Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

Z ERO - BIAS AUTOENCODERS
CO - ADAPTING FEATURES

AND THE BENEFITS OF

arXiv:1402.3337v5 [stat.ML] 8 Apr 2015

Kishore Konda
Goethe University Frankfurt
Germany
konda.kishorereddy@gmail.com
Roland Memisevic
University of Montreal
Canada
roland.memisevic@umontreal.ca
David Krueger
University of Montreal
Canada
david.krueger@umontreal.ca

A BSTRACT
Regularized training of an autoencoder typically results in hidden unit biases that
take on large negative values. We show that negative biases are a natural result of
using a hidden layer whose responsibility is to both represent the input data and
act as a selection mechanism that ensures sparsity of the representation. We then
show that negative biases impede the learning of data distributions whose intrinsic
dimensionality is high. We also propose a new activation function that decouples
the two roles of the hidden layer and that allows us to learn representations on
data with very high intrinsic dimensionality, where standard autoencoders typically fail. Since the decoupled activation function acts like an implicit regularizer,
the model can be trained by minimizing the reconstruction error of training data,
without requiring any additional regularization.

1

I NTRODUCTION

Autoencoders are popular models used for learning features and pretraining deep networks. In their
simplest form, they are based on minimizing the squared error between an observation, x, and a
non-linear reconstruction defined as
X

r(x) =
h wkT x + bk wk + c
(1)
k

where wk and bk are weight vector and bias for hidden unit k, c is a vector of visible biases, and
h(·) is a hidden unit activation function. Popular choices of activation function are the sigmoid
−1
h(a) = 1 + exp(−a)
, or the rectified linear (ReLU) h(a) = max(0, a). Various regularization
schemes can be used to prevent trivial solutions when using a large number of hidden units. These
include corrupting inputs during learning Vincent et al. (2008), adding a “contraction” penalty which
forces derivatives of hidden unit activations to be small Rifai et al. (2011), or using sparsity penalties
Coates et al. (2011).
This work is motivated by the empirical observation that across a wide range of applications, hidden biases, bk , tend to take on large negative values when training an autoencoder with one of the
mentioned regularization schemes.
In this work, we show that negative hidden unit biases are at odds with some desirable properties
of the representations learned by the autoencoder. We also show that negative biases are a simple
1

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

75
Percentage accuracy

70

cAE Relu with bias
cAE Relu
cAE Sigmoid

65
60
55
50
45
400

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
number of features

Figure 1: Left: Filters learned by a sigmoid contractive autoencoder Rifai et al. (2011) (contraction
strength 1.0; left) and a ReLU denoising autoencoder Vincent et al. (2008) (zeromask-noise 0.5;
right) from CIFAR-10 patches, and resulting histograms over learned hidden unit biases. Right:
Classication accuracy on permutation invariant CIFAR-10 data using cAE with multiple different
inference schemes. All plots in this paper are best viewed in color.
consequence of the fact that hidden units in the autoencoder have the dual function of (1) selecting
which weight vectors take part in reconstructing a given training point, and (2) representing the
coefficients with which the selected weight vectors get combined to reconstruct the input (cf., Eq. 1).
To overcome the detrimental effects of negative biases, we then propose a new activation function
that allows us to disentangle these roles. We show that this yields features that increasingly outperform regularized autoencoders in recognition tasks of increasingly high dimensionality. Since the
regularization is “built” into the activation function, it allows us to train the autoencoder without additional regularization, like contraction or denoising, by simply minimizing reconstruction error. We
also show that using an encoding without negative biases at test-time in both this model and a contractive autoencoder achieves state-of-the-art performance on the permutation-invariant CIFAR-10
dataset.1
1.1

