Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userUnderstanding ACT-R - an Outsiders Perspective
97
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Jacob Whitehill
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Jacob Whitehill
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The ACT-R theory of cognition developed by John Anderson and colleagues endeavors to explain how humans recall chunks of information and how they solve problems. ACT-R also serves as a theoretical basis for cognitive tutors, i.e., automatic tutoring systems that help students learn mathematics, computer programming, and other subjects. The official ACT-R definition is distributed across a large body of literature spanning many articles and monographs, and hence it is difficult for an outsider to learn the most important aspects of the theory. This paper aims to provide a tutorial to the core components of the ACT-R theory.
rate research
Read More
In computational cognitive science, the cognitive architecture ACT-R is very popular. It describes a model of cognition that is amenable to computer implementation, paving the way for computational psychology. Its underlying psychological theory has been investigated in many psychological experiments, but ACT-R lacks a formal definition of its underlying concepts from a mathematical-computational point of view. Although the canonical implementation of ACT-R is now modularized, this production rule system is still hard to adapt and extend in central components like the conflict resolution mechanism (which decides which of the applicable rules to apply next). In this work, we present a concise implementation of ACT-R based on Constraint Handling Rules which has been derived from a formalization in prior work. To show the adaptability of our approach, we implement several different conflict resolution mechanisms discussed in the ACT-R literature. This results in the first implementation of one such mechanism. For the other mechanisms, we empirically evaluate if our implementation matches the results of reference implementations of ACT-R.
Adversarial examples have appeared as a ubiquitous property of machine learning models where bounded adversarial perturbation could mislead the models to make arbitrarily incorrect predictions. Such examples provide a way to assess the robustness of machine learning models as well as a proxy for understanding the model training process. Extensive studies try to explain the existence of adversarial examples and provide ways to improve model robustness (e.g. adversarial training). While they mostly focus on models trained on datasets with predefined labels, we leverage the teacher-student framework and assume a teacher model, or oracle, to provide the labels for given instances. We extend Tian (2019) in the case of low-rank input data and show that student specialization (trained student neuron is highly correlated with certain teacher neuron at the same layer) still happens within the input subspace, but the teacher and student nodes could differ wildly out of the data subspace, which we conjecture leads to adversarial examples. Extensive experiments show that student specialization correlates strongly with model robustness in different scenarios, including student trained via standard training, adversarial training, confidence-calibrated adversarial training, and training with robust feature dataset. Our studies could shed light on the future exploration about adversarial examples, and enhancing model robustness via principled data augmentation.
This paper describes REALab, a platform for embedded agency research in reinforcement learning (RL). REALab is designed to model the structure of tampering problems that may arise in real-world deployments of RL. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations of RL and simulated environments mirroring the MDP structure assume secure access to feedback (e.g., rewards). This may be unrealistic in settings where agents are embedded and can corrupt the processes producing feedback (e.g., human supervisors, or an implemented reward function). We describe an alternative Corrupt Feedback MDP formulation and the REALab environment platform, which both avoid the secure feedback assumption. We hope the design of REALab provides a useful perspective on tampering problems, and that the platform may serve as a unit test for the presence of tampering incentives in RL agent designs.
Despite the recent advances in a wide spectrum of applications, machine learning models, especially deep neural networks, have been shown to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Attackers add carefully-crafted perturbations to input, where the perturbations are almost imperceptible to humans, but can cause models to make wrong predictions. Techniques to protect models against adversarial input are called adversarial defense methods. Although many approaches have been proposed to study adversarial attacks and defenses in different scenarios, an intriguing and crucial challenge remains that how to really understand model vulnerability? Inspired by the saying that if you know yourself and your enemy, you need not fear the battles, we may tackle the aforementioned challenge after interpreting machine learning models to open the black-boxes. The goal of model interpretation, or interpretable machine learning, is to extract human-understandable terms for the working mechanism of models. Recently, some approaches start incorporating interpretation into the exploration of adversarial attacks and defenses. Meanwhile, we also observe that many existing methods of adversarial attacks and defenses, although not explicitly claimed, can be understood from the perspective of interpretation. In this paper, we review recent work on adversarial attacks and defenses, particularly from the perspective of machine learning interpretation. We categorize interpretation into two types, feature-level interpretation and model-level interpretation. For each type of interpretation, we elaborate on how it could be used for adversarial attacks and defenses. We then briefly illustrate additional correlations between interpretation and adversaries. Finally, we discuss the challenges and future directions along tackling adversary issues with interpretation.
As machine learning (ML) systems take a more prominent and central role in contributing to life-impacting decisions, ensuring their trustworthiness and accountability is of utmost importance. Explanations sit at the core of these desirable attributes of a ML system. The emerging field is frequently called ``Explainable AI (XAI) or ``Explainable ML. The goal of explainable ML is to intuitively explain the predictions of a ML system, while adhering to the needs to various stakeholders. Many explanation techniques were developed with contributions from both academia and industry. However, there are several existing challenges that have not garnered enough interest and serve as roadblocks to widespread adoption of explainable ML. In this short paper, we enumerate challenges in explainable ML from an industry perspective. We hope these challenges will serve as promising future research directions, and would contribute to democratizing explainable ML.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
