions of times per day, consuming a significant fraction of the world's compute. Examples: greatly improved (CTC-based) speech recognition on all Android phones, greatly improved machine translation through Google Translate and Facebook (over 4 billion LSTM-based translations per day), Apple's Siri and Quicktype on all iPhones, the answers of Amazon's Alexa, etc. Google's 2019 on-device speech recognition (on the phone, not the server) is still based on LSTM.

[DL6] F. Gomez and J. Schmidhuber. Co-evolving recurrent neurons learn deep memory POMDPs. In Proc. GECCO'05, Washington, D. C., pp. 1795-1802, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005. PDF.

[DL6a] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, Nov 2020). 15-year anniversary: 1st paper with "learn deep" in the title (2005). Our deep reinforcement learning & neuroevolution solved problems of depth 1000 and more.[DL6] Soon after its publication, everybody started talking about "deep learning." Causality or correlation?

[DL7] "Deep Learning ... moving beyond shallow machine learning since 2006!" Web site deeplearning.net of Y. Bengio's MILA (2015, retrieved May 2020; compare the version in the Internet Archive), referring to Hinton's[UN4] and Bengio's[UN5] unsupervised pre-training for deep NNs[UN4] (2006) although this type of deep learning dates back to 1991.[UN1-2][UN] Compare Sec. II & XVII & III.

[DLC] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, June 2015). Critique of Paper by "Deep Learning Conspiracy" (Nature 521 p 436). The inventor of an important method should get credit for inventing it. She may not always be the one who popularizes it. Then the popularizer should get credit for popularizing it (but not for inventing it).

[DM1] V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wierstra, M. Riedmiller. Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning. Tech Report, 19 Dec. 2013, arxiv:1312.5602.

[DM2] V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, S. Petersen, C. Beattie, A. Sadik, I. Antonoglou, H. King, D. Kumaran, D. Wierstra, S. Legg, D. Hassabis. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, vol. 518, p 1529, 26 Feb. 2015. Link.

[DM3] S. Stanford. DeepMind's AI, AlphaStar Showcases Significant Progress Towards AGI. Medium ML Memoirs, 2019. Alphastar has a "deep LSTM core."

[DNC] Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory. A. Graves, G. Wayne, M. Reynolds, T. Harley, I. Danihelka, A. Grabska-Barwinska, S. G. Colmenarejo, E. Grefenstette, T. Ramalho, J. Agapiou, A. P. Badia, K. M. Hermann, Y. Zwols, G. Ostrovski, A. Cain, H. King, C. Summerfield, P. Blunsom, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Hassabis. Nature, 538:7626, p 471, 2016.

[Drop1] S. J. Hanson (1990). A Stochastic Version of the Delta Rule, PHYSICA D,42, 265-272. Dropout is a variation of the stochastic delta rule—compare preprint arXiv:1808.03578, 2018.

[Drop2] N. Frazier-Logue, S. J. Hanson (2020). The Stochastic Delta Rule: Faster and More Accurate Deep Learning Through Adaptive Weight Noise. Neural Computation 32(5):1018-1032.

[FAKE] H. Hopf, A. Krief, G. Mehta, S. A. Matlin. Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science, May 2019. Quote: "Scientists must be willing to speak out when they see false information being presented in social media, traditional print or broadcast press" and "must speak out against false information and fake science in circulation and forcefully contradict public figures who promote it."

[FAST] C. v.d. Malsburg. Tech Report 81-2, Abteilung f. Neurobiologie, Max-Planck Institut f. Biophysik und Chemie, Goettingen, 1981. First paper on fast weights or dynamic links.

[FASTa] J. A. Feldman. Dynamic connections in neural networks. Biological Cybernetics, 46(1):27-39, 1982. 2nd paper on fast weights.

[FASTb] G. E. Hinton, D. C. Plaut. Using fast weights to deblur old memories. Proc. 9th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 177-186), 1987. Two types of weights with different learning rates.

[FB17] By 2017, Facebook used LSTM to handle over 4 billion automatic translations per day (The Verge, August 4, 2017); see also Facebook blog by J.M. Pino, A. Sidorov, N.F. Ayan (August 3, 2017)

[FM] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Flat minimum search finds simple nets. Technical Report FKI-200-94, Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München, December 1994. PDF.

[FWP] J.  Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 26 March 2021). 26 March 1991: Neural nets learn to program neural nets with fast weights—like Transformer variants. 2021: New stuff! 30-year anniversary of a now popular alternative[FWP0-1] to recurrent NNs. A slow feedforward NN learns by gradient descent to program the changes of the fast weights[FAST,FASTa] of another NN. Such Fast Weight Programmers[FWP0-6,FWPMETA1-7] can learn to memorize past data, e.g., by computing fast weight changes through additive outer products of self-invented activation patterns[FWP0-1] (now often called keys and values for self-attention[TR1-6]). The similar Transformers[TR1-2] combine this with projections and softmax and are now widely used in natural language processing. For long input sequences, their efficiency was improved through linear Transformers or Performers[TR5-6] which are formally equivalent to the 1991 Fast Weight Programmers (apart from normalization). In 1993, I introduced the attention terminology[FWP2] now used in this context,[ATT] and extended the approach to RNNs that program themselves.

[FWP0] J.  Schmidhuber. Learning to control fast-weight memories: An alternative to recurrent nets. Technical Report FKI-147-91, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 26 March 1991. PDF. First paper on fast weight programmers: a slow net learns by gradient descent to compute weight changes of a fast net.

[FWP1] J. Schmidhuber. Learning to control fast-weight memories: An alternative to recurrent nets. Neural Computation, 4(1):131-139, 1992. PDF. HTML. Pictures (German).

[FWP2] J. Schmidhuber. Reducing the ratio between learning complexity and number of time-varying variables in fully recurrent nets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Amsterdam, pages 460-463. Springer, 1993. PDF. First recurrent fast weight programmer based on outer products. Introduced the terminology of learning "internal spotlights of attention."