R ELATED WORK

Our analysis may help explain why in a network with linear hidden units, the optimal number of units
tends to be relatively small Ba & Frey (2013); Makhzani & Frey (2013). Training via thresholding,
which we introduce in Section 3, is loosely related to dropout Hinton et al. (2012), in that it forces
features to align with high-density regions. In contrast to dropout, our thresholding scheme is not
stochastic. Hidden activations and reconstructions are a deterministic function of the input. Other
related work is the work by Goroshin & LeCun (2013) who introduce a variety of new activation
functions for training autoencoders and argue for shrinking non-linearities (see also Hyvärinen et al.
(2004)), which set small activations to zero. In contrast to that work, we show that it is possible to
train autoencoders without additional regularization, when using the right type of shrinkage function.
Our work is also loosely related to Martens et al. (2013) who discuss limitations of RBMs with
binary observations.

2

N EGATIVE BIAS AUTOENCODERS

This work is motivated by the observation that regularized training of most common autoencoder
models tends to yield hidden unit biases which are negative. Figure 1 shows an experimental demonstration of this effect using whitened 6 × 6-CIFAR-10 color patches Krizhevsky & Hinton (2009).
Negative biases and sparse hidden units have also been shown to be important for obtaining good
features with an RBM Lee et al. (2008); Hinton (2010).
1
An example implementation of the zero-bias autoencoder in python is available at http://www.iro.
umontreal.ca/˜memisevr/code/zae/.

2

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

2.1

N EGATIVE BIASES ARE REQUIRED FOR LEARNING AND BAD IN THE ENCODING

Negative biases are arguably important for training autoencoders, especially overcomplete ones,
because they help constrain capacity and localize features. But they can have several undesirable
consequences on the encoding as we shall discuss.
Consider the effect of a negative bias on a hidden unit with “one-sided activation functions”, such as
ReLU or sigmoid (i.e. activations which asymptote at zero for increasingly negative preactivation):
On contrast-normalized data, it will act like a selection function, zeroing out the activities for points
whose inner product with the weight vector wk is small. As a result, the region on the hypersphere
that activates a hidden unit (ie. that yields a value that is significantly different from 0) will be a
spherical cap, whose size is determined by the size of the weight vector and the bias. When activations are defined by spherical caps, the model effectively defines a radial basis function network on
the hypersphere. (For data that is not normalized, it will still have the effect of limiting the number
of training examples for which the activation function gets active.)
As long as the regions where weight vectors become active do not overlap this will be equivalent to
clustering. In contrast to clustering, regions may of course overlap for the autoencoder. However,
as we show in the following on the basis of an autoencoder with ReLU hidden units and negative
biases, even where active regions merge, the model will resemble clustering, in that it will learn a
point attractor to represent that region. In other words, the model will not be able to let multiple
hidden units “collaborate” to define a multidimensional region of constant density.
2.1.1

M ODES OF THE DENSITY LEARNED BY A R E LU AUTOENCODER

We shall focus on autoencoders with ReLU activation function in the following. We add an approximate argument about sigmoid autoencoders in Section 2.1.2 below.
Consider points x with r(x) = x which can be reconstructed perfectly by the autoencoder. The set
of such points may be viewed as the mode of the true data generating density, or the true “manifold”
the autoencoder has to find.
For an input x, define the active set (see also Razvan Pascanu (2014)) as the set of hidden units
which yield a positive response: S(x) = {k : wkT x + bk > 0}. Let WS(x) denote the weight
matrix restricted to the active units. That is, WS(x) contains in its columns the weight vectors
associated with active hidden units for data point x. The fixed point condition r(x) = x for the
ReLU autoencoder can now be written
T
WS(x) (WS(x)
x + b) = x,

(2)

T
(WS(x) WS(x)
− I)x = −WS(x) b

(3)

or equivalently,

This is a set of inhomogeneous linear equations, whose solutions are given by a specific solution
T
plus the null-space of M = (WS(x) WS(x)
− I). The null-space is given by the eigenvectors corT
responding to the unit eigenvalues of WS(x) WS(x)
. The number of unit eigenvalues is equal to the
number of orthonormal weight vectors in WS(x) .
T
Although minimizing the reconstruction error without bias, kx − WS(x) WS(x)
xk2 , would enforce
orthogonality of WS(x) for those hidden units that are active together, learning with a fixed, non-zero
b will not: it amounts to minimizing the reconstruction error between x and a shifted projection,
T
kx − WS(x) WS(x)
x + WS(x) bk2 , for which the orthonormal solution is no longer optimal (it has
to account for the non-zero translation WS(x) b).

