The Case for Meta-Cognitive Machine Learning:
On Model Entropy and Concept Formation in Deep Learning

arXiv:1711.01431v1 [cs.AI] 4 Nov 2017

Johan Loeckx
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel
jloeckx@ai.vub.ac.be

Abstract
Machine learning is usually defined in behaviourist
terms, where external validation is the primary
mechanism of learning. In this paper, I argue for a
more holistic interpretation in which finding more
probable, efficient and abstract representations is as
central to learning as performance. In other words,
machine learning should be extended with strategies to reason over its own learning process, leading to so-called meta-cognitive machine learning.
As such, the de facto definition of machine learning
should be reformulated in these intrinsically multiobjective terms, taking into account not only the
task performance but also internal learning objectives. To this end, we suggest a “model entropy
function” to be defined that quantifies the efficiency
of the internal learning processes. It is conjured
that the minimization of this model entropy leads to
concept formation. Besides philosophical aspects,
some initial illustrations are included to support the
claims.

1 Introduction
Machine learning is often approached from a behaviourist
perspective, in which external feedback in the form of a reinforcement signal is the major driving force of improvement. Though this method has lead to many successes, it
is confronted with interesting and unsolved challenges like
tackling overfitting, providing comprehensibility, building
reusable abstractions and concept formation, among many
other [Kotsiantis et al., 2007; Bengio, 2009]. The problem
with these behaviourist approaches is that they ignore the central importance of internal processes when considering learning. Model internals are often regarded just as a means to
achieve higher performance. Analogous to studying human
behaviour, however, appreciating the mechanisms of learning
boils down to the question: ”when have we really learnt?” In
this paper, we argue that a computer has learnt when:
• the programme becomes better at the task at hand;
• the programme can perform the task more efficiently;
• the code becomes ”more structured” and simpler.

One possible analogy to better understand the above statements can be found in software engineering. When considering code that performs a specific task, we do not care
only about its functionality, but also about its execution
speed/efficiency and other so-called ”non-functional requirements”. Furthermore, a carefully modularized design probably reflects more understanding than an endless enumeration
of IF-ELSE clauses.
In other words, finding a more efficient and
structured way to represent/reproduce information and to perform a learning task, is as central to machine learning as the reproduction of
results.
Different to humans, of course, machines are measurable.
This provides us with a unique opportunity to study the nature of learning in principle, at the same time improving Machine Intelligence. We are not claiming that model complexity/efficiency has not been subject to past research efforts. On
the contrary, many techniques and design principles have attempted to improve exactly these properties – like Occam’s
razor, Bayesian structure learning, pruning, the use of prototypes to compact information, regularization as a strategy to
reduce energy, weight sharing in RNNs or CNNs to decrease
model complexity, etc.
Indeed, the whole evolution of Deep Learning can be seen
as one specific approach in the quest to find models that are
more structured (i.e. have a lower entropy), by organizing
and training them in a layer-wise fashion [Bengio, 2009]. The
focus has been mainly on training algorithms and designing
model architectures that are adapted to these kinds of “deep”
structures [Deng and Yu, 2014]. Similar to efforts in multiobjective machine learning, these techniques are considered
as a means to improve (externally measured) performance
rather than a goal in itself [Jin and Sendhoff, 2008]. We, however, do believe that minimizing the model’s structural complexity and optimizing its efficiency of representation, is not
only a means to improve (externally validated) performance,
but a central pillar to machine intelligence that leads to concept formulation and should be made explicit. In this sense,
our vision aligns to that of Ray Kurzweil, who claimed that
“the theory behind deep learning. . . is that you have a model
that reflects the hierarchy in the natural phenomenon you’re
trying to learn [Hof, 2013].”
This paper is structured as follows. The theoretical ideas

x2
1

0.5

x1
0

0.5

1

Figure 1: Very basic example of a concept to be learnt. The
XOR function above represents an anti-symmetric function in
two variables x1 and x2. We expect a good model to reflect
this anti-symmetry in the model structure or parameters.
are laid out and the case for a new operational definition of
machine learning is made. We put forward the conjecture
that the optimization of model entropy, leads to concept formation. Last, conclusions and further steps to operationalize
these concepts are formulated.