[FWP3] I. Schlag, J. Schmidhuber. Gated Fast Weights for On-The-Fly Neural Program Generation. Workshop on Meta-Learning, @N(eur)IPS 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA.

[FWP3a] I. Schlag, J. Schmidhuber. Learning to Reason with Third Order Tensor Products. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (N(eur)IPS), Montreal, 2018. Preprint: arXiv:1811.12143. PDF.

[FWP4a] J. Ba, G. Hinton, V. Mnih, J. Z. Leibo, C. Ionescu. Using Fast Weights to Attend to the Recent Past. NIPS 2016. PDF. Like [FWP0-2].

[FWP4b] D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, Y. Bengio (2014). Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. Preprint arXiv:1409.0473 [cs.CL].

[FWP4d] Y. Tang, D. Nguyen, D. Ha (2020). Neuroevolution of Self-Interpretable Agents. Preprint: arXiv:2003.08165.

[FWP5] F. J. Gomez and J. Schmidhuber. Evolving modular fast-weight networks for control. In W. Duch et al. (Eds.): Proc. ICANN'05, LNCS 3697, pp. 383-389, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. PDF. HTML overview. Reinforcement-learning fast weight programmer.

[FWP6] I. Schlag, K. Irie, J. Schmidhuber. Linear Transformers Are Secretly Fast Weight Programmers. ICML 2021. Preprint: arXiv:2102.11174.

[FWP7] K. Irie, I. Schlag, R. Csordas, J. Schmidhuber. Going Beyond Linear Transformers with Recurrent Fast Weight Programmers. Preprint: arXiv:2106.06295 (June 2021).

[FWPMETA1] J. Schmidhuber. Steps towards `self-referential' learning. Technical Report CU-CS-627-92, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Colorado at Boulder, November 1992. First recurrent fast weight programmer that can learn to run a learning algorithm or weight change algorithm on itself.

[FWPMETA2] J. Schmidhuber. A self-referential weight matrix. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Amsterdam, pages 446-451. Springer, 1993. PDF.

[FWPMETA3] J. Schmidhuber. An introspective network that can learn to run its own weight change algorithm. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks, Brighton, pages 191-195. IEE, 1993.

[FWPMETA4] J.  Schmidhuber. A neural network that embeds its own meta-levels. In Proc. of the International Conference on Neural Networks '93, San Francisco. IEEE, 1993.

[FWPMETA5] J. Schmidhuber. Habilitation thesis, TUM, 1993. PDF. A recurrent neural net with a self-referential, self-reading, self-modifying weight matrix can be found here.

[FWPMETA6] L. Kirsch and J. Schmidhuber. Meta Learning Backpropagation & Improving It. Metalearning Workshop at NeurIPS, 2020. Preprint arXiv:2012.14905 [cs.LG], 2020.

[FWPMETA7] I. Schlag, T. Munkhdalai, J. Schmidhuber. Learning Associative Inference Using Fast Weight Memory. To appear at ICLR 2021. Report arXiv:2011.07831 [cs.AI], 2020.

[G63] R. J Glauber (1963). Time-dependent statistics of the Ising model. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 4(2):294-307, 1963.

[GSR] H. Sak, A. Senior, K. Rao, F. Beaufays, J. Schalkwyk—Google Speech Team. Google voice search: faster and more accurate. Google Research Blog, Sep 2015, see also Aug 2015 Google's speech recognition based on CTC and LSTM.

[GSR15] Dramatic improvement of Google's speech recognition through LSTM: Alphr Technology, Jul 2015, or 9to5google, Jul 2015

[GSR19] Y. He, T. N. Sainath, R. Prabhavalkar, I. McGraw, R. Alvarez, D. Zhao, D. Rybach, A. Kannan, Y. Wu, R. Pang, Q. Liang, D. Bhatia, Y. Shangguan, B. Li, G. Pundak, K. Chai Sim, T. Bagby, S. Chang, K. Rao, A. Gruenstein. Streaming end-to-end speech recognition for mobile devices. ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2019.

[GT16] Google's dramatically improved Google Translate of 2016 is based on LSTM, e.g., WIRED, Sep 2016, or siliconANGLE, Sep 2016

[GAN0] O. Niemitalo. A method for training artificial neural networks to generate missing data within a variable context. Blog post, Internet Archive, 2010. A blog post describing the basic ideas[AC][AC90, AC90b][AC20] of GANs.

[GAN1] I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. NIPS 2014, 2672-2680, Dec 2014. Description of GANs that does not cite the original work of 1990[AC][AC90,AC90b][AC20][R2] (also containing wrong claims about Predictability Minimization[PM0-2][AC20]).

[GAN2] T. Karras, S. Laine, T. Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4401-4410, 2019.

[GOD] K. Gödel. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38:173-198, 1931. In the early 1930s, Gödel founded theoretical computer science. He identified fundamental limits of mathematics and theorem proving and computing and Artificial Intelligence.

[GOD34] K. Gödel (1934). On undecidable propositions of formal mathematical systems. Notes by S. C. Kleene and J. B. Rosser on lectures at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, 1934, 30 pp. (Reprinted in M. Davis, (ed.), The Undecidable. Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems, and Computable Functions, Raven Press, Hewlett, New York, 1965.) Gödel introduced the first universal coding language.

[GOD56] R. J. Lipton and K. W. Regan. Gödel's lost letter and P=NP. Link.

[GOD86] K. Gödel. Collected works Volume I: Publications 1929-36, S. Feferman et. al., editors, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1986.

[GOD21] J. Schmidhuber (2021). 90th anniversary celebrations: 1931: Kurt Gödel, founder of theoretical computer science, shows limits of math, logic, computing, and artificial intelligence. This was number 1 on Hacker News.

[GOD21a] J. Schmidhuber (2021). Als Kurt Gödel die Grenzen des Berechenbaren entdeckte. (When Kurt Gödel discovered the limits of computability.) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16/6/2021.

[GOL] C. Goller & A. Küchler (1996). Learning task-dependent distributed representations by backpropagation through structure. Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'96). Vol. 1, p. 347-352 IEEE, 1996. Based on TR AR-95-02, TU Munich, 1995.