2.1.2

S IGMOID ACTIVATIONS

The case of a sigmoid activation function is harder to analyze because the sigmoid is never exactly
zero, and so the notion of an active set cannot be used. But we can characterize the manifold
learned by a sigmoid autoencoder (and thereby an RBM, which learns the same density model
(Kamyshanska & Memisevic (2013)) approximately using the binary activation hk (x) = (wkT x)+
3

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015


bk ≥ 0 . The reconstruction function in this case would be
X
wk
r(x) =

T x)+b ≥0
k: (wk
k

which is simply the superposition of active weight vectors (and hence not a multidimensional manifold either).
2.1.3

Z ERO - BIAS ACTIVATIONS AT TEST- TIME

This analysis suggests that even though negative biases are required to achieve sparsity, they may
have a detrimental effect in that they make it difficult to learn a non-trivial manifold. The observation
that sparsity can be detrimental is not new, and has already been discussed, for example, in Ranzato
et al. (2007); Kavukcuoglu et al. (2010), where the authors give up on sparsity at test-time and
show that this improves recognition performance. Similarly, Coates et al. (2011); Saxe et al. (2011)
showed that very good classification performance can be achieved using a linear classifier applied
to a bag of features, using ReLU activation without bias. They also showed how this classification
scheme is robust wrt. the choice of learning method used for obtaining features (in fact, it even
works with random training points as features, or using K-means as the feature learning method).2
In Figure 1 we confirm this finding, and we show that it is still true when features represent whole
CIFAR-10 images (rather than a bag of features). The figure shows the classification performance of
a standard contractive autoencoder with sigmoid hidden units trained on the permutation-invariant
CIFAR-10 training dataset (ie. using the whole images not patches for training), using a linear
classifier applied to the hidden activations. It shows that much better classification performance
(in fact better than the previous state-of-the-art in the permutation invariant task) is achieved when
replacing the sigmoid activations used during training with a zero-bias ReLU activation at test-time
(see Section 4.3 for more details).

3

L EARNING WITH THRESHOLD - GATED ACTIVATIONS

In light of the preceding analysis, hidden units should promote sparsity during learning, by becoming
active in only a small region of the input space, but once a hidden unit is active it should use a linear
not affine encoding. Furthermore, any sparsity-promoting process should be removed at test time.
To satisfy these criteria we suggest separating the selection function, which sparsifies hiddens, from
the encoding, which defines the representation, and should be linear. To this end, we define the
autoencoder reconstruction as the product of the selection function and a linear representation:
X


r(x) =
h wkT x wkT x wk
(4)
k

The selection function, h(·), may use a negative bias to achieve sparsity, but once active, a hidden
unit uses a linear activation to define the coefficients in the reconstruction. This activation function is
reminiscent of spike-and-slab models (for example, Courville et al. (2011)), which define probability
distributions over hidden variables as the product of a binary spike variable and a real-valued code.
In our case, the product does not come with a probabilistic interpretation and it only serves to define
a deterministic activation function which supports a linear encoding. The activation function is
differentiable almost everywhere, so one can back-propagate through it for learning. The activation
function is also related to adaptive dropout (Ba & Frey (2013)), which however is not differentiable
and thus cannot be trained with back-prop.
3.1

T HRESHOLDING LINEAR RESPONSES

In this work, we propose as a specific choice for h(·) the boolean selection function


h wkT x = wkT x > θ

(5)

2
In Coates et al. (2011) the so-called “triangle activation” was used instead of a ReLU as the inference
method for K-means. This amounts to setting activations below the mean activation to zero, and it is almost
identical to a zero-bias ReLU since the mean linear preactivation is very close to zero on average.

