Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

L EARNING ACTIVATION F UNCTIONS
D EEP N EURAL N ETWORKS

TO

I MPROVE

arXiv:1412.6830v3 [cs.NE] 21 Apr 2015

Forest Agostinelli
Department of Computer Science
University of California - Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697, USA
{fagostin}@uci.edu
Matthew Hoffman
Adobe Research
San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
{mathoffm}@adobe.com
Peter Sadowski, Pierre Baldi
Department of Computer Science
University of California - Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697, USA
{peter.j.sadowski,pfbaldi}@uci.edu

A BSTRACT
Artificial neural networks typically have a fixed, non-linear activation function at
each neuron. We have designed a novel form of piecewise linear activation function that is learned independently for each neuron using gradient descent. With
this adaptive activation function, we are able to improve upon deep neural network architectures composed of static rectified linear units, achieving state-of-theart performance on CIFAR-10 (7.51%), CIFAR-100 (30.83%), and a benchmark
from high-energy physics involving Higgs boson decay modes.

1

I NTRODUCTION

Deep learning with artificial neural networks has enabled rapid progress on applications in engineering (e.g., Krizhevsky et al., 2012; Hannun et al., 2014) and basic science (e.g., Di Lena et al.,
2012; Lusci et al., 2013; Baldi et al., 2014). Usually, the parameters in the linear components are
learned to fit the data, while the nonlinearities are pre-specified to be a logistic, tanh, rectified linear,
or max-pooling function. A sufficiently large neural network using any of these common nonlinear
functions can approximate arbitrarily complex functions (Hornik et al., 1989; Cho & Saul, 2010),
but in finite networks the choice of nonlinearity affects both the learning dynamics (especially in
deep networks) and the network’s expressive power.
Designing activation functions that enable fast training of accurate deep neural networks is an active
area of research. The rectified linear activation function (Jarrett et al., 2009; Glorot et al., 2011),
which does not saturate like sigmoidal functions, has made it easier to quickly train deep neural networks by alleviating the difficulties of weight-initialization and vanishing gradients. Another recent
innovation is the “maxout” activation function, which has achieved state-of-the-art performance on
multiple machine learning benchmarks (Goodfellow et al., 2013). The maxout activation function
computes the maximum of a set of linear functions, and has the property that it can approximate any
convex function of the input. Springenberg & Riedmiller (2013) replaced the max function with a
probabilistic max function and Gulcehre et al. (2014) explored an activation function that replaces
the max function with an LP norm. However, while the type of activation function can have a
significant impact on learning, the space of possible functions has hardly been explored.
1

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

One way to explore this space is to learn the activation function during training. Previous efforts
to do this have largely focused on genetic and evolutionary algorithms (Yao, 1999), which attempt
to select an activation function for each neuron from a pre-defined set. Recently, Turner & Miller
(2014) combined this strategy with a single scaling parameter that is learned during training.
In this paper, we propose a more powerful adaptive activation function. This parametrized, piecewise
linear activation function is learned independently for each neuron using gradient descent, and can
represent both convex and non-convex functions of the input. Experiments demonstrate that like
other piecewise linear activation functions, this works well for training deep neural networks, and
we obtain state-of-the-art performance on multiple benchmark deep learning tasks.

2

A DAPTIVE P IECEWISE L INEAR U NITS

Here we define the adaptive piecewise linear (APL) activation unit. Our method formulates the
activation function hi (x) of an APL unit i as a sum of hinge-shaped functions,
hi (x) = max(0, x) +

S
X

asi max(0, −x + bsi )

(1)