[GPT3] T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, D. Amodei. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners (2020). Preprint arXiv/2005.14165.

[GPUNN] Oh, K.-S. and Jung, K. (2004). GPU implementation of neural networks. Pattern Recognition, 37(6):1311-1314. Speeding up traditional NNs on GPU by a factor of 20.

[GPUCNN] K. Chellapilla, S. Puri, P. Simard. High performance convolutional neural networks for document processing. International Workshop on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, 2006. Speeding up shallow CNNs on GPU by a factor of 4.

[GPUCNN1] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, L. M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Flexible, High Performance Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2011, Barcelona), 2011. PDF. ArXiv preprint. Speeding up deep CNNs on GPU by a factor of 60. Used to win four important computer vision competitions 2011-2012 before others won any with similar approaches.

[GPUCNN2] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, J. Schmidhuber. A Committee of Neural Networks for Traffic Sign Classification. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN-2011, San Francisco), 2011. PDF. HTML overview. First superhuman performance in a computer vision contest, with half the error rate of humans, and one third the error rate of the closest competitor.[DAN1] This led to massive interest from industry.

[GPUCNN3] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Schmidhuber. Multi-column Deep Neural Networks for Image Classification. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR 2012, p 3642-3649, July 2012. PDF. Longer TR of Feb 2012: arXiv:1202.2745v1 [cs.CV]. More.

[GPUCNN4] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. E. Hinton. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. NIPS 25, MIT Press, Dec 2012. PDF.

[GPUCNN5] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2017; updated 2021 for 10th birthday of DanNet): History of computer vision contests won by deep CNNs since 2011. DanNet won 4 of them in a row before the similar AlexNet/VGG Net and the Resnet (a Highway Net with open gates) joined the party. Today, deep CNNs are standard in computer vision.

[GPUCNN6] J. Schmidhuber, D. Ciresan, U. Meier, J. Masci, A. Graves. On Fast Deep Nets for AGI Vision. In Proc. Fourth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-11), Google, Mountain View, California, 2011. PDF.

[GPUCNN7] D. C. Ciresan, A. Giusti, L. M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histology Images using Deep Neural Networks. MICCAI 2013. PDF.

[GPUCNN8] J. Schmidhuber. First deep learner to win a contest on object detection in large images— first deep learner to win a medical imaging contest (2012). HTML. How IDSIA used GPU-based CNNs to win the ICPR 2012 Contest on Mitosis Detection and the MICCAI 2013 Grand Challenge.

[GPUCNN9] K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. Preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).

[H86] J. L. van Hemmen (1986). Spin-glass models of a neural network. Phys. Rev. A 34, 3435, 1 Oct 1986.

[H88] H. Sompolinsky (1988). Statistical Mechanics of Neural Networks. Physics Today 41, 12, 70, 1988.

[H90] W. D. Hillis. Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1-3):228-234, 1990.

[HB96] S. El Hihi, Y. Bengio. Hierarchical recurrent neural networks for long-term dependencies. NIPS, 1996.

[HEL] P. Dayan, G. E. Hinton, R. M. Neal, and R. S. Zemel. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Computation, 7:889-904, 1995.

[HIN] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2020). Critique of Honda Prize for Dr. Hinton. Science must not allow corporate PR to distort the academic record.

[HRL0] J.  Schmidhuber. Towards compositional learning with dynamic neural networks. Technical Report FKI-129-90, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 1990. PDF.

[HRL1] J. Schmidhuber. Learning to generate sub-goals for action sequences. In T. Kohonen, K. Mäkisara, O. Simula, and J. Kangas, editors, Artificial Neural Networks, pages 967-972. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, 1991. PDF. Extending TR FKI-129-90, TUM, 1990. HTML & images in German.

[HRL2] J.  Schmidhuber and R. Wahnsiedler. Planning simple trajectories using neural subgoal generators. In J. A. Meyer, H. L. Roitblat, and S. W. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pages 196-202. MIT Press, 1992. PDF. HTML & images in German.

[HRL3] P. Dayan and G. E. Hinton. Feudal Reinforcement Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5, NIPS, 1992.

[HRL4] M. Wiering and J. Schmidhuber. HQ-Learning. Adaptive Behavior 6(2):219-246, 1997. PDF.

[HW1] R. K. Srivastava, K. Greff, J. Schmidhuber. Highway networks. Preprints arXiv:1505.00387 (May 2015) and arXiv:1507.06228 (July 2015). Also at NIPS 2015. The first working very deep feedforward nets with over 100 layers (previous NNs had at most a few tens of layers). Let g, t, h, denote non-linear differentiable functions. Each non-input layer of a highway net computes g(x)x + t(x)h(x), where x is the data from the previous layer. (Like LSTM with forget gates[LSTM2] for RNNs.) Resnets[HW2] are a version of this where the gates are always open: g(x)=t(x)=const=1. Highway Nets perform roughly as well as ResNets[HW2] on ImageNet.[HW3] Highway layers are also often used for natural language processing, where the simpler residual layers do not work as well.[HW3] More.

[HW1a] R. K. Srivastava, K. Greff, J. Schmidhuber. Highway networks. Presentation at the Deep Learning Workshop, ICML'15, July 10-11, 2015. Link.

[HW2] He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. Preprint arXiv:1512.03385 (Dec 2015). Residual nets are a version of Highway Nets[HW1] where the gates are always open: g(x)=1 (a typical highway net initialization) and t(x)=1. More.

[HW3] K. Greff, R. K. Srivastava, J. Schmidhuber. Highway and Residual Networks learn Unrolled Iterative Estimation. Preprint arxiv:1612.07771 (2016). Also at ICLR 2017.

[HYB12] Hinton, G. E., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G. E., Mohamed, A., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V., Nguyen, P., Sainath, T. N., and Kingsbury, B. (2012). Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 29(6):82-97.

[I25] E. Ising (1925). Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus. Z. Phys., 31 (1): 253-258, 1925.

