Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

HUMANOBS AGI 2013 - Beijing – August 2013 Toward a programming paradigm for control systems with high levels of existential autonomy Eric Nivel, Kristinn.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "HUMANOBS AGI 2013 - Beijing – August 2013 Toward a programming paradigm for control systems with high levels of existential autonomy Eric Nivel, Kristinn."— Presentation transcript:

1 HUMANOBS AGI Beijing – August 2013 Toward a programming paradigm for control systems with high levels of existential autonomy Eric Nivel, Kristinn R. Thorisson Reykjavik University / Icelandic Institute for Intelligent Machines

2 > A G I: domain independence  scalability (in terms of complexity) > Natural intelligence vs manageable complexity > Constructivist approach: delegate to the system (some of) its own construction > Used for S1, an AERA based system, that learns socio- Communicative skills by observing people (HUMANOBS EU-funded FP7 project) Overview

3 > Main characteristics of Replicode: - Based on a non-axiomatic logic: real-valued and time constrained. - Data-driven, computation based on pattern-matching. - Stateless executable code (models, composite states, programs). - No explicit ifs, loops, OR, AND. - All executable code run concurrently: massively parallel - Code can be an input for some other code. - Code can be active or inactive. Overview

4 > Main characteristics of Replicode: - A kind of functional language, LISP-like syntax, not typed. - Data can be salient or not. - Data and code (objects) have a limited life time (resilience). - Once produced, objects cannot be modified. - Objects live in workspaces (groups), possibly in several of them. - Groups control the lifecycle and state of objects at various frequencies. - Extensible set of operators; hooks for custom C++ code (icpp_pgm).

5 Dynamic Model Hierarchy > A model captures a causal relationship (deduction, i.e. prediction). > A model can thus be used to perform abductions (ex: sub-goaling). > A model is bidirectional and performs deductions and abductions concurrently. A(X,Z,W) B(X,Y,Z) Forward: a  predicted b and  iM0(x,z,w,y); Y can be a function of X, Z and W. Backward: goal b  sub-goal a; W can be a function of X, Y and Z Predicted b and sub-goal a are monitored, success of M0 is assessed in due time M0

6 Dynamic Model Hierarchy M0: [A  B]M1: [B  C]M2: [C  D] M3: [E  C]M4: [C  F] Forward: a  predicted b  predicted c  predicted d Backward: goal d  sub-goal c  sub-goal b  sub-goal a  sub-goal e  sub-goal |g > Indirect coupling / pattern affordances. M5: [|G  C] M0M1M2 M3M4 M5

7 Dynamic Model Hierarchy M0: [A  B] M1: [C  iM0] Pre-conditions (weak) - OR M2: [|D  iM0] M3: [E  |iM0] M4: [|F  |iM0] Pre-conditions (strong) - AND > Pre-conditions. IF M0 fires (at some time), it will succeed IF M0 fires (at some time), it will fail Execution of a model, success/failure thereof ARE REGULAR (INTERNAL) INPUTS. iM0 = instance of M0, NOT M0 itself M0 M1 M2 M3 M4

8 Dynamic Model Hierarchy M0: [A  B] M5: [iM0  C] M6: [|iM0  D] M7: [iM12  iM0] M8: [iM13  |iM0] > Post-conditions. M9: [|iM14  iM0] M10: [|iM15  |iM0] Combinations WHEN M0 has fired (at some time) WHEN M0 has not fired (at some time) M0 M5 M6 M0 M9 M10 M8 M7 M12 M13 M14 M15

9 > Control hierarchy > Dynamic: models are built/deleted dynamically. Dynamic Model Hierarchy I/O predictions goals

10 > Dynamic: models are activated accordingly to their success rate: under a threshold, no execution. > Inputs hold a confidence value (saliency): under a threshold, no input. > pred.cfd=input.cfd*modl.sr (likelyhood for the pred to be true). > goal.cfd=super-goal.cfd*model.sr (likelyhood for a goal to succeed). Dynamic Model Hierarchy

11 > Given limited resources, only the paths consisting of the best models will be followed. Dynamic Model Hierarchy I/O

12 > Drives and top-level models are hand-coded. > Drives are non-observable states. > Drives are re-generated dynamically (defined by the programmer). > Top-level models are given ways to satisfy drives. Dynamic Model Hierarchy I/O drives top-level models learned models

13 > States: atomic or composite; constitute the patterns found in models. > States can be composed of other states  state hierarchy. > Reflectivity: internal operations are reflected as states. Composite states can encode concepts in an operational fashion. > In addition to a control hierarchy (procedural) we also have a concept (structural) hierarchy. Dynamic Model Hierarchy A(X,Z,W) B(X,Y,Z) C(X,T) S0 A, B and C are synchronous states synchronous: hold within a common time interval

14 Dynamic Model Hierarchy > Indirect coupling: models are not hardwired to each other. They are coupled via events in the workspace. > Pattern affordance. > Control hierarchy: affordances, pre- and post-conditions. > Dynamicity: models are added/deleted/activated continuouslsy. > Concept hierarchy: states encode concepts at different levels of specification.

15 Logic > Real valued: confidence (not a probability) in [0,1]. > Time constrained: time interval [after, before[; bounds in µs. > Inference rules govern: - Deduction (forward chaining) - Abduction (backward chaining) - Induction - Commitment (resolution of simulation)

16


Download ppt "HUMANOBS AGI 2013 - Beijing – August 2013 Toward a programming paradigm for control systems with high levels of existential autonomy Eric Nivel, Kristinn."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google