Just do it? Investigating the gap between prediction and action in toddlers' causal inferences

Adults’ causal representations integrate information about predictive relations and the possibility of effective intervention; if one event reliably predicts another, adults can represent the possibility that acting to bring about the first event might generate the second. Here we show that although toddlers (mean age: 24 months) readily learn predictive relationships between physically connected events, they do not spontaneously initiate one event to try to generate the second (although older children, mean age: 47 months, do; Experiments 1 and 2). Toddlers succeed only when the events are initiated by a dispositional agent (Experiment 3), when the events involve direct contact between objects (Experiment 4), or when the events are described using causal language (Experiment 5). This suggests that causal language may help children extend their initial causal representations beyond agent-initiated and direct contact events.James S. McDonnell Foundation (Causal Learning Collaborative)American Psychological FoundationTempleton Foundatio

Valorization, comparison and characterization of coconuts waste and cactus in a biorefinery context using NaClO2-C2H4O2 and sequential NaClO2-C2H4O2/autohydrolysis pretreatment

The search for new sources of lignocellulosic raw materials for the generation of energy and new compounds encourages the search for locations not well known and with a high potential for biomass availability as is the case of the Northeast Region of Brazil. Thus, the cactus (CAC), green coconut shell (GCS), mature coconut fibre and mature coconut shell were pretreated by NaClO2C2H4O2 and sequential NaClO2C2H4O2/autohydrolysis aiming at the obtention of high added-value compounds in the liquid fraction and solid phase. The yield of the solid phase was between 61.42 and 90.97% and the reduction up to 91.63% of lignin in the materials pretreated by NaClO2C2H4O2. After NaClO2C2H4O2/autohydrolysis pretreatment the obtained solids yield was between 43.57 and 52.08%, with a solubilization of the hemicellulose content up to 81.42%. For both pretreatments the cellulosic content remained almost unchanged. The pretreated solids were characterized by SEM, X-ray and crystallinity indexes showing significant modifications when submitted to pretreatments. These results were further confirmed by the enzymatic conversion yields of 81.6890.03 and 86.9790.36% of the LCMs pretreated by NaClO2C2H4O2 and pretreated by NaClO2C2H4O2/autohydrolysis, respectively. The resulting liquors had a total phenolic compounds content between 0.20 and 3.05 g/L, lignin recovered up to 7.40 g/L (absence of sulphur) and xylooligosaccharides between 16.13 and 20.37 g/L. Thus, these pretreatments showed an efficient fractionation of LCMs, especially in the GCS, being an important requirement for the generation of products and byproducts in the context of the biorefinery.The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian research funding agencies CNPq and CAPES for financial support. Financial support from the Energy Sustainability Fund 2014-05 (CONACYT-SENER), Mexican Centre for Innovation in Bioenergy (CemieBio), Cluster of Bioalcohols (Ref. 249564) is gratefully acknowledged. We also gratefully acknowledge support for this research by the Mexican Science and Technology Council (CONACYT, Mexico) for the infrastructure project - INFR201601 (Ref. 269461) and CB-2015-01 (Ref. 254808).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7.The evaluation of artificial intelligence systems and components is crucial for the progress of the discipline. In this paper we describe and critically assess the different ways AI systems are evaluated, and the role of components and techniques in these systems. We first focus on the traditional task-oriented evaluation approach. We identify three kinds of evaluation: human discrimination, problem benchmarks and peer confrontation. We describe some of the limitations of the many evaluation schemes and competitions in these three categories, and follow the progression of some of these tests. We then focus on a less customary (and challenging) ability-oriented evaluation approach, where a system is characterised by its (cognitive) abilities, rather than by the tasks it is designed to solve. We discuss several possibilities: the adaptation of cognitive tests used for humans and animals, the development of tests derived from algorithmic information theory or more integrated approaches under the perspective of universal psychometrics. We analyse some evaluation tests from AI that are better positioned for an ability-oriented evaluation and discuss how their problems and limitations can possibly be addressed with some of the tools and ideas that appear within the paper. Finally, we enumerate a series of lessons learnt and