2 Central assertions
2.1

Learning can not be explained in extrinsic
terms only

Conventional wisdom depicts machine learning as the optimization of a (non-)parametric model with respect to some
performance measure. This view is clearly reflected in the
de facto definition of machine learning by Mitchell [Mitchell,
1997]: ”A computer program is said to learn from an experience X with respect to some class of tasks T and performance
measure P , if its performance at tasks in T , as measured by
P , improves with experimental data D”.
Traditional machine learning techniques typically exploit
shallow-structured, and often fixed, architectures. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that the learning of “higherorder” concepts is problematic, and that the solution to this
issue is somehow connected to deep architectures that create ever higher forms of abstraction. Experimental research
as well as neurological evidence on the organization of the
brain, supports this finding [Bianchini and Scarselli, 2014].
The limitation of architecture complexity is preferred, primarily because their behaviour could be understood and the
training of more complex or adaptive architectures leads to a
explosion of complexity.
That was until recently. The recent advanced in so-called
“Deep Learning”, have focused on training algorithms that
are adapted to new kinds of deep architectures [Deng and Yu,
2014], and heuristic strategies to attain specific structural
properties like sparse coding that lead to higher forms of abstractions. With the exception of studies on “interpretability” [Jin and Sendhoff, 2008], structural properties are mainly
considered a by-product, a (desirable) side effect of the applied training mechanisms. Though the organization and

complexity of model topologies is acknowledged to be crucial, current approaches are mainly limited to analysing the
data space, i.e. the implemented regression functions or decision boundaries [Bianchini and Scarselli, 2014].
There is a problem with this approach. Consider an neural network algorithm that needs to learn a simple concept
like an “XOR” function depicted in Fig. 1. An infinite number of neural networks with very similar or identical decision
boundaries can be constructed – of which two are shown in
Fig. 2. From an external point of view, there is no way to
discriminate between these two models: describing the difference between these two models can only occur in terms of
the model internals. Of course the weight space, which represents the model of a neural network, is related to the data
space, as it performs calculations on the data. In other words:
Data representation and model computation
should be considered as two sides of the same
coin. As a result the structural properties of both
the model and data space are key to the modelling
of higher abstractions.
Sparse coding is a perfect example of this. Without sparse
coding, although the information is intrinsically “present” in
the data, neural networks become intractable to train due to
the extremely volatile and complex decision surface. From
this perspective we follow the observations that have been
made by Bengio in [Bengio et al., 2013] on representation
learning.
One of the interesting phenomena is “information entanglement” [Glorot et al., 2011]. In this case, the model space is
of a lower dimensionality or complexity than the data space.
The projection of the data onto a high-dimensional space using sparse coding, then, has the advantage that the representations are more likely to be linearly separable, or at least less
nonlinear. On the other hand, when the model complexity is
increased considerably (e.g. by adding layers), the neural network becomes untrainable using traditional techniques, because the dimensionality of the search space explodes. Deep
learning techniques tackle this issue by – among other techniques – pre-initializing the model-space of particular layer
in a maximum-likelihood/minimal-energy state.

2.2

Machine learning regards strategies that
optimize performance, model structure and
data modelling efficiency/likelihood

Though the energy-based approach has proven very successful, the choice to divide and train a network layer-wise, is
rather arbitrary. Instead, we would like to have some kind of
process that optimizes the model structure according to the
data and leads to representation learning. For example, by
driving weights to stimulate the formation of sparse representations and promote disentanglement. In this vision, learning
by machines transforms into the implementation and execution of strategies that optimize, not only the external performance and inner energetic properties of the model, but as well
the model entropy. In other words,
Machine learning is an intrinsically multiobjective process that trades off task perfor-

(a) Minimal entropy model

(b) Non-optimal entropy model

Figure 2: Model internals matter. Example zero-test-error neural network topologies that characterize an XOR gate. The inputs
and outputs were defined on the domain {0,1}. Figure (a) shows a minimal entropy model, (b) a non-minimal entropy one. Both
networks have an identical decision surface, and therefore identical generalization and noise-robustness properties. However,
the surfaces were constructed from substantially different model structures.
mance for model complexity and data modelling
efficiency/energy or model likelihood.
There are many advantages to moving away from a purely
“extrinsic” definition of Machine Learning towards a cognitively inspired operational definition [Turing, 1950]. To start,
the artificial distinction between supervised and unsupervised
learning evaporates as a particular model can still being optimized, but towards minimal entropy rather than minimal
error. This also opens the door towards learning from few
symbolic data. The multi-objective approach allows a more
deep comparison between different machine learning models, and even between different kinds of algorithms. It allows
a more focused approach towards deep learning techniques
and lastly, it opens up new opportunities to quantize biases in
machine learning algorithms.
(Machine) Learning implements strategies to optimize performance as well as model likelihood
and entropy.
We will now briefly discuss these three criteria or objectives.
Extrinsic performance (P)
P determines how well a model scores when performing an
externally defined task. Often not only the raw performance
counts, but also additional desirable properties like noiseimmunity, smoothness, generalization to unseen data, etc.
These qualities can only be measured in terms of the externally defined problem.
Data modelling efficiency (E)
A model that requires less energy to represent the data to be
”learnt”, probably demonstrates superior insight. Modelling
efficiency can thus be interpreted as the likelihood that a particular model has generated particular data. The optimization of the margin in Support Vector Machines is an example.
Maximum likelihood models are related to “maximal entropy
models”. These models attempt to minimize the a-priori assumptions imposed by the model on the data. Minimal entropy models and maximal entropy modelling are not contradictory nor similar. In the latter case, entropy is measured in