s=1

The result is a piecewise linear activation function. The number of hinges, S, is a hyperparameter
set in advance, while the variables asi , bsi for i ∈ 1, ..., S are learned using standard gradient descent
during training. The asi variables control the slopes of the linear segments, while the bsi variables
determine the locations of the hinges.
The number of additional parameters that must be learned when using these APL units is 2SM ,
where M is the total number of hidden units in the network. This number is small compared to the
total number of weights in typical networks.
Figure 1 shows example APL functions for S =
1. Note that unlike maxout, the class of functions that can be learned by a single unit includes non-convex functions. In fact, for large
enough S, hi (x) can approximate arbitrarily
complex continuous functions, subject to two
conditions:
Theorem 1 Any continuous piecewise-linear
function g(x) can be expressed by Equation 1
for some S, and ai , bi , i ∈ 1, ..., S, assuming
that:
1. There is a scalar u such that g(x) = x
for all x ≥ u.
2. There are two scalars v and α such
that ∇x g(x) = α for all x < v.
This theorem implies that we can reconstruct Figure 1: Sample activation functions obtained
any piecewise-linear function g(x) over any from changing the parameters. Notice that figure
subset of the real line, and the two conditions on b shows that the activation function can also be
g(x) constrain the behavior of g(x) to be linear non-convex. Asymptotically, the activation funcas x gets very large or small. The first condi- tions tend to g(x) = x as x → ∞ and g(x) =
tion is less restrictive than it may seem. In neu- αx − c as x ← −∞ for some α and c. S = 1 for
ral networks, g(x) is generally only of interest all plots.
as an input to a linear function wg(x) + z; this
linear function effectively restores the two degrees of freedom that are eliminated by constraining
the rightmost segment of g(x) to have unit slope and bias 0.
Proof Let g(x) be piecewise linear with K + 2 linear regions separated by ordered boundary points
b0 , b1 , ...,bK , and let ak be the slope of the k-th region. Assume also that g(x) = x for all x ≥ bK .
2

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

We show that g(x) can be expressed by the following special case of Equation 1:
h(x) ≡ −a0 max(0, −x + b0 )
PK
+ k=1 ak (max(0, −x + bk−1 ) − max(0, −x + bk ))

(2)

K

− max(0, −x) + max(0, x) + max(0, −x + b ),
The first term has slope a0 in the range (−∞, b0 ) and 0 elsewhere. Each element in the summation
term of Equation 2 has slope ak over the range (bk−1 , bk ) and 0 elsewhere. The last three terms
together have slope 1 when x ∈ (bK , ∞) and 0 elsewhere. Now, g(x) and h(x) are continuous, their
slopes match almost everywhere, and it is easily verified that h(x) = g(x) = x for x ≥ bK . Thus,
we conclude that h(x) = g(x) for all x. 
2.1

C OMPARISON WITH OTHER ACTIVATION F UNCTIONS

In this section we compare the proposed approach to learning activation functions with two other
nonlinear activation functions: maxout (Goodfellow et al., 2013), and network-in-network (Lin
et al., 2013).
We observe that both maxout units and network-in-network can learn any nonlinear activation function that APL units can, but require many more parameters to do so. This difference allows APL
units to be applied in very different ways from maxout and network-in-network nonlinearities: the
small number of parameters needed to tune an APL unit makes it practical to train convolutional
networks that apply different nonlinearities at each point in each feature map, which would be completely impractical in either maxout networks or network-in-network approaches.
Maxout. Maxout units differ from traditional neural network nonlinearities in that they take as
input the output of multiple linear functions, and return the largest:
hmaxout (x) =

max

wk · x + bk .

k∈{1,...,K}

(3)

Incorporating multiple linear functions increases the expressive power of maxout units, allowing
them to approximate arbitrary convex functions, and allowing the difference of a pair of maxout
units to approximate arbitrary functions.
Networks of maxout units with a particular weight-tying scheme can reproduce the output of an
APL unit. The sum of terms in Equation 1 with positive coefficients (including the initial max(0, x)
term) is a convex function, and the sum of terms with negative coefficients is a concave function.
One could approximate the convex part with one maxout unit, and the concave part with another
maxout unit:
hconvex (x) = max cconvex
w · x + dconvex
;
k
k
k

hconcave (x) = max cconcave
w · x + dconcave
,
k
k
k

(4)

where c and d are chosen so that
hconvex (x) − hconcave (x) = max(0, w · x + u) +

P

s

as max(0, w · x + u).

