For the symmetric zero-diagonal weights and asynchronous rule just specified, update only unit . In the energy difference, terms involving neither nor its symmetric partner cancel. Thus asynchronous Hopfield energy descent gives
If the unit was already aligned, it does not change and . If it flips into alignment, , so
At our tie rule retains the old activity. The network has only configurations. Strict descent on every actual change prevents revisiting a configuration and permits only finitely many changes. With a fair schedule every misaligned unit is eventually updated, so the terminal configuration is a fixed point. At that point each possible single-bit flip has energy cost . The network reaches a minimum against single-unit changes, not necessarily the global minimum. Its energy is a Lyapunov function for these asynchronous dynamics.
The qualifications are essential to the printed claim. Synchronous updates can cycle: for two units with , the state alternates with , keeping energy . Symmetry alone therefore does not prove convergence under simultaneous updates.
Nor does the valid descent proof guarantee a global minimum. Consider four units with and all four cross-group weights equal to , symmetrically and with zero diagonal. The state has aligned fields and energy , so it is a strict single-flip local minimum. The all-positive state has energy . This explicit counterexample shows why local minima may trap retrieval even though the energy always descends under the stipulated rule.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.