4

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

wkTx · (wkTx > θ)

θ

wkTx · (|wkTx| > θ)

−θ

wkTx

θ

wkTx

Figure 2: Activation functions for training autoencoders: thresholded rectified (left); thresholded
linear (right).
With this choice, the overall activation function is wkT x > θ)wkT x. It is shown in Figure 2 (left).
From the product rule, and the fact that the derivative of the boolean expression wkT x > θ) is
zero, it follows that the derivative of the activation function wrt. to the unit’s net input, wkT x, is
wkT x > θ) · 1 + 0 · wkT x = wkT x > θ). Unlike for ReLU, the non-differentiability of the
activation function at θ is also a non-continuity. As common with ReLU activations, we train with
(minibatch) stochastic gradient descent and ignore the non-differentiability during the optimization.
We will refer to this activation function as Truncated Rectified (TRec) in the following. We set θ to
1.0 in most of our experiments (and all hiddens have the same threshold). While this is unlikely to
be optimal, we found it to work well and often on par with, or better than, traditional regularized
autoencoders like the denoising or contractive autoencoder. Truncation, in contrast to the negativebias ReLU, can also be viewed as a hard-thresholding operator, the inversion of which is fairly
well-understood Boche et al. (2013).
Note that the TRec activation function is simply a peculiar activation function that we use for training. So training amounts to minimizing squared error without any kind of regularization. We drop
the thresholding for testing, where we use simply the rectified linear response.
We also experiment with autoencoders that use a “subspace” variant of the TRec activation function
(Rozell et al. (2008)), given by
X


h (wkT x)2 wkT x wk
(6)
r(x) =
k

It performs a linear reconstruction when the preactivation is either very large or very negative, so
the active region is a subspace rather than a convex cone. To contrast it with the rectified version,
we refer to this activation function as thresholded linear (TLin) below, but it is also known as hardthresholding in the literature Rozell et al. (2008). See Figure 2 (right plot) for an illustration.
Both the TRec and TLin activation functions allow hidden units to use a linear rather than affine
encoding. We shall refer to autoencoders with these activation functions as zero-bias autoencoder
(ZAE) in the following.
3.2

PARSEVAL AUTOENCODERS

For overcomplete representations orthonormality can no longer hold. However, if the weight vectors
span the data space, they form a frame (eg. Kovacevic & Chebira (2008)), so analysis weights w̃i
exist, such that an exact reconstruction can be written as
X

r(x) =
w̃kT x wk
(7)
k∈S(x)

5

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

The vectors w̃i and wi are in general not identical, but they are related through a matrix multiplication: wk = S w̃k . The matrix S is known as frame operator for the frame {wk }k given by the
weight vectors wk , and the set {w̃k }k is the dual frame associated with S (Kovacevic & Chebira
(2008)). The frame operator may be the identity in which case wk = w̃k (which is the case in an
autoencoder with tied weights.)
Minimizing reconstruction error will make the frames {wk }k and {w̃k }k approximately duals of
one another, so that Eq. 7 will approximately hold. More interestingly, for an autoencoder with tied
weights (wk = w̃k ), minimizing reconstruction error would let the frame approximate a Parseval
2
P
frame (Kovacevic & Chebira (2008)), such that Parseval’s identity holds k∈S(x) wkT x = kxk2 .