(5)

In a standard maxout network, however, the w vectors are not tied. So implementing APL units
(Equation 1) using a maxout network would require learning O(SK) times as many parameters,
where K is the size of the maxout layer’s input vector. Whenever the expressive power of an APL
unit is sufficient, using the more complex maxout units is therefore a waste of computational and
modeling power.
Network-in-Network. Lin et al. (2013) proposed replacing the simple rectified linear activation
in convolutional networks with a fully connected network whose parameters are learned from data.
This “MLPConv” layer couples the outputs of all filters applied to a patch, and permits arbitrarily
M
complex transformations of the inputs. A depth-M MLPConv layer produces an output vector fij
from an input patch xij via the series of transformations
M −1
1
M
fijk
= max(0, wk1 · xij + b1k ), . . . , fijk
= max(0, wkM · fij
+ bM
k ).

3

(6)

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

As with maxout networks, there is a weight-tying scheme that allows an MLPConv layer to reproduce the behavior of an APL unit:
1
2
fijk
= max(0, ck wκ(k) · xij + b1k ), fijk
=

P

`|κ(`)=k

1
ak fij`
,

(7)

where the function κ(k) maps from hinge output indices k to filter indices κ, and the coefficient
ck ∈ {−1, 1}.
This is a very aggressive weight-tying scheme that dramatically reduces the number of parameters
used by the MLPConv layer. Again we see that it is a waste of computational and modeling power
to use network-in-network wherever an APL unit would suffice.
However, network-in-network can do things that APL units cannot—in particular, it efficiently couples and summarizes the outputs of multiple filters. One can get the benefits of both architectures by
replacing the rectified linear units in the MLPconv layer with APL units.

3

E XPERIMENTS

Experiments were performed using the software package CAFFE (Jia et al., 2014). The hyperparameter, S, that controls the complexity of the activation function was determined using a validation
set for each dataset. The asi and bsi parameters were regularized with an L2 penalty, scaled by 0.001.
Without this penalty, the optimizer is free to choose very large values of asi balanced by very small
weights, which would lead to numerical instability. We found that adding this penalty improved results. The model files and solver files are available at https://github.com/ForestAgostinelli/LearnedActivation-Functions-Source/tree/master.
3.1

CIFAR

The CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets (Krizhevsky & Hinton, 2009) are 32x32 color images that
have 10 and 100 classes, respectively. They both have 50,000 training images and 10,000 test images. The images were preprocessed by subtracting the mean values of each pixel of the training set
from each image. Our network for CIFAR-10 was loosely based on the network used in (Srivastava
et al., 2014). It had 3 convolutional layers with 96, 128, and 256 filters, respectively. Each kernel
size was 5x5 and was padded by 2 pixels on each side. The convolutional layers were followed
by a max-pooling, average-pooling, and average-pooling layer, respectively; all with a kernel size
of 3 and a stride of 2. The two fully connected layers had 2048 units each. We applied dropout
(Hinton et al., 2012) to the network as well. We found that applying dropout both before and after
a pooling layer increased classification accuracy. The probability of a unit being dropped before a
pooling layer was 0.25 for all pooling layers. The probability for them being dropped after each
pooling layers was 0.25, 0.25, and 0.5, respectively. The probability of a unit being dropped for
the fully connected layers was 0.5 for both layers. The final layer was a softmax classification
layer. For CIFAR-100, the only difference was the second pooling layer was max-pooling instead
of average-pooling. The baseline used rectified linear activation functions.
When using the APL units, for CIFAR-10, we set S = 5. For CIFAR-100 we set S = 2. Table 1
shows that adding the APL units improved the baseline by over 1% in the case of CIFAR-10 and
by almost 3% in the case of CIFAR-100. In terms of relative difference, this is a 9.4% and a 7.5%
decrease in error rate, respectively. We also try the network-in-network architecture for CIFAR-10
(Lin et al., 2013). We have S = 2 for CIFAR-10 and S = 1 for CIFAR-100. We see that it improves
performance for both datasets.
We also try our method with the augmented version of CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. We pad the
image all around with a four pixel border of zeros. For training, we take random 32 x 32 crops of
the image and randomly do horizontal flips. For testing we just take the center 32 x 32 image. To
the best of our knowledge, the results we report for data augmentation using the network-in-network
architecture are the best results reported for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 for any method.
In section 3.4, one can observe that the learned activations can look similar to leaky rectified linear
units (Leaky ReLU) (Maas et al., 2013). This activation function is slightly different than the ReLU
4

