A comparison of Vector Symbolic Architectures
This work provides a systematic comparison and taxonomy for researchers and practitioners to select appropriate VSAs for specific tasks, but it is incremental as it builds on existing implementations without introducing new methods.
This paper compared eleven Vector Symbolic Architecture implementations by analyzing their vector spaces and operators, and experimentally evaluated their performance on tasks like capacity, unbinding quality, and applications in visual place- and language-recognition, showing differences in query answering and approximation quality.
Vector Symbolic Architectures combine a high-dimensional vector space with a set of carefully designed operators in order to perform symbolic computations with large numerical vectors. Major goals are the exploitation of their representational power and ability to deal with fuzziness and ambiguity. Over the past years, several VSA implementations have been proposed. The available implementations differ in the underlying vector space and the particular implementations of the VSA operators. This paper provides an overview of eleven available VSA implementations and discusses their commonalities and differences in the underlying vector space and operators. We create a taxonomy of available binding operations and show an important ramification for non self-inverse binding operations using an example from analogical reasoning. A main contribution is the experimental comparison of the available implementations in order to evaluate (1) the capacity of bundles, (2) the approximation quality of non-exact unbinding operations, (3) the influence of combining binding and bundling operations on the query answering performance, and (4) the performance on two example applications: visual place- and language-recognition. We expect this comparison and systematization to be relevant for development of VSAs, and to support the selection of an appropriate VSA for a particular task. The implementations are available.