4
4.1

E XPERIMENTS
CIFAR-10

We chose the CIFAR-10 dataset (Krizhevsky & Hinton (2009)) to study the ability of various models
to learn from high dimensional input data. It contains color images of size 32 × 32 pixels that are
assigned to 10 different classes. The number of samples for training is 50, 000 and for testing is
10, 000. We consider the permutation invariant recognition task where the method is unaware of
the 2D spatial structure of the input. We evaluated several other models along with ours, namely
contractive autoencoder, standout autoencoder (Ba & Frey (2013)) and K-means. The evaluation is
based on classification performance.
The input data of size 3 × 32 × 32 is contrast normalized and dimensionally reduced using PCA whitening retaining 99% variance. We also evaluated a second method of dimensionality reduction using PCA without whitening (denoted NW below). By whitening
we mean normalizing the variances, i.e., dividing each dimension by the square-root of the
eigenvalues after PCA projection. The number of features for each of the model is set to
200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000. All models are trained with stochastic gradient descent. For all the experiments in this section we chose a learning rate of 0.0001 for a few
(e.g. 3) initial training epochs, and then increased it to 0.001. This is to ensure that scaling issues
in the initializing are dealt with at the outset, and to help avoid any blow-ups during training. Each
model is trained for 1000 epochs in total with a fixed momentum of 0.9. For inference, we use
rectified linear units without bias for all the models. We classify the resulting representation using
logistic regression with weight decay for classification, with weight cost parameter estimated using
cross-validation on a subset of the training samples of size 10000.
The threshold parameter θ is fixed to 1.0 for both the TRec and TLin autoencoder. For the cAE we
tried the regularization strengths 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, −3.0; the latter being “uncontraction”. In the case of
the Standout AE we set α = 1,β = −1. The results are reported in the plots of Figure 4. Learned
filters are shown in Figure 3.
From the plots in Figure 4 it is observable that the results are in line with our discussions in the
earlier sections. Note, in particular that the TRec and TLin autoencoders perform well even with
very few hidden units. As the number of hidden units increases, the performance of the models
which tend to “tile” the input space tends to improve.
In a second experiment we evaluate the impact of different input sizes on a fixed number of features.
For this experiment the training data is given by image patches of size P cropped from the center
of each training image from the CIFAR-10 dataset. This yields for each patch size P a training set
of 50000 samples and a test set of 10000 samples. The different patch sizes that we evaluated are
10, 15, 20, 25 as well as the original image size of 32. The number of features is set to 500 and 1000.
The same preprocessing (whitening/no whitening) and classification procedure as above are used to
report performance. The results are shown in Figure 4.
When using preprocessed input data directly for classification, the performance increased with increasing patch size P , as one would expect. Figure 4 shows that for smaller patch sizes, all the
models perform equally well. The performance of the TLin based model improves monotonically
as the patch size is increased. All other model’s performances suffer when the patch size gets too
large. Among these, the ZAE model using TRec activation suffers the least, as expected.
6

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

(a) TLin AE

(b) TRec AE

(c) cAE RS=3

(d) cAE RS=-3

(e) TLin AE NW

(f) TRec AE NW

(g) cAE RS=3 NW

(h) cAE RS=-3 NW

Figure 3: Features of different models trained on CIFAR-10 data. Top: PCA with whitening as preprocessing. Bottom: PCA with no whitening as preprocessing. RS denotes regularization strength.

TRec AE NW
TLin AE NW
cAE NW RS=3
cAE NW RS=-3
K-means NW
Standout AE NW

70
60
50
40
30

60

60
50
40

0

50
45

50
45
40

35

35

305

305

15

20

25
30
Patchsize

35

40

TRec AE
TLin AE
cAE RS=1
cAE RS=2
cAE RS=3
K-means

55

40

10

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
number of features

60

TRec AE
TLin AE
cAE RS=1
cAE RS=2
cAE RS=3
K-means

55
Percentage accuracy

70

30
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
number of features

Percentage accuracy

0

TRec AE
TLin AE
cAE RS=3
cAE RS=-3
K-means
Standout AE

80
Percentage accuracy

Percentage accuracy

80

45

10

15

20

25
30
Patchsize

35

40

45

Figure 4: Top row: Classification accuracy on permutation invariant CIFAR-10 data as a function
of number of features. PCA with whitening (left) and without whitening (right) is used for preproceesing. Bottom row: Classification accuracy on CIFAR-10 data for 500 features (left) 1000 features
(right) as a function of input patch size. PCA with whitening is used for preprocessing.
We also experimented by initializing a neural network with features from the trained models. We use
a single hidden layer MLP with ReLU units where the input to hidden weights are initialized with
features from the trained models and the hidden to output weights from the logistic regression models (following Krizhevsky & Hinton (2009)). A hyperparameter search yielding 0.7 as the optimal
threshold, along with supervised fine tuning helps increase the best performance in the case of the
7