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

because it has a small slope k when the input x < 0.

x,
if x > 0
h(x) =
kx, otherwise
In (Maas et al., 2013), k is equal to 0.01. To compare Leaky ReLUs to our method, we try different
values for k and pick the best value one. The possible values are positive and negative 0.01, 0.05,
0.1, and 0.2. For the standard convolutional neural network architecture k = 0.05 for CIFAR-10
and k = −0.05 for CIFAR-100. For the network-in-network architecture k = 0.05 for CIFAR-10
and k = 0.2 for CIFAR-100. APL units consistently outperform leaky ReLU units, showing the
value of tuning the nonlinearity (see also section 3.3).
Table 1: Error rates on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with and without data augmentation. This includes standard convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and the network-in-network (NIN) architecture (Lin et al., 2013). The networks were trained 5 times using different random initializations —
we report the mean followed by the standard deviation in parenthesis. The best results are in bold.
Method

CIFAR-10
Without Data Augmentation
CNN + ReLU (Srivastava et al., 2014)
12.61%
CNN + Channel-Out (Wang & JaJa, 2013)
13.2%
CNN + Maxout (Goodfellow et al., 2013)
11.68%
CNN + Probout (Springenberg & Riedmiller, 2013)
11.35%
CNN (Ours) + ReLU
12.56 (0.26)%
CNN (Ours) + Leaky ReLU
11.86 (0.04)%
CNN (Ours) + APL units
11.38 (0.09)%
NIN + ReLU (Lin et al., 2013)
10.41%
NIN + ReLU + Deep Supervision (Lee et al., 2014)
9.78%
NIN (Ours) + ReLU
9.67 (0.11)%
NIN (Ours) + Leaky ReLU
9.75 (0.22)%
NIN (Ours) + APL units
9.59 (0.24)%
With Data Augmentation
CNN + Maxout (Goodfellow et al., 2013)
9.38%
CNN + Probout (Springenberg & Riedmiller, 2013)
9.39%
CNN + Maxout (Stollenga et al., 2014)
9.61%
CNN + Maxout + Selective Attention (Stollenga et al., 2014) 9.22%
CNN (Ours) + ReLU
9.99 (0.09)%
CNN (Ours) + APL units
9.89 (0.19)%
NIN + ReLU (Lin et al., 2013)
8.81%
NIN + ReLU + Deep Supervision (Lee et al., 2014)
8.22%
NIN (Ours) + ReLU
7.73 (0.13)%
NIN (Ours) + APL units
7.51 (0.14)%

3.2

CIFAR-100
37.20%
36.59%
38.57%
38.14%
37.34 (0.28)%
35.82 (0.34)%
34.54 (0.19)%
35.68%
34.57%
35.96 (0.13)%
36.00 (0.36)%
34.40 (0.16)%
34.54%
33.78%
34.50 (0.12)%
33.88 (0.45)%
32.75 (0.13)%
30.83 (0.24)%

H IGGS B OSON D ECAY

The Higgs-to-τ + τ − decay dataset comes from the field of high-energy physics and the analysis of
data generated by the Large Hadron Collider (Baldi et al., 2015). The dataset contains 80 million
collision events, characterized by 25 real-valued features describing the 3D momenta and energies of
the collision products. The supervised learning task is to distinguish between two types of physical
processes: one in which a Higgs boson decays into τ + τ − leptons and a background process that
produces a similar measurement distribution. Performance is measured in terms of the area under
the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on a test set of 10 million examples, and in terms
of discovery significance (Cowan et al., 2011) in units of Gaussian σ, using 100 signal events and
5000 background events with a 5% relative uncertainty.
Our baseline for this experiment is the 8 layer neural network architecture from (Baldi et al.,
2015) whose architecture and training hyperparameters were optimized using the Spearmint algorithm (Snoek et al., 2012). We used the same architecture and training parameters except that
5

