A neural algorithm for a fundamental computing problem

Fly brain inspires computing algorithm Flies use an algorithmic neuronal strategy to sense and categorize odors. Dasgupta et al. applied insights from the fly system to come up with a solution to a computer science problem. On the basis of the algorithm that flies use to tag an odor and categorize similar ones, the authors generated a new solution to the nearest-neighbor search problem that underlies tasks such as searching for similar images on the web. Science, this issue p. 793 Smell circuitry in the fly brain reveals a superior strategy for a common computer science task. Similarity search—for example, identifying similar images in a database or similar documents on the web—is a fundamental computing problem faced by large-scale information retrieval systems. We discovered that the fruit fly olfactory circuit solves this problem with a variant of a computer science algorithm (called locality-sensitive hashing). The fly circuit assigns similar neural activity patterns to similar odors, so that behaviors learned from one odor can be applied when a similar odor is experienced. The fly algorithm, however, uses three computational strategies that depart from traditional approaches. These strategies can be translated to improve the performance of computational similarity searches. This perspective helps illuminate the logic supporting an important sensory function and provides a conceptually new algorithm for solving a fundamental computational problem.

[1]  C. Stevens A statistical property of fly odor responses is conserved across odors , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Alexandr Andoni,et al.  Near-Optimal Hashing Algorithms for Approximate Nearest Neighbor in High Dimensions , 2006, 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06).

[3]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Product Quantization for Nearest Neighbor Search , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[4]  Sanjoy Dasgupta,et al.  An elementary proof of a theorem of Johnson and Lindenstrauss , 2003, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[5]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Semantic hashing , 2009, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[6]  John Langford,et al.  Hash Kernels for Structured Data , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  Anshumali Shrivastava,et al.  Scalable and Sustainable Deep Learning via Randomized Hashing , 2016, KDD.

[8]  Dimitris Achlioptas,et al.  Database-friendly random projections: Johnson-Lindenstrauss with binary coins , 2003, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[9]  Donald A. Wilson,et al.  Cortical Processing of Odor Objects , 2011, Neuron.

[10]  Heng Tao Shen,et al.  Hashing for Similarity Search: A Survey , 2014, ArXiv.

[11]  L. Abbott,et al.  Random Convergence of Olfactory Inputs in the Drosophila Mushroom Body , 2013, Nature.

[12]  Svetlana Lazebnik,et al.  Iterative quantization: A procrustean approach to learning binary codes , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[13]  Ronald L. Davis,et al.  Altered Representation of the Spatial Code for Odors after Olfactory Classical Conditioning Memory Trace Formation by Synaptic Recruitment , 2004, Neuron.

[14]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Coding of Odors by a Receptor Repertoire , 2006, Cell.

[15]  John M. Bekkers,et al.  Neurons and circuits for odor processing in the piriform cortex , 2013, Trends in Neurosciences.

[16]  Shawn R. Olsen,et al.  Divisive Normalization in Olfactory Population Codes , 2010, Neuron.

[17]  Junfeng He,et al.  Optimal Parameters for Locality-Sensitive Hashing , 2012, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[18]  Charles F Stevens,et al.  What the fly’s nose tells the fly’s brain , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Nir Shavit,et al.  Johnson-Lindenstrauss Compression with Neuroscience-Based Constraints , 2014, ArXiv.

[20]  Nir Shavit,et al.  Sparse sign-consistent Johnson–Lindenstrauss matrices: Compression with neuroscience-based constraints , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Hanan Samet,et al.  Foundations of Multidimensional and Metric Data Structures (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics and Geometric Modeling) , 2005 .

[22]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Computational Tradeoffs in Biological Neural Networks: Self-Stabilizing Winner-Take-All Networks , 2016, ITCS.

[23]  Glenn C. Turner,et al.  Olfactory representations by Drosophila mushroom body neurons. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Yanqing Chen Mechanisms of Winner-Take-All and Group Selection in Neuronal Spiking Networks , 2017, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[25]  Matthew S. Grubb,et al.  Adult neurogenesis and functional plasticity in neuronal circuits , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[26]  Scott Waddell,et al.  Olfactory learning skews mushroom body output pathways to steer behavioral choice in Drosophila , 2015, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[27]  Andrew C. Lin,et al.  Sparse, Decorrelated Odor Coding in the Mushroom Body Enhances Learned Odor Discrimination , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition , 1998, Proc. IEEE.

[29]  Daniel M. Kane,et al.  Sparser Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms , 2010, JACM.

[30]  Haim Sompolinsky,et al.  Optimal Degrees of Synaptic Connectivity , 2017, Neuron.

[31]  L. Valiant What must a global theory of cortex explain? , 2014, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[32]  D. L. Donoho,et al.  Compressed sensing , 2006, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[33]  G. Laurent,et al.  Normalization for Sparse Encoding of Odors by a Wide-Field Interneuron , 2011, Science.