Learning and consistency

In designing learning algorithms it seems quite reasonable to construct them in such a way that all data the algorithm already has obtained are correctly and completely reflected in the hypothesis the algorithm outputs on these data. However, this approach may totally fail. It may lead to the unsolvability of the learning problem, or it may exclude any efficient solution of it. Therefore we study several types of consistent learning in recursion-theoretic inductive inference. We show that these types are not of universal power. We give “lower bounds ” on this power. We characterize these types by some versions of decidability of consistency with respect to suitable “non-standard ” spaces of hypotheses. Then we investigate the problem of learning consistently in polynomial time. In particular, we present a natural learning problem and prove that it can be solved in polynomial time if and only if the algorithm is allowed to work inconsistently. 1

Designing structured tight frames via an alternating projection method

Tight frames, also known as general Welch-bound- equality sequences, generalize orthonormal systems. Numerous applications - including communications, coding, and sparse approximation- require finite-dimensional tight frames that possess additional structural properties. This paper proposes an alternating projection method that is versatile enough to solve a huge class of inverse eigenvalue problems (IEPs), which includes the frame design problem. To apply this method, one needs only to solve a matrix nearness problem that arises naturally from the design specifications. Therefore, it is the fast and easy to develop versions of the algorithm that target new design problems. Alternating projection will often succeed even if algebraic constructions are unavailable. To demonstrate that alternating projection is an effective tool for frame design, the paper studies some important structural properties in detail. First, it addresses the most basic design problem: constructing tight frames with prescribed vector norms. Then, it discusses equiangular tight frames, which are natural dictionaries for sparse approximation. Finally, it examines tight frames whose individual vectors have low peak-to-average-power ratio (PAR), which is a valuable property for code-division multiple-access (CDMA) applications. Numerical experiments show that the proposed algorithm succeeds in each of these three cases. The appendices investigate the convergence properties of the algorithm

Towards integrated neural-symbolic systems for human-level AI: Two research programs helping to bridge the gaps

After a human-level AI-oriented overview of the status quo in neural-symbolic integration, two research programs aiming at overcoming long-standing challenges in the field are suggested to the community: The first program targets a better understanding of foundational differences and relationships on the level of computational complexity between symbolic and subsymbolic computation and representation, potentially providing explanations for the empirical differences between the paradigms in application scenarios and a foothold for subsequent attempts at overcoming these. The second program suggests a new approach and computational architecture for the cognitively-inspired anchoring of an agent's learning, knowledge formation, and higher reasoning abilities in real-world interactions through a closed neural-symbolic acting/sensing-processing-reasoning cycle, potentially providing new foundations for future agent architectures, multi-agent systems, robotics, and cognitive systems and facilitating a deeper understanding of the development and interaction in human-technological settings

Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity

According to the Bayesian paradigm in the psychology of reasoning, the norms by which everyday human cognition is best evaluated are probabilistic rather than logical in character. Recently, the Bayesian paradigm has been applied to the domain of argumentation, where the fundamental norms are traditionally assumed to be logical. Here, we present a major generalisation of extant Bayesian approaches to argumentation that (i)utilizes a new class of Bayesian learning methods that are better suited to modelling dynamic and conditional inferences than standard Bayesian conditionalization, (ii) is able to characterise the special value of logically valid argument schemes in uncertain reasoning contexts, (iii) greatly extends the range of inferences and argumentative phenomena that can be adequately described in a Bayesian framework, and (iv) undermines some influential theoretical motivations for dual function models of human cognition. We conclude that the probabilistic norms given by the Bayesian approach to rationality are not necessarily at odds with the norms given by classical logic. Rather, the Bayesian theory of argumentation can be seen as justifying and enriching the argumentative norms of classical logic

Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity

According to the Bayesian paradigm in the psychology of reasoning, the norms by which everyday human cognition is best evaluated are probabilistic rather than logical in character. Recently, the Bayesian paradigm has been applied to the domain of argumentation, where the fundamental norms are traditionally assumed to be logical. Here, we present a major generalisation of extant Bayesian approaches to argumentation that (i)utilizes a new class of Bayesian learning methods that are better suited to modelling dynamic and conditional inferences than standard Bayesian conditionalization, (ii) is able to characterise the special value of logically valid argument schemes in uncertain reasoning contexts, (iii) greatly extends the range of inferences and argumentative phenomena that can be adequately described in a Bayesian framework, and (iv) undermines some influential theoretical motivations for dual function models of human cognition. We conclude that the probabilistic norms given by the Bayesian approach to rationality are not necessarily at odds with the norms given by classical logic. Rather, the Bayesian theory of argumentation can be seen as justifying and enriching the argumentative norms of classical logic

A Multicriteria Approach for the Evaluation of the Sustainability of Re-use of Historic Buildings in Venice

The paper presents a multiple criteria model for the evaluation of the sustainability of projects for the economic re-use of historical buildings in Venice. The model utilises the relevant parameters for the appraisal of sustainability, aggregated into three macro-indicators: intrinsic sustainability, context sustainability and economic-financial feasibility. The model has been calibrated by a panel of experts and tested on two reuse hypotheses of the Old Arsenal in Venice. The tests have proven the model to be a useful support in the early stages of evaluation of re-use projects, where economic improvements are to be combined with conservation, as it supports the identification of critical points and the selection of projects, thus providing not only a check-list of variables to be considered, but an appraisal of trade-offs between economic uses and requirements of conservation.Economic Reuse, Historical Building Conservation