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

dropout was used in the top two hidden layers to reduce overfitting. For the APL units we used
S = 2. Table 2 shows that a single network with APL units achieves state-of-the-art performance,
increasing performance over the dropout-trained baseline and the ensemble of 5 neural networks
from (Baldi et al., 2015).
Table 2: Performance on the Higgs boson decay dataset in terms of both AUC and expected discovery significance. The networks were trained 4 times using different random initializations — we
report the mean followed by the standard deviation in parenthesis. The best results are in bold.
Method
DNN + ReLU (Baldi et al., 2015)
DNN + ReLU + Ensemble(Baldi et al., 2015)
DNN (Ours) + ReLU
DNN (Ours) + APL units

3.3

AUC
0.802
0.803
0.803 (0.0001)
0.804 (0.0002)

Discovery Significance
3.37σ
3.39σ
3.38 (0.008) σ
3.41 (0.006) σ

E FFECTS OF APL UNIT H YPERPARAMETERS

Table 3 shows the effect of varying S on the CIFAR-10 benchmark. We also tested whether learning
the activation function was important (as opposed to having complicated, fixed activation functions).
For S = 1, we tried freezing the activation functions at their random initialized positions, and not
allowing them to learn. The results show that learning activations, as opposed to keeping them fixed,
results in better performance.
Table 3: Classification accuracy on CIFAR-10 for varying values of S. Shown are the mean and
standard deviation over 5 trials.
Values of S
baseline
S = 1 (activation not learned)
S=1
S=2
S=5
S = 10

3.4

Error Rate
12.56 (0.26)%
12.55 (0.11)%
11.59 (0.16)%
11.73 (0.23)%
11.38 (0.09)%
11.60 (0.16)%

V ISUALIZATION AND A NALYSIS OF A DAPTIVE P IECEWISE L INEAR F UNCTIONS

The diversity of adaptive piecewise linear functions was visualized by plotting hi (x) for sample
neurons. Figures 2 and 3 show adaptive piecewise linear functions for the CIFAR-100 and Higgs→
τ + τ − experiments, along with the random initialization of that function.
In figure 4, for each layer, 1000 activation functions (or the maximum number of activation functions
for that layer, whichever is smaller) are plotted. One can see that there is greater variance in the
learned activations for CIFAR-100 than there is for CIFAR-10. There is greater variance in the
learned activations for Higgs→ τ + τ − than there is for CIFAR-100. For the case of Higgs→ τ + τ − ,
a trend that can be seen is that the variance decreases in the higher layers.

4

C ONCLUSION

We have introduced a novel neural network activation function in which each neuron computes an
independent, piecewise linear function. The parameters of each neuron-specific activation function
are learned via gradient descent along with the network’s weight parameters. Our experiments
demonstrate that learning the activation functions in this way can lead to significant performance
improvements in deep neural networks without significantly increasing the number of parameters.
Furthermore, the networks learn a diverse set of activation functions, suggesting that the standard
one-activation-function-fits-all approach may be suboptimal.
6

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

Figure 2: CIFAR-100 Sample Activation Functions. Initialization (dashed line) and the final learned
function (solid line).

Figure 3: Higgs→ τ + τ − Sample Activation Functions. Initialization (dashed line) and the final
learned function (solid line).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
F. Agostinelli was supported by the GEM Fellowship. This work was done during an internship
at Adobe. We also wish to acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of
the Tesla K40 GPU used for this research, NSF grant IIS-0513376, and a Google Faculty Research
award to P. Baldi, and thanks to Yuzo Kanomata for computing support.

R EFERENCES
Baldi, P, Sadowski, P, and Whiteson, D. Searching for exotic particles in high-energy physics with
deep learning. Nature Communications, 5, 2014.
Baldi, Pierre, Sadowski, Peter, and Whiteson, Daniel. Enhanced higgs to τ + τ − searches with deep
learning. Physics Review Letters, 2015. In press.
Cho, Youngmin and Saul, Lawrence. Large margin classification in infinite neural networks. Neural
Computation, 22(10), 2010.
7

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

(a) CIFAR-10 Activation Functions.

(b) CIFAR-100 Activation Functions.

(c) Higgs→ τ + τ − Activation Functions.