[IM09] J. Deng, R. Socher, L.J. Li, K. Li, L. Fei-Fei (2009). Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 248-255). IEEE, 2009.

[JOU17] Jouppi et al. (2017). In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit. Preprint arXiv:1704.04760

[K41] H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier (1941). Statistics of the Two-Dimensional Ferromagnet. Phys. Rev. 60, 252 and 263, 1941.

[K56] S.C. Kleene. Representation of Events in Nerve Nets and Finite Automata. Automata Studies, Editors: C.E. Shannon and J. McCarthy, Princeton University Press, p. 3-42, Princeton, N.J., 1956.

[KNU] D. E. Knuth, L. T. Pardo (1976). The Early Development of Programming Languages. Stanford University, Computer Science Department. PDF.

[KO2] J. Schmidhuber. Discovering neural nets with low Kolmogorov complexity and high generalization capability. Neural Networks, 10(5):857-873, 1997. PDF.

[KU] A. Küchler & C. Goller (1996). Inductive learning in symbolic domains using structure-driven recurrent neural networks. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 1137. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[L20] W. Lenz (1920). Beitraege zum Verständnis der magnetischen Eigenschaften in festen Körpern. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 21: 613-615.

[LAN] J. L. Ba, J. R.Kiros, G. E. Hinton. Layer Normalization. arXiv:1607.06450, 2016.

[LECP] Y. LeCun. A New Publishing Model in Computer Science. Pamphlet, 2000-2004. Local copy (HTML only).

[LEI21] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). 375th birthday of Leibniz, founder of computer science.

[LEI21a] J. Schmidhuber (2021). Der erste Informatiker. Wie Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz den Computer erdachte. (The first computer scientist. How Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz conceived the computer.) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 17/5/2021. FAZ online: 19/5/2021.

[LIT21] M. L. Littman (2021). Collusion Rings Threaten the Integrity of Computer Science Research. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 64 No. 6, p. 43-44, June 2021.

[LSTM0] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. TR FKI-207-95, TUM, August 1995. PDF.

[LSTM1] S. Hochreiter, J. Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735-1780, 1997. PDF. Based on [LSTM0]. More.

[LSTM2] F. A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, F. Cummins. Learning to Forget: Continual Prediction with LSTM. Neural Computation, 12(10):2451-2471, 2000. PDF. The "vanilla LSTM architecture" with forget gates that everybody is using today, e.g., in Google's Tensorflow.

[LSTM3] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM and other neural network architectures. Neural Networks, 18:5-6, pp. 602-610, 2005. PDF.

[LSTM4] S. Fernandez, A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. An application of recurrent neural networks to discriminative keyword spotting. Intl. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks ICANN'07, 2007. PDF.

[LSTM5] A. Graves, M. Liwicki, S. Fernandez, R. Bertolami, H. Bunke, J. Schmidhuber. A Novel Connectionist System for Improved Unconstrained Handwriting Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 31, no. 5, 2009. PDF.

[LSTM6] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Offline Handwriting Recognition with Multidimensional Recurrent Neural Networks. NIPS'22, p 545-552, Vancouver, MIT Press, 2009. PDF.

[LSTM7] J. Bayer, D. Wierstra, J. Togelius, J. Schmidhuber. Evolving memory cell structures for sequence learning. Proc. ICANN-09, Cyprus, 2009. PDF.

[LSTM8] A. Graves, A. Mohamed, G. E. Hinton. Speech Recognition with Deep Recurrent Neural Networks. ICASSP 2013, Vancouver, 2013. PDF.

[LSTM9] O. Vinyals, L. Kaiser, T. Koo, S. Petrov, I. Sutskever, G. Hinton. Grammar as a Foreign Language. Preprint arXiv:1412.7449 [cs.CL].

[LSTM10] A. Graves, D. Eck and N. Beringer, J. Schmidhuber. Biologically Plausible Speech Recognition with LSTM Neural Nets. In J. Ijspeert (Ed.), First Intl. Workshop on Biologically Inspired Approaches to Advanced Information Technology, Bio-ADIT 2004, Lausanne, Switzerland, p. 175-184, 2004. PDF.

[LSTM11] N. Beringer and A. Graves and F. Schiel and J. Schmidhuber. Classifying unprompted speech by retraining LSTM Nets. In W. Duch et al. (Eds.): Proc. Intl. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks ICANN'05, LNCS 3696, pp. 575-581, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.

[LSTM12] D. Wierstra, F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber. Modeling systems with internal state using Evolino. In Proc. of the 2005 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO), Washington, D. C., pp. 1795-1802, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005. Got a GECCO best paper award.

[LSTM13] F. A. Gers and J. Schmidhuber. LSTM Recurrent Networks Learn Simple Context Free and Context Sensitive Languages. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 12(6):1333-1340, 2001. PDF.

[LSTM14] S. Fernandez, A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Sequence labelling in structured domains with hierarchical recurrent neural networks. In Proc. IJCAI 07, p. 774-779, Hyderabad, India, 2007 (talk). PDF.

[LSTM15] A. Graves, J. Schmidhuber. Offline Handwriting Recognition with Multidimensional Recurrent Neural Networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22, NIPS'22, p 545-552, Vancouver, MIT Press, 2009. PDF.

[LSTM16] M. Stollenga, W. Byeon, M. Liwicki, J. Schmidhuber. Parallel Multi-Dimensional LSTM, With Application to Fast Biomedical Volumetric Image Segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015. Preprint: arxiv:1506.07452.

[LSTM17] J. A. Perez-Ortiz, F. A. Gers, D. Eck, J. Schmidhuber. Kalman filters improve LSTM network performance in problems unsolvable by traditional recurrent nets. Neural Networks 16(2):241-250, 2003. PDF.

[LSTMPG] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, Dec 2020). 10-year anniversary of our journal paper on deep reinforcement learning with policy gradients for LSTM (2007-2010). Recent famous applications: DeepMind's Starcraft player (2019) and OpenAI's dextrous robot hand & Dota player (2018)—Bill Gates called this a huge milestone in advancing AI.

