Behavioral and Brain Sciences最新文献

I propose that meta-learned models, and in particular the situation-aware deployment of "learning-to-infer" modules can be advantageously extended to domains commonly thought to lie outside the cognitive, such as motivations and preferences on one hand, and the effectuation of micro- and coping-type behaviors.

Binz et al. propose meta-learning as a promising avenue for modelling human cognition. They provide an in-depth reflection on the advantages of meta-learning over other computational models of cognition, including a sound discussion on how their proposal can accommodate neuroscientific insights. We argue that active inference presents similar computational advantages while offering greater mechanistic explanatory power and biological plausibility.

Quantum active Bayesian inference and quantum Markov blankets enable robust modeling and simulation of difficult-to-render natural agent-based classical inferential paradoxes interfaced with task-specific environments. Within a non-realist cognitive completeness regime, quantum Markov blankets ensure meta-learned irrational decision making is fitted to explainable manifolds at optimal free energy, where acceptable incompatible observations or temporal Bell-inequality violations represent important verifiable real-world outcomes.

Binz et al. propose a general framework for meta-learning and contrast it with built-by-hand Bayesian models. We comment on some architectural assumptions of the approach, its relation to the active inference framework, its potential applicability to living systems in general, and the advantages of the latter in addressing the explanation problem.

Abundant experimental evidence illustrates violations of Bayesian models across various cognitive processes. Quantum cognition capitalizes on the limitations of Bayesian models, providing a compelling alternative. We suggest that a generalized quantum approach in meta-learning is simultaneously more robust and flexible, as it retains all the advantages of the Bayesian framework while avoiding its limitations.

We are encouraged by the many positive commentaries on our target article. In this response, we recapitulate some of the points raised and identify synergies between them. We have arranged our response based on the tension between data and architecture that arises in the meta-learning framework. We additionally provide a short discussion that touches upon connections to foundation models.

Building on the affectivism approach, we expand on Binz et al.'s meta-learning research program by highlighting that emotion and other affective phenomena should be key to the modeling of human learning. We illustrate the added value of affective processes for models of learning across multiple domains with a focus on reinforcement learning, knowledge acquisition, and social learning.

This commentary examines the synergy between meta-learned models of cognition and integrative learning in enhancing animal and human learning outcomes. It highlights three integrative learning modes - holistic integration of parts, top-down reasoning, and generalization with in-depth analysis - and their alignment with meta-learned models of cognition. This convergence promises significant advances in educational practices, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience, offering a novel perspective on learning and cognition.

We propose that a principled understanding of meta-learning, as aimed for by the authors, benefits from linking the focus on learning with an equally strong focus on structure, which means to address the question: What are the meta-structures that can guide meta-learning?

Meta-learning offers a promising framework to make sense of some parts of decision-making that have eluded satisfactory explanation. Here, we connect this research to work in animal behaviour and cognition in order to shed light on how and whether meta-learning could help us to understand the evolution of cognition.