Scaling Up Grounded Representations Hierarchically

We have been studying the learning of compositional hierarchies in predictive models, an area we feel is significantly underrepresented in machine learning. The aim in learning such models is to scale up automatically from fine-grained to coarser representations by identifying frequently occurring repeated patterns, while retaining the ability to make predictions based on the statistica] regularities exhibited by these patterns. Our hierarchical learning begins with data consisting of discrete symbols and can be viewed as a method of grounding high-level concepts in terms of their lower-level parts, which are themselves grounded in raw, environmental signals by other means. This short paper discusses the relationship between hierarchy learning and the learning of low-level grounded representations and also very briefly describes one of our systems for compositional hierarchy learning. A much more detailed discussion, including an extensive literature review, can be found in (Pfleger 2000).

[1]  Mark B. Ring Continual learning in reinforcement environments , 1995, GMD-Bericht.

[2]  R. Sun Symbol Grounding: A New Look At An Old Idea , 1999 .

[3]  M. Goldsmith,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996 .

[4]  Keiji Kanazawa,et al.  A model for reasoning about persistence and causation , 1989 .

[5]  Alessandro Saffiotti,et al.  Anchoring Symbols to Sensor Data: Preliminary Report , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[6]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines , 1986 .

[7]  A Calder,et al.  An Interactive Activation Model of Face Naming , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[8]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[9]  A. Newell Unified Theories of Cognition , 1990 .

[10]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Eye on the Prize , 1995, AI Mag..

[11]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[12]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[13]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[14]  Yoram Singer,et al.  Dynamical encoding of cursive handwriting , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[15]  Jeffrey Mark Siskind,et al.  Visual Event Classification via Force Dynamics , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[16]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  A Method for Clustering the Experiences of a Mobile Robot that Accords with Human Judgments , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[17]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[18]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Boltzmann Chains and Hidden Markov Models , 1994, NIPS.

[19]  Karl Pfleger Learning of Compositional Hierarchies By Data-Driven Chunking , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[20]  T. A. Cartwright,et al.  Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation , 1996, Cognition.

[21]  Barbara Hayes-Roth On Building Integrated Cognitive Agents: A Review of Allen Newell's Unified Theories of Cognition , 1993, Artif. Intell..