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

TRec AE to 63.8. The same was not observed in the case of the cAE where the performance went
slightly down. Thus using the TRec AE followed by supervised fine-tuning with dropout regularization yields 64.1% accuracy and the cAE with regularization strength of 3.0 yields 63.9%. To the
best of our knowledge both results beat the current state-of-the-art performance on the permutation
invariant CIFAR-10 recognition task (cf., for example, Le et al. (2013)), with the TRec slightly outperforming the cAE. In both cases PCA without whitening was used as preprocessing. In contrast to
Krizhevsky & Hinton (2009) we do not train on any extra data, so none of these models is provided
with any knowledge of the task beyond the preprocessed training set.

4.2

V IDEO DATA

An dataset with very high intrinsic dimensionality are videos that show transforming random dots,
as used in Memisevic & Hinton (2010) and subsequent work: each data example is a vectorized
video, whose first frame is a random image and whose subsequent frames show transformations of
the first frame. Each video is represented by concatenating the vectorized frames into a large vector.
This data has an intrinsic dimensionality which is at least as high as the dimensionality of the first
frame. So it is very high if the first frame is a random image.
It is widely assumed that only bi-linear models, such as Memisevic & Hinton (2010) and related
models, should be able to learn useful representations of this data. The interpretation of this data
in terms of high intrinsic dimensionality suggests that a simple autoencoder may be able to learn
reasonable features, as long as it uses a linear activation function so hidden units can span larger
regions.
We found that this is indeed the case by training the ZAE on rotating random dots as proposed in
Memisevic & Hinton (2010). The ZAE model with 100 hiddens is trained on vectorized 10-frame
random dot videos with 13 × 13 being the size of each frame. Figure 5 depicts filters learned
and shows that the model learns to represent the structure in this data by developing phase-shifted
rotational Fourier components as discussed in the context of bi-linear models. We were not able
to learn features that were distinguishable from noise with the cAE, which is in line with existing
results (eg. Memisevic & Hinton (2010)).

Model
TRec AE
TLin AE
covAE Memisevic (2011)
GRBM Taylor et al. (2010)
K-means
contractive AE

Average precision
50.4
49.8
43.3
46.6
41.0
45.2

Figure 5: Top: Subset of filters learned from rotating random dot movies (frame 2 on the left, frame
4 on the right). Bottom: Average precision on Hollywood2.
8

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

We then chose activity recognition to perform a quantitative evaluation of this observation. The
intrinsic dimensionality of real world movies is probably lower than that of random dot movies,
but higher than that of still images. We used the recognition pipeline proposed in Le et al. (2011);
Konda et al. (2014) and evaluated it on the Hollywood2 dataset Marszałek et al. (2009). The dataset
consists of 823 training videos and 884 test videos with 12 classes of human actions. The models
were trained on PCA-whitened input patches of size 10 × 16 × 16 cropped randomly from training
videos. The number of training patches is 500, 000. The number of features is set to 600 for all
models.
In the recognition pipeline, sub blocks of the same size as the patch size are cropped from 14×20×20
super-blocks, using a stride of 4. Each super block results in 8 sub blocks. The concatenation of sub
block filter responses is dimensionally reduced by performing PCA to get a super block descriptor,
on which a second layer of K-means learns a vocabulary of spatio-temporal words, that get classified
with an SVM (for details, see Le et al. (2011); Konda et al. (2014)).
In our experiments we plug the features learned with the different models into this pipeline. The
performances of the models are reported in Figure 5 (right). They show that the TRec and TLin
autoencoders clearly outperform the more localized models. Surprisingly, they also outperform
more sophisticated gating models, such as Memisevic & Hinton (2010).
4.3