[LSTM-RL] B. Bakker, F. Linaker, J. Schmidhuber. Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Mobile Robot Domains Using Unsupervised Event Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2002), Lausanne, 2002. PDF.

[LSTMGRU] J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, Y. Bengio (2014). Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling. Preprint arXiv:1412.3555 [cs.NE].

[LSTMGRU2] G. Weiss, Y. Goldberg, E. Yahav. On the Practical Computational Power of Finite Precision RNNs for Language Recognition. Preprint arXiv:1805.04908.

[LSTMGRU3] D. Britz et al. (2017). Massive Exploration of Neural Machine Translation Architectures. Preprint arXiv:1703.03906

[M69] M. Minsky, S. Papert. Perceptrons (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969).

[MC43] W. S. McCulloch, W. Pitts. A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, Vol. 5, p. 115-133, 1943.

[META] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2020). 1/3 century anniversary of first publication on metalearning machines that learn to learn (1987). For its cover I drew a robot that bootstraps itself. 1992-: gradient descent-based neural metalearning. 1994-: Meta-Reinforcement Learning with self-modifying policies. 1997: Meta-RL plus artificial curiosity and intrinsic motivation. 2002-: asymptotically optimal metalearning for curriculum learning. 2003-: mathematically optimal Gödel Machine. 2020: new stuff!

[META1] J.  Schmidhuber. Evolutionary principles in self-referential learning, or on learning how to learn: The meta-meta-... hook. Diploma thesis, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 1987. Searchable PDF scan (created by OCRmypdf which uses LSTM). HTML. For example, Genetic Programming (GP) is applied to itself, to recursively evolve better GP methods through Meta-Evolution. More.

[MGC] MICCAI 2013 Grand Challenge on Mitosis Detection, organised by M. Veta, M.A. Viergever, J.P.W. Pluim, N. Stathonikos, P. J. van Diest of University Medical Center Utrecht.

[MIR] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2019). Deep Learning: Our Miraculous Year 1990-1991. Preprint arXiv:2005.05744, 2020. The deep learning neural networks of our team have revolutionised pattern recognition and machine learning, and are now heavily used in academia and industry. In 2020-21, we celebrate that many of the basic ideas behind this revolution were published within fewer than 12 months in our "Annus Mirabilis" 1990-1991 at TU Munich.

[MLP1] D. C. Ciresan, U. Meier, L. M. Gambardella, J. Schmidhuber. Deep Big Simple Neural Nets For Handwritten Digit Recognition. Neural Computation 22(12): 3207-3220, 2010. ArXiv Preprint. Showed that plain backprop for deep standard NNs is sufficient to break benchmark records, without any unsupervised pre-training.

[MLP2] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, Sep 2020). 10-year anniversary of supervised deep learning breakthrough (2010). No unsupervised pre-training. By 2010, when compute was 100 times more expensive than today, both our feedforward NNs[MLP1] and our earlier recurrent NNs were able to beat all competing algorithms on important problems of that time. This deep learning revolution quickly spread from Europe to North America and Asia. The rest is history.

[MOST] J.  Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). The most cited neural networks all build on work done in my labs. Foundations of the most popular NNs originated in my labs at TU Munich and IDSIA. Here I mention: (1) Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), (2) ResNet (which is our earlier Highway Net with open gates), (3) AlexNet and VGG Net (both citing our similar earlier DanNet: the first deep convolutional NN to win image recognition competitions), (4) Generative Adversarial Networks (an instance of my earlier Adversarial Artificial Curiosity), and (5) variants of Transformers (linear Transformers are formally equivalent to my earlier Fast Weight Programmers). Most of this started with our Annus Mirabilis of 1990-1991.[MIR]

[MOZ] M. Mozer. A Focused Backpropagation Algorithm for Temporal Pattern Recognition. Complex Systems, 1989.

[NAS] B. Zoph, Q. V. Le. Neural Architecture Search with Reinforcement Learning. Preprint arXiv:1611.01578 (PDF), 2017.

[NASC1] J. Schmidhuber. First Pow(d)ered flight / plane truth. Correspondence, Nature, 421 p 689, Feb 2003.

[NASC2] J. Schmidhuber. Zooming in on aviation history. Correspondence, Nature, vol 566, p 39, 7 Feb 2019.

[NASC3] J. Schmidhuber. The last inventor of the telephone. Letter, Science, 319, no. 5871, p. 1759, March 2008.

[NASC4] J. Schmidhuber. Turing: Keep his work in perspective. Correspondence, Nature, vol 483, p 541, March 2012, doi:10.1038/483541b.

[NASC5] J. Schmidhuber. Turing in Context. Letter, Science, vol 336, p 1639, June 2012. (On Gödel, Zuse, Turing.) See also comment on response by A. Hodges (DOI:10.1126/science.336.6089.1639-a)

[NASC6] J. Schmidhuber. Colossus was the first electronic digital computer. Correspondence, Nature, 441 p 25, May 2006.

[NASC7] J. Schmidhuber. Turing's impact. Correspondence, Nature, 429 p 501, June 2004

[NASC8] J. Schmidhuber. Prototype resilient, self-modeling robots. Correspondence, Science, 316, no. 5825 p 688, May 2007.

[NASC9] J. Schmidhuber. Comparing the legacies of Gauss, Pasteur, Darwin. Correspondence, Nature, vol 452, p 530, April 2008.

[NAT1] J. Schmidhuber. Citation bubble about to burst? Nature, vol. 469, p. 34, 6 January 2011. HTML.

[NHE] J. Schmidhuber. The Neural Heat Exchanger. Oral presentations since 1990 at various universities including TUM and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Also in In S. Amari, L. Xu, L. Chan, I. King, K. Leung, eds., Proceedings of the Intl. Conference on Neural Information Processing (1996), pages 194-197, Springer, Hongkong. Link.

[NPM] Y. Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent, C. Jauvin (2003). A Neural Probabilistic Language Model. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, p 1137-1155, 2003.