the data space (the output of the model), and not in the metaspace of model parameters (e.g. weights). Especially in the
presence of uncertainty (for example in the case of noise or
sub-sampling), data modelling efficiency is essential to improve the robustness of a model. We will elaborate on this in
later sections.
Model entropy (S)
Considering model complexity dates back to the beginning
of computational modelling [Barron, 1991; Bartlett, 1998;
Myung, 2000; Spiegelhalter et al., 2002; Kon and Plaskota,
2006]. It makes indeed sense to believe that models that
have a lower entropy or complexity (e.g. by exploiting hierarchy, symmetry or other regularities) without losing expressive
power, provide superior abstraction. It therefore makes sense
to optimize model structures for minimal entropy with respect
to the data. Model entropy is determined not only by the network topology, but also the value and patterns in the weights
values and their interaction with data (more on this later).
It is tempting to confuse minimizing model entropy with
methods assuming “smoothness” of the input/output data distribute or impose structural constraints on the data. While
they are clearly connected, there is a crucial difference. While
minimal entropy models elevate the abstraction of a model for
a given set of data, they do not assume a low data entropy as
is the case for example in the methods referred to by [Bengio,
2009].

2.3

The definition of (machine) learning needs to
be extended

A lot of algorithms already implicitly employ these kind of
optimization strategies. The usage of prototypes or nearestneighbours are strategies to compact information and implicitly improve modelling efficiency as the class of a sample is determined by the distance to the closest neighbour; regularization a strategy to reducing energy consumption; weight sharing to decrease the complexity/entropy of a
model; penalty functions to constrain model complexity; Occam’s razor or pruning in decision trees.

However, to acknowledge the equal importance of all three
aspects, the definition of machine learning should be extended:
“A computer program is said to learn from experience X if its performance at task in T, as
measured by P, improves with experience X or
when the model entropy S or its modelling efficiency or model likelihood E decreases with respect to the training data D associated with experience X”.

2.4

An “entropy function” needs to be defined

Similar to the “energy function” in traditional deep learning, an entropy function should be defined that measures the
complexity of the process to construct higher-order abstract
representations and represents the efficiency of the learning
processes. Existing research has explored similar ideas, in
which, for example, neural networks are characterized by
the impact of the topology on the reduction of information
theoretic content through the network [Tishby and Zaslavsky,
2015].
However, it is crucial to realize that this complexity depends on both model characteristics like topology and weight
patterns, and properties of sample configurations (a configuration is the combined representation of all internal and external signals, for example the outputs of all neurons). Though
one could be tempted to think the entropy fixed for a given
set of training data D, this is not the case in the process of
abstraction. Indeed, new, more abstract representations are
produced from old ones using computation and thus the complexity of this calculation matters. On the other side, the complexity of this computation depends on the data representation
as well. This, of course, is in line with previous investigations
into the nature of complexity [Braha and Maimon, 1998].
In other words, the entropy function quantifies the complexity of the computational process
needed to produce a configuration.
For example, in a Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 3a), the
decision boundary of the double spiral problem is nonlinear,
while in a polar coordinate system, it is linear (Fig. 3b. Another very minimalistic example of representation and computation are two sides of the same coin, is the XOR function.
Encoding inputs & outputs on the domain [0, 1] requires a
hidden layer of 3 neurons, while coding on [−1, 1] requires
only two. The representation thus clearly impacts the model
entropy.
In this line of thought, constructs like structure (organisation in layers), hierarchy (connectivity only between layers),
and drop-out are not essential to learning on themselves, but
rather strategies that have been implemented to lower the entropy.

2.5

Minimizing model entropy leads to concept
formation

According to Wikipedia, “a concept is an abstract idea representing the fundamental characteristics of what it represents.
Concepts arise as abstractions or generalisations from experience or the result of a transformation of existing ideas.” [con].

It thus makes sense to hypothesize that the minimization of
entropy accomplishes to capture the structural identities of
concepts in the outside world (i.e. the training data). For
example, the model structure with optimal entropy to discriminate between hand-written numbers, is more probable
to reflect the true nature of these concepts. Empirical evidence supports this interpretation [Zahavy et al., 2016], especially in the context of so-called one-shot generalization
[Rezende et al., 2016].
Finding or constructing such a entropy function is not an
easy task and subject to further fundamental research. More
interesting, finding effective strategies to minimize this function, may prove even harder and deeper investigation into the
complexity of models is needed. Today, often ad-hoc solutions are chosen like enforcing structural limitations (like Decision trees), pruning, regularization, weight sharing, kernel
tricks, sparse representations etc. In conclusion,
The minimization of the entropy function is a
necessary condition for concept formation. In
this process strategies like hierarchy, symmetry
and other regularities can be exploited.

