@misc{cogprints520,
          volume = {10},
          number = {2},
           title = {Are feedforward and recurrent networks systematic? Analysis and implications for a connectionist cognitive architecture},
          author = {S. Phillips},
            year = {1998},
           pages = {137--160},
         journal = {Connection Science},
        keywords = {strong systematicity, connectionism, classicism, feedforward network, recurrent network, tensor network, weight sharing, local representation, compositionality, association, relation},
             url = {http://cogprints.org/520/},
        abstract = {Human cognition is said to be systematic: cognitive ability generalizes to structurally related behaviours. The connectionist approach to cognitive theorizing has been strongly criticized for its failure to explain systematicity. Demonstrations of generalization notwithstanding, I show that two widely used networks (feedforward and recurrent) do not support systematicity under the condition of local input/output representations. For a connectionist explanation of systematicity, these results leave two choices, either: (1) develop models capable of systematicity under local input/output representations; or (2) justify the choice of similarity-based (nonlocal) component representations sufficient for systematicity.}
}

<script src="//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js"></script>