[NS56] A. Newell and H. Simon. The logic theory machine—A complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2.3 (1956):61-79.

[NYT1] NY Times article by J. Markoff, Nov. 27, 2016: When A.I. Matures, It May Call Jürgen Schmidhuber 'Dad'

[NYT3] NY Times article by G. Lewis-Kraus, Dec. 14, 2016: The Great A.I. Awakening

[OAI1] G. Powell, J. Schneider, J. Tobin, W. Zaremba, A. Petron, M. Chociej, L. Weng, B. McGrew, S. Sidor, A. Ray, P. Welinder, R. Jozefowicz, M. Plappert, J. Pachocki, M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker. Learning Dexterity. OpenAI Blog, 2018.

[OAI1a] OpenAI, M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker, M. Chociej, R. Jozefowicz, B. McGrew, J. Pachocki, A. Petron, M. Plappert, G. Powell, A. Ray, J. Schneider, S. Sidor, J. Tobin, P. Welinder, L. Weng, W. Zaremba. Learning Dexterous In-Hand Manipulation. arxiv:1312.5602 (PDF).

[OAI2] OpenAI: C. Berner, G. Brockman, B. Chan, V. Cheung, P. Debiak, C. Dennison, D. Farhi, Q. Fischer, S. Hashme, C. Hesse, R. Jozefowicz, S. Gray, C. Olsson, J. Pachocki, M. Petrov, H. P. de Oliveira Pinto, J. Raiman, T. Salimans, J. Schlatter, J. Schneider, S. Sidor, I. Sutskever, J. Tang, F. Wolski, S. Zhang (Dec 2019). Dota 2 with Large Scale Deep Reinforcement Learning. Preprint arxiv:1912.06680. An LSTM composes 84% of the model's total parameter count.

[OAI2a] J. Rodriguez. The Science Behind OpenAI Five that just Produced One of the Greatest Breakthrough in the History of AI. Towards Data Science, 2018. An LSTM with 84% of the model's total parameter count was the core of OpenAI Five.

[PDA1] G.Z. Sun, H.H. Chen, C.L. Giles, Y.C. Lee, D. Chen. Neural Networks with External Memory Stack that Learn Context—Free Grammars from Examples. Proceedings of the 1990 Conference on Information Science and Systems, Vol.II, pp. 649-653, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1990.

[PDA2] M. Mozer, S. Das. A connectionist symbol manipulator that discovers the structure of context-free languages. Proc. NIPS 1993.

[PG] R. J. Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine Learning 8.3-4: 229-256, 1992.

[PHD] J.  Schmidhuber. Dynamische neuronale Netze und das fundamentale raumzeitliche Lernproblem (Dynamic neural nets and the fundamental spatio-temporal credit assignment problem). Dissertation, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 1990. PDF. HTML.

[PLAN] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2020). 30-year anniversary of planning & reinforcement learning with recurrent world models and artificial curiosity (1990). This work also introduced high-dimensional reward signals, deterministic policy gradients for RNNs, the GAN principle (widely used today). Agents with adaptive recurrent world models even suggest a simple explanation of consciousness & self-awareness.

[PLAN2] J.  Schmidhuber. An on-line algorithm for dynamic reinforcement learning and planning in reactive environments. Proc. IEEE/INNS International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, San Diego, volume 2, pages 253-258, 1990. Based on TR FKI-126-90 (1990).[AC90] More.

[PLAN3] J.  Schmidhuber. Reinforcement learning in Markovian and non-Markovian environments. In D. S. Lippman, J. E. Moody, and D. S. Touretzky, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3, NIPS'3, pages 500-506. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1991. PDF. Partially based on TR FKI-126-90 (1990).[AC90]

[PLAN4] J. Schmidhuber. On Learning to Think: Algorithmic Information Theory for Novel Combinations of Reinforcement Learning Controllers and Recurrent Neural World Models. Report arXiv:1210.0118 [cs.AI], 2015.

[PLAN5] One Big Net For Everything. Preprint arXiv:1802.08864 [cs.AI], Feb 2018.

[PLAN6] D. Ha, J. Schmidhuber. Recurrent World Models Facilitate Policy Evolution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Montreal, 2018. (Talk.) Preprint: arXiv:1809.01999. Github: World Models.

[PM0] J. Schmidhuber. Learning factorial codes by predictability minimization. TR CU-CS-565-91, Univ. Colorado at Boulder, 1991. PDF. More.

[PM1] J. Schmidhuber. Learning factorial codes by predictability minimization. Neural Computation, 4(6):863-879, 1992. Based on [PM0], 1991. PDF. More.

[PM2] J. Schmidhuber, M. Eldracher, B. Foltin. Semilinear predictability minimzation produces well-known feature detectors. Neural Computation, 8(4):773-786, 1996. PDF. More.

[PO87] J. B. Pollack. On Connectionist Models of Natural Language Processing. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1987.

[PO90] J. B. Pollack. Recursive Distributed Representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(1-2):77-105, 1990.

[PP] J. Schmidhuber. POWERPLAY: Training an Increasingly General Problem Solver by Continually Searching for the Simplest Still Unsolvable Problem. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 2013. ArXiv preprint (2011): arXiv:1112.5309 [cs.AI]

[PP1] R. K. Srivastava, B. Steunebrink, J. Schmidhuber. First Experiments with PowerPlay. Neural Networks, 2013. ArXiv preprint (2012): arXiv:1210.8385 [cs.AI].

[PP2] V. Kompella, M. Stollenga, M. Luciw, J. Schmidhuber. Continual curiosity-driven skill acquisition from high-dimensional video inputs for humanoid robots. Artificial Intelligence, 2015.

Relevant threads with many comments at reddit.com/r/MachineLearning, the largest machine learning forum with over 800k subscribers in 2019 (note that my name is often misspelled):

[R1] Reddit/ML, 2019. Hinton, LeCun, Bengio receive ACM Turing Award.