generic guidelines to be used when an AI evaluation scheme is under consideration.I thank the organisers of the AEPIA Summer School On Artificial Intelligence, held in September 2014, for giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on 'AI Evaluation'. This paper was born out of and evolved through that lecture. The information about many benchmarks and competitions discussed in this paper have been contrasted with information from and discussions with many people: M. Bedia, A. Cangelosi, C. Dimitrakakis, I. GarcIa-Varea, Katja Hofmann, W. Langdon, E. Messina, S. Mueller, M. Siebers and C. Soares. Figure 4 is courtesy of F. Martinez-Plumed. Finally, I thank the anonymous reviewers, whose comments have helped to significantly improve the balance and coverage of the paper. This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO under Grants TIN 2013-45732-C4-1-P, TIN 2015-69175-C4-1-R and by Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEOII2015/013.José Hernández-Orallo (2016). Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7S151Abel D, Agarwal A, Diaz F, Krishnamurthy A, Schapire RE (2016) Exploratory gradient boosting for reinforcement learning in complex domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04119Adams S, Arel I, Bach J, Coop R, Furlan R, Goertzel B, Hall JS, Samsonovich A, Scheutz M, Schlesinger M, Shapiro SC, Sowa J (2012) Mapping the landscape of human-level artificial general intelligence. AI Mag 33(1):25–42Adams SS, Banavar G, Campbell M (2016) I-athlon: towards a multi-dimensional Turing test. AI Mag 37(1):78–84Alcalá J, Fernández A, Luengo J, Derrac J, García S, Sánchez L, Herrera F (2010) Keel data-mining software tool: data set repository, integration of algorithms and experimental analysis framework. J Mult Valued Logic Soft Comput 17:255–287Alexander JRM, Smales S (1997) Intelligence, learning and long-term memory. Personal Individ Differ 23(5):815–825Alpcan T, Everitt T, Hutter M (2014) Can we measure the difficulty of an optimization problem? In: IEEE information theory workshop (ITW)Alur R, Bodik R, Juniwal G, Martin MMK, Raghothaman M, Seshia SA, Singh R, Solar-Lezama A, Torlak E, Udupa A (2013) Syntax-guided synthesis. In: Formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), 2013, IEEE, pp 1–17Alvarado N, Adams SS, Burbeck S, Latta C (2002) Beyond the Turing test: performance metrics for evaluating a computer simulation of the human mind. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on development and learning, IEEE, pp 147–152Amigoni F, Bastianelli E, Berghofer J, Bonarini A, Fontana G, Hochgeschwender N, Iocchi L, Kraetzschmar G, Lima P, Matteucci M, Miraldo P, Nardi D, Schiaffonati V (2015) Competitions for benchmarking: task and functionality scoring complete performance assessment. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 22(3):53–61Anderson J, Lebiere C (2003) The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behav Brain Sci 26(5):587–601Anderson J, Baltes J, Cheng CT (2011) Robotics competitions as benchmarks for AI research. Knowl Eng Rev 26(01):11–17Arel I, Rose DC, Karnowski TP (2010) Deep machine learning—a new frontier in artificial intelligence research. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 5(4):13–18Asada M, Hosoda K, Kuniyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inui T, Yoshikawa Y, Ogino M, Yoshida C (2009) Cognitive developmental robotics: a survey. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 1(1):12–34Aziz H, Brill M, Fischer F, Harrenstein P, Lang J, Seedig HG (2015) Possible and necessary winners of partial tournaments. J Artif Intell Res 54:493–534Bache K, Lichman M (2013) UCI machine learning repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/mlBagnall AJ, Zatuchna ZV (2005) On the classification of maze problems. In: Bull L, Kovacs T (eds) Foundations of learning classifier system. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol. 183, Springer, pp 305–316. http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11319122_12Baldwin D, Yadav SB (1995) The process of research investigations in artificial intelligence - a unified view. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(5):852–861Bellemare MG, Naddaf Y, Veness J, Bowling M (2013) The arcade learning environment: an evaluation platform for general agents. J Artif Intell Res 47:253–279Besold TR (2014) A note on chances and limitations of psychometric ai. In: KI 2014: advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp 49–54Biever C (2011) Ultimate IQ: one test to rule them all. New Sci 211(2829, 10 September 2011):42–45Borg M, Johansen SS, Thomsen DL, Kraus M (2012) Practical implementation of a graphics Turing test. In: Advances in visual computing. Springer, pp 305–313Boring EG (1923) Intelligence as the tests test it. New Repub 35–37Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, OxfordBrazdil P, Carrier CG, Soares C, Vilalta R (2008) Metalearning: applications to data mining. Springer, New YorkBringsjord S (2011) Psychometric artificial intelligence. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 23(3):271–277Bringsjord S, Schimanski B (2003) What is artificial intelligence? Psychometric AI as an answer. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 887–893Brundage M (2016) Modeling progress in ai. AAAI 2016 Workshop on AI, Ethics, and SocietyBuchanan BG (1988) Artificial intelligence as an experimental science. Springer, New YorkBuhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5Bursztein E, Aigrain J, Moscicki A, Mitchell JC (2014) The end is nigh: generic solving of text-based captchas. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX conference on Offensive Technologies, USENIX Association, p 3Campbell M, Hoane AJ, Hsu F (2002) Deep Blue. Artif Intell 134(1–2):57–83Cangelosi A, Schlesinger M, Smith LB (2015) Developmental robotics: from babies to robots. MIT Press, CambridgeCaputo B, Müller H, Martinez-Gomez J, Villegas M, Acar B, Patricia N, Marvasti N, Üsküdarlı S, Paredes R, Cazorla M et al (2014) Imageclef 2014: overview and analysis of the results. In: Information access evaluation. Multilinguality, multimodality, and interaction, Springer, pp 192–211Carlson A, Betteridge J, Kisiel B, Settles B, Hruschka ER Jr, Mitchell TM (2010) Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In: AAAI, vol 5, p 3Carroll JB (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCaruana R (1997) Multitask learning. Mach Learn 28(1):41–75Chaitin GJ (1982) Gödel’s theorem and information. Int J Theor Phys 21(12):941–954Chandrasekaran B (1990) What kind of information processing is intelligence? In: The foundation of artificial intelligence—a sourcebook. Cambridge University Press, pp 14–46Chater N (1999) The search for simplicity: a fundamental cognitive principle? Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 52(2):273–302Chater N, Vitányi P (2003) Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends Cogn Sci 7(1):19–22Chu Z, Gianvecchio S, Wang H, Jajodia S (2010) Who is tweeting on twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of the 26th annual computer security applications conference, ACM, pp 21–30Cochran WG (2007) Sampling techniques. Wiley, New YorkCohen PR, Howe AE (1988) How evaluation guides AI research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag 9(4):35Cohen Y (2013) Testing and cognitive enhancement. Technical repor, National Institute for Testing and Evaluation, Jerusalem, IsraelConrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2013) The significance of evaluation in AI and law: a case study re-examining ICAIL proceedings. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 186–191Conrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2015) The role of evaluation in ai and law. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 181–186Deary IJ, Der G, Ford G (2001) Reaction times and intelligence differences: a population-based cohort study. Intelligence 29(5):389–399Decker KS, Durfee EH, Lesser VR (1989) Evaluating research in cooperative distributed problem solving. Distrib Artif Intell 2:487–519Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30Detterman DK (2011) A challenge to Watson. Intelligence 39(2–3):77–78Dimitrakakis C (2016) Personal communicationDimitrakakis C, Li G, Tziortziotis N (2014) The reinforcement learning competition 2014. AI Mag 35(3):61–65Dowe DL (2013) Introduction to Ray Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. In: Dowe DL (ed) Algorithmic probability and friends. Bayesian prediction and artificial intelligence, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7070. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–36Dowe DL, Hajek AR (1997) A computational extension to the Turing Test. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian cognitive science society, University of Newcastle, NSW, AustraliaDowe DL, Hajek AR (1998) A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2012) IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence 40(2):77–81Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2014) How universal can an intelligence test be? Adapt Behav 22(1):51–69Drummond C (2009) Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good science. In: Proceedings of the evaluation methods for machine learning workshop at the 26th ICML, Montreal, CanadaDrummond C, Japkowicz N (2010) Warning: statistical benchmarking is addictive. Kicking the habit in machine learning. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 22(1):67–80Duan Y, Chen X, Houthooft R, Schulman J, Abbeel P (2016) Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06778Eden AH, Moor JH, Soraker JH, Steinhart E (2013) Singularity hypotheses: a scientific and philosophical assessment. Springer, New YorkEdmondson W (2012) The intelligence in ETI—what can we know? Acta Astronaut 78:37–42Elo AE (1978) The rating of chessplayers, past and present, vol 3. Batsford, LondonEmbretson SE, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. L. Erlbaum, HillsdaleEvans JM, Messina ER (2001) Performance metrics for intelligent systems. NIST Special Publication SP, pp 101–104Everitt T, Lattimore T, Hutter M (2014) Free lunch for optimisation under the universal distribution. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 167–174Falkenauer E (1998) On method overfitting. J Heuristics 4(3):281–287Feldman J (2003) Simplicity and complexity in human concept learning. Gen Psychol 38(1):9–15Ferrando PJ (2009) Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas 33(1):9–24Ferrando PJ (2012) Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. Psicológica 33:111–139Ferri C, Hernández-Orallo J, Modroiu R (2009) An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recogn Lett 30(1):27–38Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Gondek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock J, Nyberg E, Prager J et al (2010) Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA project. AI Mag 31(3):59–79Fogel DB (1991) The evolution of intelligent decision making in gaming. Cybern Syst 22(2):223–236Gaschnig J, Klahr P, Pople H, Shortliffe E, Terry A (1983) Evaluation of expert systems: issues and case studies. Build Exp Syst 1:241–278Geissman JR, Schultz RD (1988) Verification & validation. AI Exp 3(2):26–33Genesereth M, Love N, Pell B (2005) General game playing: overview of the AAAI competition. AI Mag 26(2):62Gerónimo D, López AM (2014) Datasets and benchmarking. In: Vision-based pedestrian protection systems for intelligent vehicles. Springer, pp 87–93Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, New YorkGoertzel B, Arel I, Scheutz M (2009) Toward a roadmap for human-level artificial general intelligence: embedding HLAI systems in broad, approachable, physical or virtual contexts. Artif Gen Intell Roadmap InitiatGoldreich O, Vadhan S (2007) Special issue on worst-case versus average-case complexity editors’ foreword. Comput complex 16(4):325–330Gordon BB (2007) Report on panel discussion on (re-)establishing or increasing collaborative links between artificial intelligence and intelligent systems. In: Messina ER, Madhavan R (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems, pp 302–303Gulwani S, Hernández-Orallo J, Kitzelmann E, Muggleton SH, Schmid U, Zorn B (2015) Inductive programming meets the real world. Commun ACM 58(11):90–99Hand DJ (2004) Measurement theory and practice. A Hodder Arnold Publication, LondonHernández-Orallo J (2000a) Beyond the Turing test. J Logic Lang Inf 9(4):447–466Hernández-Orallo J (2000b) On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In: Meystel A (ed) Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp 1–8Hernández-Orallo J (2000c) Thesis: computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Commun 13(1):49–50Hernández-Orallo J (2010) A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In: Artificial general intelligence, 3rd International Conference. Atlantis Press, Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf , pp 182–183Hernández-Orallo J (2014) On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 29(3):402–454. doi: 10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2010) Measuring universal intelligence: towards an anytime intelligence test. Artif Intell 174(18):1508–1539Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2013) On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds Mach 23:179–210Hernández-Orallo J, Minaya-Collado N (1998) A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In: Proceedings of international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EIS’98), ICSC Press, pp 146–163Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Insa-Cabrera J (2011) On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: Schmidhuber J, Thórisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 82–91Hernández-Orallo J, Flach P, Ferri C (2012a) A unified view of performance metrics: translating threshold choice into expected classification loss. J Mach Learn Res 13(1):2813–2869Hernández-Orallo J, Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, Hibbard B (2012b) Turing Tests with Turing machines. In: Voronkov A (ed) Turing-100, EPiC Series, vol 10, pp 140–156Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL, Hernández-Lloreda MV (2014) Universal psychometrics: measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cogn Syst Res 27:50–74Hernández-Orallo J, Martínez-Plumed F, Schmid U, Siebers M, Dowe DL (2016) Computer models solving intelligence test problems: progress and implications. Artif Intell 230:74–107Herrmann E, Call J, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Hare B, Tomasello M (2007) Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317(5843):1360–1366Hibbard B (2009) Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. J Artif Gen Intell 1(1):54–61Hingston P (2010) A new design for a Turing Test for bots. In: 2010 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and games (CIG), IEEE, pp 345–350Hingston P (2012) Believable bots: can computers play like people?. Springer, New YorkHo TK, Basu M (2002) Complexity measures of supervised classification problems. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(3):289–300Hutter M (2007) Universal algorithmic intelligence: a mathematical top $$\rightarrow$$ → down approach. In: Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) Artificial general intelligence, cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 227–290Igel C, Toussaint M (2005) A no-free-lunch theorem for non-uniform distributions of target functions. J Math Model Algorithms 3(4):313–322Insa-Cabrera J (2016) Towards a universal test of social intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Sistemes Informátics i Computació, UPVInsa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Hernández-Orallo J (2011a) Comparing humans and ai agents. In: Schmidhuber J, Thórisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 122–132Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2011) Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In: Lozano JA, Gamez JM (eds) Current topics in artificial intelligence. CAEPIA 2011, LNAI series 7023. Springer, New YorkInsa-Cabrera J, Benacloch-Ayuso JL, Hernández-Orallo J (2012) On measuring social intelligence: experiments on competition and cooperation. In: Bach J, Goertzel B, Iklé M (eds) AGI, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7716. Springer, New York, pp 126–135Jacoff A, Messina E, Weiss BA, Tadokoro S, Nakagawa Y (2003) Test arenas and performance metrics for urban search and rescue robots. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2003 (IROS 2003), IEEE, vol 4, pp 3396–3403Japkowicz N, Shah M (2011) Evaluating learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeJiang J (2008) A literature survey on domain adaptation of statistical classifiers. http://sifaka.cs.uiuc.edu/jiang4/domain_adaptation/surveyJohnson M, Hofmann K, Hutton T, Bignell D (2016) The Malmo platform for artificial intelligence experimentation. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)Keith TZ, Reynolds MR (2010) Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: what we’ve learned from 20 years of research. Psychol Schools 47(7):635–650Ketter W, Symeonidis A (2012) Competitive benchmarking: lessons learned from the trading agent competition. AI Mag 33(2):103Khreich W, Granger E, Miri A, Sabourin R (2012) A survey of techniques for incremental learning of HMM parameters. Inf Sci 197:105–130Kim JH (2004) Soccer robotics, vol 11. Springer, New YorkKitano H, Asada M, Kuniyoshi Y, Noda I, Osawa E (1997) Robocup: the robot world cup initiative. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents, ACM, pp 340–347Kleiner K (2011) Who are you calling bird-brained? An attempt is being made to devise a universal intelligence test. Economist 398(8723, 5 March 2011):82Knuth DE (1973) Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Addison-Wesley, ReadingKoza JR (2010) Human-competitive results produced by genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 11(3–4):251–284Krueger J, Osherson D (1980) On the psychology of structural simplicity. In: Jusczyk PW, Klein RM (eds) The nature of thought: essays in honor of D. O. Hebb. Psychology Press, London, pp 187–205Langford J (2005) Clever methods of overfitting. Machine Learning (Theory). http://hunch.netLangley P (1987) Research papers in machine learning. Mach Learn 2(3):195–198Langley P (2011) The changing science of machine learning. Mach Learn 82(3):275–279Langley P (2012) The cognitive systems paradigm. Adv Cogn Syst 1:3–13Lattimore T, Hutter M (2013) No free lunch versus Occam’s razor in supervised learning. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 223–235Leeuwenberg ELJ, Van Der Helm PA (2012) Structural information theory: the simplicity of visual form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLegg S, Hutter M (2007a) Tests of machine intelligence. In: Lungarella M, Iida F, Bongard J, Pfeifer R (eds) 50 Years of Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4850, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 232–242. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77296-5_22Legg S, Hutter M (2007b) Universal intelligence: a definition of machine intelligence. Minds Mach 17(4):391–444Legg S, Veness J (2013) An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 236–249Levesque HJ (2014) On our best behaviour. Artif Intell 212:27–35Levesque HJ, Davis E, Morgenstern L (2012) The winog

