Explanation-based learning in infancy

In explanation-based learning (EBL), domain knowledge is leveraged in order to learn general rules from few examples. An explanation is constructed for initial exemplars and is then generalized into a candidate rule that uses only the relevant features specified in the explanation; if the rule proves accurate for a few additional exemplars, it is adopted. EBL is thus highly efficient because it combines both analytic and empirical evidence. EBL has been proposed as one of the mechanisms that help infants acquire and revise their physical rules. To evaluate this proposal, 11- and 12-month-olds (n = 260) were taught to replace their current support rule (that an object is stable when half or more of its bottom surface is supported) with a more sophisticated rule (that an object is stable when half or more of the entire object is supported). Infants saw teaching events in which asymmetrical objects were placed on a base, followed by static test displays involving a novel asymmetrical object and a novel base. When the teaching events were designed to facilitate EBL, infants learned the new rule with as few as two (12-month-olds) or three (11-month-olds) exemplars. When the teaching events were designed to impede EBL, however, infants failed to learn the rule. Together, these results demonstrate that even infants, with their limited knowledge about the world, benefit from the knowledge-based approach of EBL.

[1]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  Young infants have biological expectations about animals , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  E. Spelke,et al.  Origins of knowledge. , 1992, Psychological review.

[3]  S. Carey.  The Origin of Concepts , 2000 .

[4]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  The Development of Young Infants' Intuitions about Support , 1992 .

[5]  Radford M. Neal.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[6]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  How Do Infants Reason about Physical Events , 2010 .

[7]  Amy Needham,et al.  Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants , 1993, Cognition.

[8]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events , 2005, Cognition.

[9]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks , 2006, Cognition.

[10]  Judea Pearl,et al.  The recovery of causal poly-trees from statistical data , 1987, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[11]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds. , 1995 .

[12]  E. Spelke.  Initial knowledge: six suggestions , 1994, Cognition.

[13]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Is the Top Object Adequately Supported by the Bottom Object? Young Infants' Understanding of Support Relations , 1990 .

[14]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Acquiring Effective Search Control Rules: Explanation-Based Learning in the PRODIGY System , 1987 .

[15]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  C. N. Liu,et al.  Approximating discrete probability distributions with dependence trees , 1968, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[17]  Gerald DeJong,et al.  Explanation-Based Learning , 2014, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[18]  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFANTS. , 1929, Science.

[19]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  An Account of Infants' Physical Reasoning , 2008 .

[20]  Renée Baillargeon,et al.  Can infants be “taught” to attend to a new physical variable in an event category? The case of height in covering events , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  When the ordinary seems unexpected: evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants , 2005, Cognition.

[22]  A. Leslie.  A theory of agency. , 1995 .

[23]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks , 2009 .

[24]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Infants' physical knowledge affects their change detection. , 2006, Developmental science.

[25]  A. Premack,et al.  Causal cognition : a multidisciplinary debate , 1996 .

[26]  R. Baillargeon.  Young infants’ expectations about hidden objects: a reply to three challenges , 1999 .

[27]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young infants view physically possible support events as unexpected: New evidence for rule learning , 2016, Cognition.

[28]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Object segregation in 8-month-old infants , 1997, Cognition.

[29]  E. Spelke,et al.  Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. , 1995 .

[30]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[31]  Effects of balance relations between objects on infant’s object segregation , 2000 .

[32]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[33]  Po-Ling Loh,et al.  Structure estimation for discrete graphical models: Generalized covariance matrices and their inverses , 2012, NIPS.

[34]  R. Baillargeon.  A model of physical reasoning in infancy , 1995 .

[35]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Object permanence in young infants: further evidence. , 1991, Child development.

[36]  Russell Greiner,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Solving the EBL Utility Problem , 1992, AAAI.

[37]  Development of infants’ intuitions about support relations: sensitivity to stability , 2000 .

[38]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Reasoning about containment events in very young infants , 2001, Cognition.

[39]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development , 2011, Cognition.

[40]  R. Siegler.  Three aspects of cognitive development , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Young infants’ actions reveal their developing knowledge of support variables: Converging evidence for violation-of-expectation findings , 2008, Cognition.

[42]  Gerald DeJong,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Adaptive Problem Solving , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[43]  Audrey K. Kittredge,et al.  Object Individuation and Physical Reasoning in Infancy: An Integrative Account , 2012, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[44]  Gerald DeJong.  Investigating Explanation-Based Learning , 1992 .

[45]  Jonathan M Gratch,et al.  Composer: A decision-theoretic approach to adaptive problem solving , 1993 .

[46]  Jim Q. Smith,et al.  Estimating Causal Structure Using Conditional DAG Models , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[47]  R. Gelman.  First Principles Organize Attention to and Learning About Relevant Data: Number and the Animate‐Inanimate Distinction as Examples , 1990 .

[48]  Cheng Soon Ong,et al.  Multivariate spearman's ρ for aggregating ranks using copulas , 2016 .

[49]  R. Siegler,et al.  Developmental Differences in Rule Learning: A Microgenetic Analysis , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[50]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  First Principles Organize Attention to and Learning About Relevant Data: Number and the Animate-Inanimate Distinction as Examples , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[51]  E. Spelke,et al.  Object permanence in five-month-old infants , 1985, Cognition.

[52]  Thomas G. Dietterich.  What is machine learning? , 2020, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[53]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young Infants' Expectations About Self-propelled Objects , 2009 .

[54]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Probabilistic Graphical Models - Principles and Techniques , 2009 .

[55]  Jeff Gill,et al.  What are Bayesian Methods , 2008 .

[56]  Kevin P. Murphy,et al.  Machine learning - a probabilistic perspective , 2012, Adaptive computation and machine learning series.

[57]  L. Kohne,et al.  Visual experience enhances infants' use of task-relevant information in an action task. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[58]  R. Baillargeon.  Innate Ideas Revisited: For a Principle of Persistence in Infants' Physical Reasoning , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.