[R2] Reddit/ML, 2019. J. Schmidhuber really had GANs in 1990.

[R3] Reddit/ML, 2019. NeurIPS 2019 Bengio Schmidhuber Meta-Learning Fiasco.

[R4] Reddit/ML, 2019. Five major deep learning papers by G. Hinton did not cite similar earlier work by J. Schmidhuber.

[R5] Reddit/ML, 2019. The 1997 LSTM paper by Hochreiter & Schmidhuber has become the most cited deep learning research paper of the 20th century.

[R6] Reddit/ML, 2019. DanNet, the CUDA CNN of Dan Ciresan in J. Schmidhuber's team, won 4 image recognition challenges prior to AlexNet.

[R7] Reddit/ML, 2019. J. Schmidhuber on Seppo Linnainmaa, inventor of backpropagation in 1970.

[R8] Reddit/ML, 2019. J. Schmidhuber on Alexey Ivakhnenko, godfather of deep learning 1965.

[R9] Reddit/ML, 2019. We find it extremely unfair that Schmidhuber did not get the Turing award. That is why we dedicate this song to Juergen to cheer him up.

[R11] Reddit/ML, 2020. Schmidhuber: Critique of Honda Prize for Dr. Hinton

[R12] Reddit/ML, 2020. J. Schmidhuber: Critique of Turing Award for Drs. Bengio & Hinton & LeCun

[R15] Reddit/ML, 2021. J. Schmidhuber's work on fast weights from 1991 is similar to linearized variants of Transformers

[R58] Rosenblatt, F. (1958). The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological review, 65(6):386.

[R61] Joseph, R. D. (1961). Contributions to perceptron theory. PhD thesis, Cornell Univ.

[R62] Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of Neurodynamics. Spartan, New York.

[RCNN] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, J. Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. Preprint arXiv/1311.2524, Nov 2013.

[RCNN2] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. Proc. of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, p. 1440-1448, 2015.

[RCNN3] K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Dollar, R. Girshick. Mask R-CNN. Preprint arXiv/1703.06870, 2017.

[RO98] R. Rojas (1998). How to make Zuse's Z3 a universal computer. IEEE Annals of Computing, vol. 19:3, 1998.

[RMSP] T. Tieleman, G. E. Hinton. Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude. COURSERA: Neural networks for machine learning 4.2 (2012): 26-31.

[ROB] A. J. Robinson and F. Fallside. The utility driven dynamic error propagation network. Technical Report CUED/F-INFENG/TR.1, Cambridge University Engineering Department, 1987.

[RPG] D. Wierstra, A. Foerster, J. Peters, J. Schmidhuber (2010). Recurrent policy gradients. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18(5), 620-634.

[RPG07] D. Wierstra, A. Foerster, J. Peters, J. Schmidhuber. Solving Deep Memory POMDPs with Recurrent Policy Gradients. Intl. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks ICANN'07, 2007. PDF.

[RUM] DE Rumelhart, GE Hinton, RJ Williams (1985). Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation. TR No. ICS-8506, California Univ San Diego La Jolla Inst for Cognitive Science. Later version published as: Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, p. 533-536 (1986). This experimental analysis of backpropagation did not cite the origin of the method,[BP1-4] also known as the reverse mode of automatic differentiation.

[S93] D. Sherrington (1993). Neural networks: the spin glass approach. North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol 51, 1993, p. 261-291.

[S20] T. Sejnowski. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep learning in artificial intelligence. PNAS, January 28, 2020. Link.

[S80] B. Speelpenning (1980). Compiling Fast Partial Derivatives of Functions Given by Algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

[S2S] I. Sutskever, O. Vinyals, Quoc V. Le. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2014, 3104-3112.

[S59] A. L. Samuel. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal on Research and Development, 3:210-229, 1959.

[SA17] J. Schmidhuber. Falling Walls: The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence. Scientific American, Observations, Nov 2017.

[SCAN] J. Masci, A. Giusti, D. Ciresan, G. Fricout, J. Schmidhuber. A Fast Learning Algorithm for Image Segmentation with Max-Pooling Convolutional Networks. ICIP 2013. Preprint arXiv:1302.1690.

[SHA37] C. E. Shannon (1938). A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits. Trans. AIEE. 57 (12): 713-723. Based on his thesis, MIT, 1937.

[SNT] J. Schmidhuber, S. Heil (1996). Sequential neural text compression. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, 1996. PDF. (An earlier version appeared at NIPS 1995.)

[SK75] D. Sherrington, S. Kirkpatrick (1975). Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass. Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1792, 1975.

[ST] J. Masci, U. Meier, D. Ciresan, G. Fricout, J. Schmidhuber Steel Defect Classification with Max-Pooling Convolutional Neural Networks. Proc. IJCNN 2012. PDF.

[SP93] A. Sperduti (1993). Encoding Labeled Graphs by Labeling RAAM. NIPS 1993: 1125-1132

[SP94] A. Sperduti (1994). Labelling Recursive Auto-associative Memory. Connect. Sci. 6(4): 429-459 (1994)

[SP95] A. Sperduti (1995). Stability properties of labeling recursive auto-associative memory. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 6(6): 1452-1460 (1995)

[SPG95] A. Sperduti, A. Starita, C. Goller (1995). Learning Distributed Representations for the Classification of Terms. IJCAI 1995: 509-517

[SPG96] A. Sperduti, D. Majidi, A. Starita (1996). Extended Cascade-Correlation for Syntactic and Structural Pattern Recognition. SSPR 1996: 90-99

[SPG97] A. Sperduti, A. Starita (1997). Supervised neural networks for the classification of structures. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 8(3): 714-735, 1997.

[SV20] S. Vazire (2020). A toast to the error detectors. Let 2020 be the year in which we value those who ensure that science is self-correcting. Nature, vol 577, p 9, 2/2/2020.

[T19] ACM's justification of the 2018 A.M. Turing Award (announced in 2019). WWW link. Local copy 1 (HTML only). Local copy 2 (HTML only).

