Learning in Tele-autonomous Systems using Soar

Robo-Soar is a high-level robot arm control system implemented in Soar. Robo-Soar learns to perform simple block manipulation tasks using advice from a human. Following learning, the system is able to perform similar tasks without external guidance. Robo-Soar corrects its knowledge by accepting advice about relevance of features in its domain, using a unique integration of analytic and empirical learning techniques

Flexibly Instructable Agents

This paper presents an approach to learning from situated, interactive tutorial instruction within an ongoing agent. Tutorial instruction is a flexible (and thus powerful) paradigm for teaching tasks because it allows an instructor to communicate whatever types of knowledge an agent might need in whatever situations might arise. To support this flexibility, however, the agent must be able to learn multiple kinds of knowledge from a broad range of instructional interactions. Our approach, called situated explanation, achieves such learning through a combination of analytic and inductive techniques. It combines a form of explanation-based learning that is situated for each instruction with a full suite of contextually guided responses to incomplete explanations. The approach is implemented in an agent called Instructo-Soar that learns hierarchies of new tasks and other domain knowledge from interactive natural language instructions. Instructo-Soar meets three key requirements of flexible instructability that distinguish it from previous systems: (1) it can take known or unknown commands at any instruction point; (2) it can handle instructions that apply to either its current situation or to a hypothetical situation specified in language (as in, for instance, conditional instructions); and (3) it can learn, from instructions, each class of knowledge it uses to perform tasks.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

The role of falsification in the development of cognitive architectures: insights from a Lakatosian analysis

It has been suggested that the enterprise of developing mechanistic theories of the human cognitive architecture is flawed because the theories produced are not directly falsifiable. Newell attempted to sidestep this criticism by arguing for a Lakatosian model of scientific progress in which cognitive architectures should be understood as theories that develop over time. However, Newell’s own candidate cognitive architecture adhered only loosely to Lakatosian principles. This paper reconsiders the role of falsification and the potential utility of Lakatosian principles in the development of cognitive architectures. It is argued that a lack of direct falsifiability need not undermine the scientific development of a cognitive architecture if broadly Lakatosian principles are adopted. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the Lakatosian concepts of positive and negative heuristics for theory development and of general heuristic power offer methods for guiding the development of an architecture and for evaluating the contribution and potential of an architecture’s research program

Cognitive architectures as Lakatosian research programmes: two case studies

Cognitive architectures - task-general theories of the structure and function of the complete cognitive system - are sometimes argued to be more akin to frameworks or belief systems than scientific theories. The argument stems from the apparent non-falsifiability of existing cognitive architectures. Newell was aware of this criticism and argued that architectures should be viewed not as theories subject to Popperian falsification, but rather as Lakatosian research programs based on cumulative growth. Newell's argument is undermined because he failed to demonstrate that the development of Soar, his own candidate architecture, adhered to Lakatosian principles. This paper presents detailed case studies of the development of two cognitive architectures, Soar and ACT-R, from a Lakatosian perspective. It is demonstrated that both are broadly Lakatosian, but that in both cases there have been theoretical progressions that, according to Lakatosian criteria, are pseudo-scientific. Thus, Newell's defense of Soar as a scientific rather than pseudo-scientific theory is not supported in practice. The ACT series of architectures has fewer pseudo-scientific progressions than Soar, but it too is vulnerable to accusations of pseudo-science. From this analysis, it is argued that successive versions of theories of the human cognitive architecture must explicitly address five questions to maintain scientific credibility

Learning-based constraints on schemata

Schemata are frequently used in cognitive science as a descriptive framework for explaining the units of knowledge. However, the specific properties which comprise a schema are not consistent across authors. In this paper we attempt to ground the concept of a schema based on constraints arising from issues of learning. To do this, we consider the different forms of schemata used in computational models of learning. We propose a framework for comparing forms of schemata which is based on the underlying representation used by each model, and the mechanisms used for learning and retrieving information from its memory. Based on these three characteristics, we compare examples from three classes of model, identified by their underlying representations, specifically: neural network, production-rule and symbolic network models

Consciosusness in Cognitive Architectures. A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R

This report analyses the aplicability of the principles of consciousness developed in the ASys project to three of the most relevant cognitive architectures. This is done in relation to their aplicability to build integrated control systems and studying their support for general mechanisms of real-time consciousness.\ud To analyse these architectures the ASys Framework is employed. This is a conceptual framework based on an extension for cognitive autonomous systems of the General Systems Theory (GST).\ud A general qualitative evaluation criteria for cognitive architectures is established based upon: a) requirements for a cognitive architecture, b) the theoretical framework based on the GST and c) core design principles for integrated cognitive conscious control systems

An Architectural Approach to Ensuring Consistency in Hierarchical Execution

Hierarchical task decomposition is a method used in many agent systems to organize agent knowledge. This work shows how the combination of a hierarchy and persistent assertions of knowledge can lead to difficulty in maintaining logical consistency in asserted knowledge. We explore the problematic consequences of persistent assumptions in the reasoning process and introduce novel potential solutions. Having implemented one of the possible solutions, Dynamic Hierarchical Justification, its effectiveness is demonstrated with an empirical analysis

Evaluation of Cognitive Architectures for Cyber-Physical Production Systems

Cyber-physical production systems (CPPS) integrate physical and computational resources due to increasingly available sensors and processing power. This enables the usage of data, to create additional benefit, such as condition monitoring or optimization. These capabilities can lead to cognition, such that the system is able to adapt independently to changing circumstances by learning from additional sensors information. Developing a reference architecture for the design of CPPS and standardization of machines and software interfaces is crucial to enable compatibility of data usage between different machine models and vendors. This paper analysis existing reference architecture regarding their cognitive abilities, based on requirements that are derived from three different use cases. The results from the evaluation of the reference architectures, which include two instances that stem from the field of cognitive science, reveal a gap in the applicability of the architectures regarding the generalizability and the level of abstraction. While reference architectures from the field of automation are suitable to address use case specific requirements, and do not address the general requirements, especially w.r.t. adaptability, the examples from the field of cognitive science are well usable to reach a high level of adaption and cognition. It is desirable to merge advantages of both classes of architectures to address challenges in the field of CPPS in Industrie 4.0