Processing Symbols at Variable Speed in DUAL: Connectionist Activation as Power Supply

This article explores the advantages and one potential implementation of a new style of computation in which multiple lines of symbolic processing are pursued at different speeds within a hybrid multi-agent system. The cognitive architecture DUAL consists of small hybrid computational entities called DUAL agents. Each agent has a symbolic processor capable of simple symbol manipulations. There is also an activation level associated with each agent. Activation spreads according to connectionist rules. The speed of each symbolic processor is proportional to the activation level of the corresponding DUAL agent and varies dynamically. Thus multiple candidate-solutions to a given problem can be explored in parallel. More computational resources are dedicated to the more promising candidates and the degree of 'promise' is reevaluated dynamically. This allows for flexible and efficient behavior of the system as a whole. The exact relationship between symbolic speed and connectionist activation is based on an energetic analogy. The symbolic processor is conceptualized as a machine converting connectionist activation into symbolic work. A language for implementing variable-speed symbol manipulations using delayed evaluation is introduced: S-LlSP. A small example from a DUAL-based cognitive model illustrates variable-speed marker passing in a semantic network.

[1]  James Alexander Hendler,et al.  integrating Marker Passing and Problem Solving: A Spreading Activation Approach To Improved Choice in Planning , 1987 .

[2]  Allen Newell,et al.  Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search , 1976, CACM.

[3]  D. Hofstadter Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, Douglas Hofstadter. 1994. Basic Books, New York, NY. 512 pages. ISBN: 0-465-05154-5. $30.00 , 1995 .

[4]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[5]  Richard Reviewer-Granger Unified Theories of Cognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Alexander A. Petrov,et al.  Dynamics of Emergent Computation in DUAL , 1999 .

[7]  Alexander Alexandrov Petrov,et al.  A DYNAMIC EMERGENT COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF ANALOGY-MAKING BASED ON DECENTRALIZED REPRESENTATIONS , 1998 .

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

[9]  Boicho N. Kokinov,et al.  The DUAL Cognitive Architecture: A Hybrid Multi-Agent Approach , 1994, ECAI.

[10]  Sandra L. Berger Massachusetts , 1896, The Journal of comparative medicine and veterinary archives.

[11]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Analogy-making as perception - a computer model , 1993, Neural network modeling and connectionism.

[12]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[13]  Boicho Kokinov,et al.  Micro-Level Hybridization in the Cognitive Architecture DUAL , 1999 .

[14]  Verzekeren Naar Sparen,et al.  Cambridge , 1969, Humphrey Burton: In My Own Time.

[15]  Allen Newell,et al.  Production Systems: Models of Control Structures , 1973 .

[16]  John Dinsmore,et al.  The symbolic and connectionist paradigms : closing the gap , 1992 .

[17]  Robert M. French,et al.  The Subtlety of Sameness: A Theory and Computer Model of Analogy-Making , 1995 .

[18]  J. Davenport Editor , 1960 .

[19]  Douglas R. Hofstadter,et al.  The architecture of Jumbo , 1995 .