Cognitive processing as constraint satisfaction
-
Upload
buthainah-feroze -
Category
Documents
-
view
24 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Cognitive processing as constraint satisfaction
Cognitive processing as constraint satisfaction
Today’s goals
• One example of how “neutrally-inspired” mechanisms can address problems faced by symbolic approaches (in memory)
• One example of how models can be used formally as proofs of general principles.
• Introduction to HW1 models.
Aristotle: Memory is like a library.
Everyone else for next 2300 years: Yup.
Cognitive neuroscience: LOL, wut?
How like a library?
Ways memory is not like a library
• Content-addressable
• Generalizable
• Graceful degradation
• Graded, uncertain
• Supported by neural systems
Demo
Ways memory is not like a library
• Content-addressable
• Generalizable
• Graceful degradation
• Graded, uncertain
• Supported by neural systems
It does something, but how do you know it is doing the “right” thing?
• Suppose all weights are symmetrical• Weights represent “beliefs” about the
mutual compatibility of two features• If w > 0, “If A is on B should be on
and vice versa”• If w = 0, “A has no implications for B• If w < 0, “If A is on B should be off
and vice versa”• So for any pair of features you can
measure how well their activations “fit” the belief about their compatibility as:
G_ij = a_i * a_j * w_ij
G = How “good” is the pattern of activation, given knowledge of the mutual constraints between features?
To get a measure of how well the pattern across the whole network satisfies the “beliefs” coded in the weights you can sum this over all pairs of units…
Patterns that “fit” the constraints built into the weights and the external input will produce a large value in G…
An activation function that increases toward its maximum when net input is positive and decreases it toward zero when net input is negative is guaranteed to increase G for the whole network!
In other words, a local computation (should I raise or lower my behavior?) leads to system-wide improvement in “fitting” the constraints.
Schemata as constraint satisfaction
What do you know about restaurants?
• You eat there• May be a waiter• Order food• Sit down• Obtain food• Eat food• Pay for food• Leave tip
• Order food• At counter• From waiter
• Sit down• Choose seat• Shown to seat
• At table• At counter
• Obtain food• At counter• From waiter
• Eat food
• Pay for food• Before getting it• After getting it
• Use cash• Use credit
• Leave tip
Variables
Values
SchemaContains variables
Codes relations between variables
Contains constants
Variables
Specify different possible “fillers”
Might specify default values
Desiderata
• Should capture structure– Information about common elements,
variables, distributions of values for variables
• Should capture sub-structure– The “slot” in a given schema might be filled by
another more specific schema– E.G. “Paying”
• Should be flexible and applicable to new situations.
Problems• Not actually very flexible
– Eating in a dark restaurant?– Seems like you need to store all possible structures, implausible.– How can structured representations be adapted “on the fly”?
• Overly structured– Values of “fillers” for some variables depend on how others have been filled.– Not clear how to combine different structured representations– Relational information in schema depends on values of variables contained
• E.g. Order information of “Sitting” versus “Ordering” depends on value of variable “Obtain food”
• Acquisition– How do you learn these structures in the first place?
Similar issues arise in:
• Grammar
• Event representation
• Spatial representation
• Transitive inference
• Logic / reasoning
• Analogy
Schematic knowledge as constraint satisfaction
CeilingWallsDoor
WindowVery-large
LargeMedium
SmallVery-small
DeskTelephone
BedTypewriterBookshelf
CarpetBooks
Desk-chairClock
PictureFloor-lamp
SofaEasy-chairCoffee-cup
AshtrayFireplace
DrapesStove
SinkRefrigerator
ToasterCupboardCoffeepot
DresserTV
BathtubToiletScale
CoathangerComputer
Oven
Kitchen Office Livingroom Bedroom Bathroom
CeilingWallsDoor
WindowVery-large
LargeMedium
SmallVery-small
DeskTelephone
BedTypewriterBookshelf
CarpetBooks
Desk-chairClock
PictureFloor-lamp
SofaEasy-chairCoffee-cup
AshtrayFireplace
DrapesStove
SinkRefrigerator
ToasterCupboardCoffeepot
DresserTV
BathtubToiletScale
…
Cei
ling
Wal
lsD
oor
Win
dow
Ver
y-la
rge
Larg
eM
ediu
mS
mal
lV
ery-
smal
lD
esk
Tel
epho
neB
edT
ypew
riter
Boo
kshe
lfC
arpe
tB
ooks
Des
k-ch
air
Clo
ckP
ictu
reF
loor
-lam
pS
ofa
Eas
y-ch
air
Cof
fee-
cup
Ash
tray
Fire
plac
eD
rape
sS
tove
Sin
kR
efrig
erat
orT
oast
erC
upbo
ard
Cof
feep
otD
ress
erT
VB
atht
ubT
oile
tS
cale
Coa
than
ger
Com
pute
rO
ven
“Variables” coded in weight structure…
Function (e.g., making inferences) achieved by activation updating / hill-climbing…
Different “schemas” correspond to different localmaxima in G….
Goodness landscape determines how discrete /combinable different schemas are…
“Schemas” adapt themselves to the situation specifiedby the input…
“Coalitions” of connected units can form “sub-schemas”to provide for different levels of structure…
Homework 1 begins this week!
20s 30s 40s Pusher Burglar Bookie
Jet Shark JH HS Col.
20s 30s 40s Pusher Burglar Bookie
Jet Shark JH HS Col.
Art-in Ken-in