R ECTIFIED LINEAR INFERENCE

In previous sections we discussed the importance of (unbiased) rectified linear inference. Here we
experimentally show that using rectified linear inference yields the best performance among different
inference schemes. We use a cAE model with a fixed number of hiddens trained on CIFAR-10
images, and evaluate the performance of
1. Rectified linear inference with bias (the natural preactivation for the unit): [W T X + b]+
2. Rectified linear inference without bias: [W T X]+
3. natural inference: sigmoid(W T X + b)
The performances are shown in Figure 1 (right), confirming and extending the results presented in
Coates et al. (2011); Saxe et al. (2011).

5

D ISCUSSION

Quantizing the input space with tiles proportional in quantity to the data density is arguably the best
way to represent data given enough training data and enough tiles, because it allows us to approximate any function reasonably well using only a subsequent linear layer. However, for data with
high intrinsic dimensionality and a limited number of hidden units, we have no other choice than
to summarize regions using responses that are invariant to some changes in the input. Invariance,
from this perspective, is a necessary evil and not a goal in itself. But it is increasingly important for
increasingly high dimensional inputs.
We showed that linear not affine hidden responses allow us to get invariance, because the density
defined by a linear autoencoder is a superposition of (possibly very large) regions or subspaces.
After a selection is made as to which hidden units are active for a given data example, linear coefficients are used in the reconstruction. This is very similar to the way in which gating and square
pooling models (eg., Olshausen et al. (2007); Memisevic & Hinton (2007; 2010); Ranzato et al.
(2010); Le et al. (2011); Courville et al. (2011)) define their reconstruction: The response of a hidden unit in these models is defined by multiplying the filter response or squaring it, followed by a
non-linearity. To reconstruct the input, the output of the hidden unit is then multiplied by the filter
response itself, making the model bi-linear. As a result, reconstructions are defined as the sum of
feature vectors, weighted by linear coefficients of the active hiddens. This may suggest interpreting
the fact that these models work well on videos and other high-dimensional data as a result of using
linear, zero-bias hidden units, too.
9

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery grant, a Google faculty research award, and
the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the project 01GQ0841 (BFNT
Frankfurt).