Drift as a Force of Evolution: A Manipulationist Account

Can evolutionary theory be properly characterised as a “theory of forces”, like Newtonian mechanics? One common criticism to this claim concerns the possibility to conceive genetic drift as a causal process endowed by a specific magnitude and direction. In this article, we aim to offer an original response to this criticism by pointing out a connection between the notion of force and the notion of explanatory depth, as depicted in Hitchcock and Woodward’s manipulationist account of causal explanation. In a nutshell, our argument is that, since force-explanations can be consistently reframed as deep explanations and vice versa, and the notion of drift can be characterised in manipulationist terms as constitutively intervening in evolutionary deep explanations, then drift-explanations can be consistently reframed as force-explanations, and drift can be properly considered as a force of evolution. Insofar as similar considerations may be extended also to other evolutionary factors – chiefly selection –, our analysis offers an important support to the claim that evolutionary theory is a theory of forces.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

In defence of activities

In this paper, we examine what is to be said in defence of Machamer, Darden and Craver’s (MDC) controversial dualism about activities and entities (Machamer, Darden and Craver’s in Philos Sci 67:1–25, 2000). We explain why we believe the notion of an activity to be a novel, valuable one, and set about clearing away some initial objections that can lead to its being brushed aside unexamined. We argue that substantive debate about ontology can only be effective when desiderata for an ontology are explicitly articulated. We distinguish three such desiderata. The first is a more permissive descriptive ontology of science, the second a more reductive ontology prioritising understanding, and the third a more reductive ontology prioritising minimalism. We compare MDC’s entities-activities ontology to its closest rival, the entities-capacities ontology, and argue that the entities-activities ontology does better on all three desiderata

Pre-emption cases may support, not undermine, the counterfactual theory of causation

Pre-emption cases have been taken by almost everyone to imply the unviability of the simple counterfactual theory of causation. Yet there is ample motivation from scientific practice to endorse a simple version of the theory if we can. There is a way in which a simple counterfactual theory, at least if understood contrastively, can be supported even while acknowledging that intuition goes firmly against it in pre-emption cases – or rather, only in some of those cases. For I present several new pre-emption cases in which causal intuition does not go against the counterfactual theory, a fact that has been verified experimentally. I suggest an account of framing effects that can square the circle. Crucially, this account offers hope of theoretical salvation – but only to the counterfactual theory of causation, not to others. Again, there is (admittedly only preliminary) experimental support for this account

The future, and what might have been

We show that five important elements of the ‘nomological package’— laws, counterfactuals, chances, dispositions, and counterfactuals—needn’t be a problem for the Growing-Block view. We begin with the framework given in Briggsand Forbes (in The real truth about the unreal future. Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,2012), and, taking laws as primitive, we show that the Growing-Block view has the resources to provide an account of possibility, and a natural semantics for non-backtracking causal counterfactuals. We show how objective chances might ground a more fine-grained concept of feasibility, and furnished a places in the structure where causation and dispositions might fit. The Growing-Block view, thus understood, provides the resources to explain the close link between modality and tense, so that it predicts modal change as time passes.This account lets us capture not only what the future might hold for us, and also what might have been