[T20a] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 25 June 2020). Critique of 2018 Turing Award for Drs. Bengio & Hinton & LeCun. The first version of the present critique.

[THE17] S. Baker (2017). Which countries and universities are leading on AI research? Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2017. Link.

[TR1] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin (2017). Attention is all you need. NIPS 2017, pp. 5998-6008.

[TR2] J. Devlin, M. W. Chang, K. Lee, K. Toutanova (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Preprint arXiv:1810.04805.

[TR3] K. Tran, A. Bisazza, C. Monz. The Importance of Being Recurrent for Modeling Hierarchical Structure. EMNLP 2018, p 4731-4736. ArXiv preprint 1803.03585.

[TR4] M. Hahn. Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Volume 8, p.156-171, 2020.

[TR5] A. Katharopoulos, A. Vyas, N. Pappas, F. Fleuret. Transformers are RNNs: Fast autoregressive Transformers with linear attention. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML), July 2020.

[TR6] K. Choromanski, V. Likhosherstov, D. Dohan, X. Song, A. Gane, T. Sarlos, P. Hawkins, J. Davis, A. Mohiuddin, L. Kaiser, et al. Rethinking attention with Performers. In Int. Conf. on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021.

[TUR] A. M. Turing. On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, 41:230-267. Received 28 May 1936. Errata appeared in Series 2, 43, pp 544-546 (1937). 2nd explicit proof that the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) does not have a general solution.

[TUR21] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, Sep 2021). Turing Oversold. It's not Turing's fault, though.

[UN] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). 30-year anniversary. 1991: First very deep learning with unsupervised pre-training. Unsupervised hierarchical predictive coding finds compact internal representations of sequential data to facilitate downstream learning. The hierarchy can be distilled into a single deep neural network (suggesting a simple model of conscious and subconscious information processing). 1993: solving problems of depth >1000.

[UN0] J.  Schmidhuber. Neural sequence chunkers. Technical Report FKI-148-91, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, April 1991. PDF.

[UN1] J. Schmidhuber. Learning complex, extended sequences using the principle of history compression. Neural Computation, 4(2):234-242, 1992. Based on TR FKI-148-91, TUM, 1991.[UN0] PDF. First working Deep Learner based on a deep RNN hierarchy (with different self-organising time scales), overcoming the vanishing gradient problem through unsupervised pre-training and predictive coding. Also: compressing or distilling a teacher net (the chunker) into a student net (the automatizer) that does not forget its old skills—such approaches are now widely used. More.

[UN2] J. Schmidhuber. Habilitation thesis, TUM, 1993. PDF. An ancient experiment on "Very Deep Learning" with credit assignment across 1200 time steps or virtual layers and unsupervised pre-training for a stack of recurrent NN can be found here (depth > 1000).

[UN3] J.  Schmidhuber, M. C. Mozer, and D. Prelinger. Continuous history compression. In H. Hüning, S. Neuhauser, M. Raus, and W. Ritschel, editors, Proc. of Intl. Workshop on Neural Networks, RWTH Aachen, pages 87-95. Augustinus, 1993.

[UN4] G. E. Hinton, R. R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 504—507, 2006. PDF.

[UN5] Y. Bengio, P. Lamblin, D. Popovici, H. Larochelle. Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. Proc. NIPS 06, pages 153-160, Dec. 2006.

[URQ10] A. Urquhart. Von Neumann, Gödel and complexity theory. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16.4 (2010): 516-530. Link.

[VAN1] S. Hochreiter. Untersuchungen zu dynamischen neuronalen Netzen. Diploma thesis, TUM, 1991 (advisor J. Schmidhuber). PDF. More on the Fundamental Deep Learning Problem.

[VAN2] Y. Bengio, P. Simard, P. Frasconi. Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE TNN 5(2), p 157-166, 1994

[VAN3] S. Hochreiter, Y. Bengio, P. Frasconi, J. Schmidhuber. Gradient flow in recurrent nets: the difficulty of learning long-term dependencies. In S. C. Kremer and J. F. Kolen, eds., A Field Guide to Dynamical Recurrent Neural Networks. IEEE press, 2001. PDF.

[VAN4] Y. Bengio. Neural net language models. Scholarpedia, 3(1):3881, 2008. Link.

[VAR13] M. Y. Vardi (2013). Who begat computing? Communications of the ACM, Vol. 56(1):5, Jan 2013. Link.

[VID1] G. Hinton. The Next Generation of Neural Networks. Youtube video [see 28:16]. GoogleTechTalk, 2007. Quote: "Nobody in their right mind would ever suggest" to use plain backpropagation for training deep networks. But in 2010, our team showed[MLP1-2] that unsupervised pre-training is not necessary to train deep NNs.

[VID2] Bloomberg Hello World. The Rise of AI. Youtube video, 2018.

[W45] G. H. Wannier (1945). The Statistical Problem in Cooperative Phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 50.

[WU] Y. Wu et al. Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation. Preprint arXiv:1609.08144 (PDF), 2016. Based on LSTM which it mentions at least 50 times.

[XAV] X. Glorot, Y. Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. Proc. 13th Intl. Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR 9:249-256, 2010.

[YB20] Y. Bengio. Notable Past Research. WWW link (retrieved 15 May 2020). Local copy (plain HTML only).

[ZU36] K. Zuse (1936). Verfahren zur selbsttätigen Durchführung von Rechnungen mit Hilfe von Rechenmaschinen. Patent application Z 23 139 / GMD Nr. 005/021, 1936. First patent application describing a general, practical, program-controlled computer.

[ZU48] K. Zuse (1948). Über den Plankalkül als Mittel zur Formulierung schematisch kombinativer Aufgaben. Archiv der Mathematik 1(6), 441-449 (1948). PDF. Apparently the first practical design of an automatic theorem prover (based on Zuse's high-level programming language Plankalkül).

[ZUS21] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). 80th anniversary celebrations: 1941: Konrad Zuse completes the first working general computer, based on his 1936 patent application.

Deep Learning: Our Miraculous Year 1990-1991