23,160 research outputs found
Multi-agent knowledge integration mechanism using particle swarm optimization
This is the post-print version of the final paper published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2011 Elsevier B.V.Unstructured group decision-making is burdened with several central difficulties: unifying the knowledge of multiple experts in an unbiased manner and computational inefficiencies. In addition, a proper means of storing such unified knowledge for later use has not yet been established. Storage difficulties stem from of the integration of the logic underlying multiple experts' decision-making processes and the structured quantification of the impact of each opinion on the final product. To address these difficulties, this paper proposes a novel approach called the multiple agent-based knowledge integration mechanism (MAKIM), in which a fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) is used as a knowledge representation and storage vehicle. In this approach, we use particle swarm optimization (PSO) to adjust causal relationships and causality coefficients from the perspective of global optimization. Once an optimized FCM is constructed an agent based model (ABM) is applied to the inference of the FCM to solve real world problem. The final aggregate knowledge is stored in FCM form and is used to produce proper inference results for other target problems. To test the validity of our approach, we applied MAKIM to a real-world group decision-making problem, an IT project risk assessment, and found MAKIM to be statistically robust.Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Korea
Why it is important to build robots capable of doing science
Science, like any other cognitive activity, is grounded in the sensorimotor interaction of our bodies with the environment. Human embodiment thus constrains the class of scientific concepts and theories which are accessible to us. The paper explores the possibility of doing science with artificial cognitive agents, in the framework of an interactivist-constructivist cognitive model of science. Intelligent robots, by virtue of having different sensorimotor capabilities, may overcome the fundamental limitations of human science and provide important technological innovations. Mathematics and nanophysics are prime candidates for being studied by artificial scientists
Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People
Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has renewed interest in
building systems that learn and think like people. Many advances have come from
using deep neural networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object
recognition, video games, and board games, achieving performance that equals or
even beats humans in some respects. Despite their biological inspiration and
performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in
crucial ways. We review progress in cognitive science suggesting that truly
human-like learning and thinking machines will have to reach beyond current
engineering trends in both what they learn, and how they learn it.
Specifically, we argue that these machines should (a) build causal models of
the world that support explanation and understanding, rather than merely
solving pattern recognition problems; (b) ground learning in intuitive theories
of physics and psychology, to support and enrich the knowledge that is learned;
and (c) harness compositionality and learning-to-learn to rapidly acquire and
generalize knowledge to new tasks and situations. We suggest concrete
challenges and promising routes towards these goals that can combine the
strengths of recent neural network advances with more structured cognitive
models.Comment: In press at Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Open call for commentary
proposals (until Nov. 22, 2016).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-for-commentary/open-calls-for-commentar
- ā¦