The effect of multiple knowledge sources on learning and teaching

Current paradigms for machine-based learning and teaching tend to perform their task in isolation from a rich context of existing knowledge. In contrast, the research project presented here takes the view that bringing multiple sources of knowledge to bear is of central importance to learning in complex domains. As a consequence teaching must both take advantage of and beware of interactions between new and existing knowledge. The central process which connects learning to its context is reasoning by analogy, a primary concern of this research. In teaching, the connection is provided by the explicit use of a learning model to reason about the choice of teaching actions. In this learning paradigm, new concepts are incrementally refined and integrated into a body of expertise, rather than being evaluated against a static notion of correctness. The domain chosen for this experimentation is that of learning to solve "algebra story problems." A model of acquiring problem solving skills in this domain is described, including: representational structures for background knowledge, a problem solving architecture, learning mechanisms, and the role of analogies in applying existing problem solving abilities to novel problems. Examples of learning are given for representative instances of algebra story problems. After relating our views to the psychological literature, we outline the design of a teaching system. Finally, we insist on the interdependence of learning and teaching and on the synergistic effects of conducting both research efforts in parallel

A walk in the statistical mechanical formulation of neural networks

Neural networks are nowadays both powerful operational tools (e.g., for pattern recognition, data mining, error correction codes) and complex theoretical models on the focus of scientific investigation. As for the research branch, neural networks are handled and studied by psychologists, neurobiologists, engineers, mathematicians and theoretical physicists. In particular, in theoretical physics, the key instrument for the quantitative analysis of neural networks is statistical mechanics. From this perspective, here, we first review attractor networks: starting from ferromagnets and spin-glass models, we discuss the underlying philosophy and we recover the strand paved by Hopfield, Amit-Gutfreund-Sompolinky. One step forward, we highlight the structural equivalence between Hopfield networks (modeling retrieval) and Boltzmann machines (modeling learning), hence realizing a deep bridge linking two inseparable aspects of biological and robotic spontaneous cognition. As a sideline, in this walk we derive two alternative (with respect to the original Hebb proposal) ways to recover the Hebbian paradigm, stemming from ferromagnets and from spin-glasses, respectively. Further, as these notes are thought of for an Engineering audience, we highlight also the mappings between ferromagnets and operational amplifiers and between antiferromagnets and flip-flops (as neural networks -built by op-amp and flip-flops- are particular spin-glasses and the latter are indeed combinations of ferromagnets and antiferromagnets), hoping that such a bridge plays as a concrete prescription to capture the beauty of robotics from the statistical mechanical perspective.Comment: Contribute to the proceeding of the conference: NCTA 2014. Contains 12 pages,7 figure

The challenge of complexity for cognitive systems

Complex cognition addresses research on (a) high-level cognitive processes – mainly problem solving, reasoning, and decision making – and their interaction with more basic processes such as perception, learning, motivation and emotion and (b) cognitive processes which take place in a complex, typically dynamic, environment. Our focus is on AI systems and cognitive models dealing with complexity and on psychological findings which can inspire or challenge cognitive systems research. In this overview we first motivate why we have to go beyond models for rather simple cognitive processes and reductionist experiments. Afterwards, we give a characterization of complexity from our perspective. We introduce the triad of cognitive science methods – analytical, empirical, and engineering methods – which in our opinion have all to be utilized to tackle complex cognition. Afterwards we highlight three aspects of complex cognition – complex problem solving, dynamic decision making, and learning of concepts, skills and strategies. We conclude with some reflections about and challenges for future research

Automated Generation of Cross-Domain Analogies via Evolutionary Computation

Analogy plays an important role in creativity, and is extensively used in science as well as art. In this paper we introduce a technique for the automated generation of cross-domain analogies based on a novel evolutionary algorithm (EA). Unlike existing work in computational analogy-making restricted to creating analogies between two given cases, our approach, for a given case, is capable of creating an analogy along with the novel analogous case itself. Our algorithm is based on the concept of "memes", which are units of culture, or knowledge, undergoing variation and selection under a fitness measure, and represents evolving pieces of knowledge as semantic networks. Using a fitness function based on Gentner's structure mapping theory of analogies, we demonstrate the feasibility of spontaneously generating semantic networks that are analogous to a given base network.Comment: Conference submission, International Conference on Computational Creativity 2012 (8 pages, 6 figures

Knowledge transfer in cognitive systems theory: models, computation, and explanation

Knowledge transfer in cognitive systems can be explicated in terms of structure mapping and control. The structure of an effective model enables adaptive control for the system's intended domain of application. Knowledge is transferred by a system when control of a new domain is enabled by mapping the structure of a previously effective model. I advocate for a model-based view of computation which recognizes effective structure mapping at a low level. Artificial neural network systems are furthermore viewed as model-based, where effective models are learned through feedback. Thus, many of the most popular artificial neural network systems are best understood in light of the cybernetic tradition as error-controlled regulators. Knowledge transfer with pre-trained networks (transfer learning) can, when automated like other machine learning methods, be seen as an advancement towards artificial general intelligence. I argue this is convincing because it is akin to automating a general systems methodology of knowledge transfer in scientific reasoning. Analogical reasoning is typical in such a methodology, and some accounts view analogical cognition as the core of cognition which provides adaptive benefits through efficient knowledge transfer. I then discuss one modern example of analogical reasoning in physics, and how an extended Bayesian view might model confirmation given a structural mapping between two systems. In light of my account of knowledge transfer, I finally assess the case of quantum-like models in cognition, and whether the transfer of quantum principles is appropriate. I conclude by throwing my support behind a general systems philosophy of science framework which emphasizes the importance of structure, and which rejects a controversial view of scientific explanation in favor of a view of explanation as enabling control

On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science - A Defense of the Received View

I defend the Received View on scientific theories as developed by Carnap, Hempel, and Feigl against a number of criticisms based on misconceptions. First, I dispute the claim that the Received View demands axiomatizations in first order logic, and the further claim that these axiomatizations must include axioms for the mathematics used in the scientific theories. Next, I contend that models are important according to the Received View. Finally, I argue against the claim that the Received View is intended to make the concept of a theory more precise. Rather, it is meant as a generalizable framework for explicating specific theories