Figure 4: Visualization of the range of the values for the learned activation functions for the deep
neural network for the CIFAR datasets and Higgs→ τ + τ − dataset.
Cowan, Glen, Cranmer, Kyle, Gross, Eilam, and Vitells, Ofer. Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics. Eur.Phys.J., C71:1554, 2011. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0.
Di Lena, P., Nagata, K., and Baldi, P. Deep architectures for protein contact map prediction. Bioinformatics, 28:2449–2457, 2012. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts475. First published online: July
30, 2012.
Glorot, Xavier, Bordes, Antoine, and Bengio, Yoshua. Deep sparse rectifier networks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. JMLR W&CP
Volume, volume 15, pp. 315–323, 2011.
Goodfellow, Ian J, Warde-Farley, David, Mirza, Mehdi, Courville, Aaron, and Bengio, Yoshua.
Maxout networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.4389, 2013.
Gulcehre, Caglar, Cho, Kyunghyun, Pascanu, Razvan, and Bengio, Yoshua. Learned-norm pooling for deep feedforward and recurrent neural networks. In Machine Learning and Knowledge
Discovery in Databases, pp. 530–546. Springer, 2014.
Hannun, Awni Y., Case, Carl, Casper, Jared, Catanzaro, Bryan C., Diamos, Greg, Elsen, Erich,
Prenger, Ryan, Satheesh, Sanjeev, Sengupta, Shubho, Coates, Adam, and Ng, Andrew Y. Deep
8

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

speech: Scaling up end-to-end speech recognition. CoRR, abs/1412.5567, 2014. URL http:
//arxiv.org/abs/1412.5567.
Hinton, Geoffrey E, Srivastava, Nitish, Krizhevsky, Alex, Sutskever, Ilya, and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan R. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1207.0580, 2012.
Hornik, Kurt, Stinchcombe, Maxwell, and White, Halbert. Multilayer feedforward networks are
universal approximators. Neural networks, 2(5):359–366, 1989.
Jarrett, Kevin, Kavukcuoglu, Koray, Ranzato, M, and LeCun, Yann. What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition? In Computer Vision, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference
on, pp. 2146–2153. IEEE, 2009.
Jia, Yangqing, Shelhamer, Evan, Donahue, Jeff, Karayev, Sergey, Long, Jonathan, Girshick, Ross,
Guadarrama, Sergio, and Darrell, Trevor. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5093, 2014.
Krizhevsky, Alex and Hinton, Geoffrey. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images.
Computer Science Department, University of Toronto, Tech. Rep, 2009.
Krizhevsky, Alex, Sutskever, Ilya, and Hinton, Geoffrey E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 1097–1105,
2012.
Lee, Chen-Yu, Xie, Saining, Gallagher, Patrick, Zhang, Zhengyou, and Tu, Zhuowen. Deeplysupervised nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.5185, 2014.
Lin, Min, Chen, Qiang, and Yan, Shuicheng. Network in network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4400,
2013.
Lusci, Alessandro, Pollastri, Gianluca, and Baldi, Pierre. Deep architectures and deep learning
in chemoinformatics: the prediction of aqueous solubility for drug-like molecules. Journal of
chemical information and modeling, 53(7):1563–1575, 2013.
Maas, Andrew L, Hannun, Awni Y, and Ng, Andrew Y. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural
network acoustic models. In Proc. ICML, volume 30, 2013.
Snoek, Jasper, Larochelle, Hugo, and Adams, Ryan P. Practical bayesian optimization of machine
learning algorithms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2951–2959,
2012.
Springenberg, Jost Tobias and Riedmiller, Martin. Improving deep neural networks with probabilistic maxout units. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6116, 2013.
Srivastava, Nitish, Hinton, Geoffrey, Krizhevsky, Alex, Sutskever, Ilya, and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan.
Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine
Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014.
Stollenga, Marijn F, Masci, Jonathan, Gomez, Faustino, and Schmidhuber, Jürgen. Deep networks
with internal selective attention through feedback connections. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems, pp. 3545–3553, 2014.
Turner, Andrew James and Miller, Julian Francis. Neuroevolution: Evolving heterogeneous artificial
neural networks. Evolutionary Intelligence, pp. 1–20, 2014.
Wang, Qi and JaJa, Joseph. From maxout to channel-out: Encoding information on sparse pathways.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.1909, 2013.
Yao, Xin. Evolving artificial neural networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 87(9):1423–1447, 1999.

9