R EFERENCES
Ba, Jimmy and Frey, Brendan. Adaptive dropout for training deep neural networks. In Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems, pp. 3084–3092, 2013.
Boche, Holger, Guillemard, Mijail, Kutyniok, Gitta, and Philipp, Friedrich. Signal recovery from thresholded
frame measurements. In SPIE 8858, Wavelets and Sparsity XV, August 2013.
Coates, Adam, Lee, Honglak, and Ng, A. Y. An analysis of single-layer networks in unsupervised feature
learning. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011.
Courville, Aaron C, Bergstra, James, and Bengio, Yoshua. A spike and slab restricted boltzmann machine. In
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 233–241, 2011.
Goroshin, Rotislav and LeCun, Yann. Saturating auto-encoders. In International Conference on Learning
Representations (ICLR2013), April 2013.
Hinton, Geoffrey. A Practical Guide to Training Restricted Boltzmann Machines. Technical report, University
of Toronto, 2010.
Hinton, Geoffrey E., Srivastava, Nitish, Krizhevsky, Alex, Sutskever, Ilya, and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. CoRR, abs/1207.0580, 2012.
Hyvärinen, Aapo, Karhunen, Juha, and Oja, Erkki. Independent component analysis, volume 46. John Wiley
& Sons, 2004.
Kamyshanska, Hanna and Memisevic, Roland. On autoencoder scoring. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2013), 2013.
Kavukcuoglu, Koray, Ranzato, Marc’Aurelio, and LeCun, Yann. Fast inference in sparse coding algorithms
with applications to object recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.3467, 2010.
Konda, Kishore Reddy, Memisevic, Roland, and Michalski, Vincent. The role of spatio-temporal synchrony in
the encoding of motion. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR2014), 2014.
Kovacevic, J. and Chebira, A. An Introduction to Frames. Foundations and trends in signal processing. Now
Publishers, 2008.
Krizhevsky, Alex and Hinton, Geoffrey. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Master’s thesis,
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 2009.
Le, Quoc, Sarlos, Tamas, and Smola, Alex. Fastfood - approximating kernel expansions in loglinear time. In
30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2013.
Le, Q.V., Zou, W.Y., Yeung, S.Y., and Ng, A.Y. Learning hierarchical invariant spatio-temporal features for
action recognition with independent subspace analysis. In CVPR, 2011.
Lee, Honglak, Ekanadham, Chaitanya, and Ng, Andrew. Sparse deep belief net model for visual area v2. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20, 2008.
Makhzani, Alireza and Frey, Brendan. k-sparse autoencoders. CoRR, abs/1312.5663, 2013.
Marszałek, Marcin, Laptev, Ivan, and Schmid, Cordelia. Actions in context. In IEEE Conference on Computer
Vision & Pattern Recognition, 2009.
Martens, James, Chattopadhyay, Arkadev, Pitassi, Toniann, and Zemel, Richard. On the representational efficiency of restricted boltzmann machines. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2013, 2013.
Memisevic, Roland. Gradient-based learning of higher-order image features. In ICCV, 2011.
Memisevic, Roland and Hinton, Geoffrey. Unsupervised learning of image transformations. In CVPR, 2007.

10

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2015

Memisevic, Roland and Hinton, Geoffrey E. Learning to represent spatial transformations with factored higherorder boltzmann machines. Neural Computation, 22(6):1473–1492, June 2010. ISSN 0899-7667.
Olshausen, Bruno, Cadieu, Charles, Culpepper, Jack, and Warland, David. Bilinear models of natural images.
In SPIE Proceedings: Human Vision Electronic Imaging XII, San Jose, 2007.
Ranzato, M, Huang, Fu Jie, Boureau, Y-L, and LeCun, Yann. Unsupervised learning of invariant feature
hierarchies with applications to object recognition. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2007.
CVPR’07. IEEE Conference on, pp. 1–8. IEEE, 2007.
Ranzato, Marc’Aurelio, Krizhevsky, Alex, and Hinton, Geoffrey E. Factored 3-Way Restricted Boltzmann
Machines For Modeling Natural Images. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2010.
Razvan Pascanu, Guido Montufar, Yoshua Bengio. On the number of inference regions of deep feed forward
networks with piece-wise linear activations. CoRR, arXiv:1312.6098, 2014.
Rifai, Salah, Vincent, Pascal, Muller, Xavier, Glorot, Xavier, and Bengio, Yoshua. Contractive Auto-Encoders:
Explicit Invariance During Feature Extraction. In ICML, 2011.
Rozell, Christopher J, Johnson, Don H, Baraniuk, Richard G, and Olshausen, Bruno A. Sparse coding via
thresholding and local competition in neural circuits. Neural computation, 20(10):2526–2563, 2008.
Saxe, Andrew, Koh, Pang Wei, Chen, Zhenghao, Bhand, Maneesh, Suresh, Bipin, and Ng, Andrew. On random
weights and unsupervised feature learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine
Learning, 2011.
Taylor, Graham W., Fergus, Rob, LeCun, Yann, and Bregler, Christoph. Convolutional learning of spatiotemporal features. In Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Computer vision: Part VI, ECCV’10,
2010.
Vincent, Pascal, Larochelle, Hugo, Bengio, Yoshua, and Manzagol, Pierre-Antoine. Extracting and composing
robust features with denoising autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine
learning, 2008.

11

