Behavioral and Brain Sciences最新文献

We summarize the recent progress made by probabilistic programming as a unifying formalism for the probabilistic, symbolic, and data-driven aspects of human cognition. We highlight differences with meta-learning in flexibility, statistical assumptions and inferences about cogniton. We suggest that the meta-learning approach could be further strengthened by considering Connectionist and Bayesian approaches, rather than exclusively one or the other.

The implementation of meta-learning targeted by Binz et al. inherits benefits and drawbacks from its nature as a connectionist model. Drawing from historical debates around bottom-up and top-down approaches to modeling in cognitive science, we should continue to bridge levels of analysis by constraining meta-learning and meta-learned models with complementary evidence from across the cognitive and computational sciences.

Binz et al. argue that meta-learned models offer a new paradigm to study human cognition. Meta-learned models are proposed as alternatives to Bayesian models based on their capability to learn identical posterior predictive distributions. In our commentary, we highlight several arguments that reach beyond a predictive distribution-based comparison, offering new perspectives to evaluate the advantages of these modeling paradigms.

We challenge Binz et al.'s claim of meta-learned model superiority over Bayesian inference for large world problems. While comparing Bayesian priors to model-training decisions, we question meta-learning feature exclusivity. We assert no special justification for rational Bayesian solutions to large world problems, advocating exploring diverse theoretical frameworks beyond rational analysis of cognition for research advancement.

Binz et al. argue that meta-learned models are essential tools for understanding adult cognition. Here, we propose that these models are particularly useful for testing hypotheses about why learning processes change across development. By leveraging their ability to discover optimal algorithms and account for capacity limitations, researchers can use these models to test competing theories of developmental change in learning.

We argue that the type of meta-learning proposed by Binz et al. generates models with low interpretability and falsifiability that have limited usefulness for neuroscience research. An alternative approach to meta-learning based on hyperparameter optimization obviates these concerns and can generate empirically testable hypotheses of biological computations.

Recent studies suggest that meta-learning may provide an original solution to an enduring puzzle about whether neural networks can explain compositionality - in particular, by raising the prospect that compositionality can be understood as an emergent property of an inner-loop learning algorithm. We elaborate on this hypothesis and consider its empirical predictions regarding the neural mechanisms and development of human compositionality.

Meta-learning is even more broadly relevant to the study of inductive biases than Binz et al. suggest: Its implications go beyond the extensions to rational analysis that they discuss. One noteworthy example is that meta-learning can act as a bridge between the vector representations of neural networks and the symbolic hypothesis spaces used in many Bayesian models.

The meta-learning framework proposed by Binz et al. would gain significantly from the inclusion of affective and homeostatic elements, currently neglected in their work. These components are crucial as cognition as we know it is profoundly influenced by affective states, which arise as intricate forms of homeostatic regulation in living bodies.

Deep meta-learning is the driving force behind advances in contemporary AI research, and a promising theory of flexible cognition in natural intelligence. We agree with Binz et al. that many supposedly "model-based" behaviours may be better explained by meta-learning than by classical models. We argue that this invites us to revisit our neural theories of problem solving and goal-directed planning.