No abstract

Many adaptive neural network theories are based on neuronlike adaptive elements that can behave as single unit analogs of associative conditioning. In this article we develop a similar adaptive element, but one which is more closely in accord with the facts of animal learning theory than elements commonly studied in adaptive network research. We suggest that an essential feature of classical conditioning that has been largely overlooked by adaptive network theorists is its predictive nature. The adaptive element we present learns to increase its response rate in anticipation of increased stimulation, producing a conditioned response before the occurrence of the unconditioned stimulus. The element also is in strong agreement with the behavioral data regarding the effects of stimulus context, since it is a temporally refined extension of the Rescorla-Wagner model. We show by computer simulation that the element becomes sensitive to the most reliable, nonredundant, and earliest predictors of reinforcement. We also point out that the model solves many of the stability and saturation problems encountered in network simulations. Finally, we discuss our model in light of recent advances in the physiology and biochemistry of synaptic mechanisms.

Planning and Learning are complementary approaches. Planning relies on deliberative reasoning about the current state and sequence of future reachable states to solve the problem. Learning, on the other hand, is focused on improving system performance based on experience or available data. Learning to improve the performance of planning based on experience in similar, previously solved problems, is ongoing research. One approach is to learn Value function (cost-togo) which can be used as heuristics for speeding up searchbased planning. Existing approaches in this direction use the results of the previous search for learning the heuristics. In this work, we present a search-inspired approach of systematic model exploration for the learning of the value function which does not stop when a plan is available but rather prolongs search such that not only resulting optimal path is used but also extended region around the optimal path. This, in turn, improves both the efficiency and robustness of successive planning. Additionally, the effect of losing admissibility by using ML heuristic is managed by bounding ML with other admissible heuristics.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract-There is great interest in building intrinsic motivation into artificial systems using the reinforcement learning framework. Yet, what intrinsic motivation may mean computationally, and how it may differ from extrinsic motivation, remains a murky and controversial subject. In this article, we adopt an evolutionary perspective and define a new optimal reward framework that captures the pressure to design good primary reward functions that lead to evolutionary success across environments. The results of two computational experiments show that optimal primary reward signals may yield both emergent intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The evolutionary perspective and the associated optimal reward framework thus lead to the conclusion that there are no hard and fast features distinguishing intrinsic and extrinsic reward computationally. Rather, the directness of the relationship between rewarding behavior and evolutionary success varies along a continuum.

We introduce two new temporal difference (TD) algorithms based on the theory of linear leastsquares function approximation. We define an algorithm we call Least-Squares TD (LS TD) for which we prove probability-one convergence when it is used with a function approximator linear in the adjustable parameters. We then define a recursive version of this algorithm, Recursive Least-Squares TD (RLS TD). Although these new TD algorithms require more computation per time-step than do Sutton's TD(A) algorithms, they are more efficient in a statistical sense because they extract more information from training experiences. We describe a simulation experiment showing the substantial improvement in learning rate achieved by RLS TD in an example Markov prediction problem. To quantify this improvement, we introduce the TD error variance of a Markov chain, arc,, and experimentally conclude that the convergence rate of a TD algorithm depends linearly on ~ro. In addition to converging more rapidly, LS TD and RLS TD do not have control parameters, such as a learning rate parameter, thus eliminating the possibility of achieving poor performance by an unlucky choice of parameters.

Novelty and surprise play significant roles in animal behavior and in attempts to understand the neural mechanisms underlying it. They also play important roles in technology, where detecting observations that are novel or surprising is central to many applications, such as medical diagnosis, text processing, surveillance, and security. Theories of motivation, particularly of intrinsic motivation, place novelty and surprise among the primary factors that arouse interest, motivate exploratory or avoidance behavior, and drive learning. In many of these studies, novelty and surprise are not distinguished from one another: the words are used more-or-less interchangeably. However, while undeniably closely related, novelty and surprise are very different. The purpose of this article is first to highlight the differences between novelty and surprise and to discuss how they are related by presenting an extensive review of mathematical and computational proposals related to them, and then to explore the implications of this for understanding behavioral and neuroscience data. We argue that opportunities for improved understanding of behavior and its neural basis are likely being missed by failing to distinguish between novelty and surprise.