3 Conclusion
In this paper, I argue for a more holistic view on machine
learning that takes a distance from the prevailing behaviourist
perspective in which external validation is the major force to
learning. The work is centred around 5 conjectures:
1. Learning can not be explained in extrinsic terms only
and data representation and model computation should
be considered as two sides of the same coin. As a result
the structural properties of both the model and data space
are key to the modelling of higher abstractions.
2. Machine learning regards strategies that optimize performance, model structure and data modelling efficiency/likelihood. As a result, Machine learning is an
intrinsically multi-objective process that trades off task
performance for model complexity and data modelling
efficiency/energy or model likelihood.
3. The definition of (machine) learning needs to reflect this
vision: “A computer program is said to learn from experience X if its performance at task in T, as measured
by P, improves with experience X or when the model entropy S or its modelling efficiency or model likelihood E
decreases with respect to the training data D associated
with experience X.”
4. An entropy function needs to be defined. This entropy
function quantifies the complexity of the computational
process needed to produce a configuration.
5. Minimizing model entropy leads to concept formation.
Hierarchy building, symmetry and exploitation of other
regularities are strategies that drive optimization.
Future work includes research on the entropy function and
scientific and a quantitative validation of the postulated hypotheses on prototype examples. In a later phase, it should be
investigated how the proposed extensions can improve existing Deep Learning techniques.

x2

x2

0.5

1

x1

0.5
0

0.5

x1
0

(a) Problem stated in a Cartesian coordinate system.

0.5

1

(b) Problem stated in a polar coordinate system.

Figure 3: The same “double spiral” learning problem starting from different input data abstraction (qualitative view). The
complexity of a model depends on properties of both model as data. Computation and representations are two sides of the same
coin.

References
Andrew R Barron. Complexity regularization with application to artificial neural networks. In Nonparametric
functional estimation and related topics, pages 561–576.
Springer, 1991.
Peter L Bartlett. The sample complexity of pattern classification with neural networks: the size of the weights is more
important than the size of the network. IEEE transactions
on Information Theory, 44(2):525–536, 1998.
Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE
transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence,
35(8):1798–1828, 2013.
Yoshua Bengio. Learning deep architectures for AI. Foundations and trends R in Machine Learning, 2(1):1–127, 2009.
Monica Bianchini and Franco Scarselli. On the complexity
of neural network classifiers: A comparison between shallow and deep architectures. IEEE transactions on neural
networks and learning systems, 25(8):1553–1565, 2014.
Dan Braha and Oded Maimon. The measurement of a design
structural and functional complexity. In A Mathematical
Theory of Design: Foundations, Algorithms and Applications, pages 241–277. Springer, 1998.
Concept. [Online; accessed 22-Nov-2016].
Li Deng and Dong Yu. Deep Learning. Now Publishers Incorporated, 2014.
Xavier Glorot, Antoine Bordes, and Yoshua Bengio. Deep
sparse rectifier neural networks. In AISTATS, volume 15,
page 275, 2011.
Robert Hof. Interview: How ray kurzweil plans to revolutionize search at google. Forbes blog, April 2013.

Yaochu Jin and Bernhard Sendhoff. Pareto-based multiobjective machine learning: An overview and case studies.
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and
Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 38(3):397–415, 2008.
Mark A Kon and Leszek Plaskota. Complexity of predictive
neural networks. In Unifying Themes in Complex Systems,
pages 181–191. Springer, 2006.
Sotiris B. Kotsiantis, I. Zaharakis, and P. Pintelas. Supervised machine learning: A review of classification techniques. In I. Maglogiannis, K. Karpouzis, B.A. Wallace,
and J. Soldatos, editors, Emerging Artificial Intelligence
Applications in Computer Engineering. IOS Press, 2007.
Tom M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill Boston,
MA:, 1997.
In Jae Myung. The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1):190–204,
2000.
Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, Ivo Danihelka,
Karol Gregor, and Daan Wierstra.
One-shot generalization in deep generative models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1603.05106, 2016.
David J Spiegelhalter, Nicola G Best, Bradley P Carlin, and
Angelika Van Der Linde. Bayesian measures of model
complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society:
Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64(4):583–639, 2002.
Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. Deep learning and the information bottleneck principle. In IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2015.
Alan M Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence.
Mind, pages 433–460, 1950.
Tom Zahavy, Nir Ben Zrihem, and Shie Mannor. Graying the black box: Understanding dqns. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1602.02658, 2016.

