Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence

The Journal of the Artificial General Intelligence Society

3 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1946-0163
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

Cognitive Architectures and Autonomy: A Comparative Review

Kristinn Thórisson
  • Center for Analysis & Design of Intelligent Agents, School of Computer Science Venus, 2nd fl. Reykjavik University Menntavegur 1, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Icelandic Institute for Intelligent Machines, 2. h. Uranus Menntavegur 1, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
/ Helgi Helgasson
  • Center for Analysis & Design of Intelligent Agents, School of Computer Science Venus, 2nd fl. Reykjavik University Menntavegur 1, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
Published Online: 2012-05-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10229-011-0015-3

Abstract

One of the original goals of artificial intelligence (AI) research was to create machines with very general cognitive capabilities and a relatively high level of autonomy. It has taken the field longer than many had expected to achieve even a fraction of this goal; the community has focused on building specific, targeted cognitive processes in isolation, and as of yet no system exists that integrates a broad range of capabilities or presents a general solution to autonomous acquisition of a large set of skills. Among the reasons for this are the highly limited machine learning and adaptation techniques available, and the inherent complexity of integrating numerous cognitive and learning capabilities in a coherent architecture. In this paper we review selected systems and architectures built expressly to address integrated skills. We highlight principles and features of these systems that seem promising for creating generally intelligent systems with some level of autonomy, and discuss them in the context of the development of future cognitive architectures. Autonomy is a key property for any system to be considered generally intelligent, in our view; we use this concept as an organizing principle for comparing the reviewed systems. Features that remain largely unaddressed in present research, but seem nevertheless necessary for such efforts to succeed, are also discussed.

Keywords: cognitive architectures; autonomy; constructivist AI; realtime; meta-learning

  • Anderson, J. R. 1996. ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist. 51: 355-365. [Crossref]

  • Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., Lebiere, C. 1997. ACT-R: A theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human-Computer Interaction. 12: 439-462.

  • Anderson, J. R., Lebiere, C. 2003. The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and brain Sciences. 26: 587-601.

  • Anderson, J. R., John, B. E., Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1995). Production system models of complex cognition. 17th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 9-12.

  • Baars, B. J. 1988. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baars, B. J., Franklin, S. 2009. Consciousness is computational: The LIDA model of Global Workspace Theory. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 2009. 1(1): p. 23-32.

  • Brooks, R. A. 1991. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence. 47 (1-3): 139-159.

  • Joanna J. Bryson (2003). Behavior-Oriented Design of Modular Agent Intelligence. In R. Kowalszyk, J. P. Müller, H. Tianfield and R. Unland (eds.), Agent Technologies, Infrastructures, Tools, and Applications for e-Services, pp. 61-76.

  • Dean, T., and Boddy, M. 1988. An analysis of time- dependent planning. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 49-54. Saint Paul, MN. AAAI, AAAI Press/The MIT Press.

  • Franklin, S. 2006. The LIDA architecture: Adding new modes of learning to an intelligent, autonomous software agent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, PAGE NUMBERS: San Diego, CA. Society for Design and Process Science.

  • Garlan, D. & J. Ockerbloom 1995. Architectural Mismatch or Why it's Hard to Build Systems out of Existing Parts. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Software Engineering, Seattle WA, April

  • Hall, J. S. 2008. VARIAC: An Autogenous Cognitive Architecture. In Proceedings of First Conference of Artificial General Intelligence, 176-187. Memphis, Tenn.: ISO Press.

  • Huang, H., Messina, E., Albus, J. 2003. Towards a Generic Model for Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS). In Proceedings of the 2003 PerMIS Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Intelligent Systems Division.

  • Huang, H., Pavek, K., Novak, B., Albus, J., Messina, E. 2005. A Framework For Autonomy Levels For Unmanned Systems (ALFUS). In Proceedings of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Unmanned Systems North America 2005, p. 849-863. Baltimore, MD: NIST.

  • Huang, H., Messina, E., Albus, J. 2004. Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework, Volume II: Framework Models Version 1.0. NIST Special Publication 1011-II-1.0, 2004.

  • Johnston, B. 2010. The Toy Box Problem (and a Preliminary Solution). In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, p. 43-48. Lugano, Switzerland: Springer.

  • Jonsdottir, G. R., Thórisson, K. R, Nivel, E. 2008. Learning Smooth, Human-Like Turntaking in Realtime Dialogue. In Proceedings of Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), p. 162-175. Tokyo, Japan: Springer.

  • Kurzweil, R. 2006. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology New York, NY: Viking Press.

  • Laird, J. E. (2008). Extending the Soar Cognitive Architecture. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, p. 224-235. Memphis, Tenn.: Springer.

  • Langley, P. 2005. An Adaptive Architecture for Physical Agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, 18-25. Compiegne, France: Springer.

  • Langley, P., Laird, J. E., Rogers, S. 2009. Cognitive Architectures: Research Issues and Challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(2), 141-160.

  • Ng-Thow-Hing, V., K. R. Thórisson, R. K. Sarvadevabhatla, J. Wormer & T. List. 2009. Cognitive Map Architecture: Facilitation of Human-Robot Interaction in Humanoid Robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. 16(1): 55-66. [Web of Science]

  • Nivel, E. 2007. Ikon Flux 2.0., Technical Report, RUTR - CS07006, School of Computer Science, Reykjavik Univer.

  • Pezzulo, G., Calvi, G. 2006. A Schema Based Model of the Praying Mantis. In From Animals to Animats 9. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, 211-223. Rome, Italy: Springer.

  • Pezzulo, G., Calvi, G. 2007. Designing Modular Architectures in the Framework AKIRA. Multiagent and Grid Systems. 3: 65-86.

  • Pezzulo, G. 2009. DiPRA: A Layered Agent Architecture which Integrates Practical Reasoning and Sensorimotor Schemas. Connect Science. 21: 297-326. [Web of Science]

  • Pollock, J. L. 2008. OSCAR: An Architecture for Generally Intelligent Agents. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, p. 275-286.

  • Rao, A. S. and M. P. Georgeff. 1995. BDI-agents: From Theory to Practice. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS'95), 312-319.

  • Roy, D. 2005. Semiotic Schemas: A Framework for Grounding Language in the Action and Perception. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1-2): 170-205.

  • Samsonovich, A. V. 2010. Toward a Unified Catalog of Implemented Cognitive Architectures. In A. V. Samsonovich, K. R. Jóhannsdóttir, A. Chella & B. Goertzel (Eds.), Proceeding of the 2010 Conference on Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures (pp. 195-244). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  • Snaider, J., McCall, R., Franklin S. 2011. The LIDA framework as a general tool for AGI. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, p. 133-142.

  • Sun, R. 2006. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modeling to social simulation. In: Ron Sun (ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction. Cambridge University Press, New York.

  • Sun, R., Merrill, E., Peterson T. 2001. From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: A bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science. 25: 203-244.

  • Sun, R. 2003. A Detailed Specification of CLARION 5.0. Technical report. 2003.

  • Thórisson, K. R. 1997. Gandalf: An Embodied Humanoid Capable of Real-Time Multimodal Dialogue. In Proceedings of the People's First ACM International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 536-537. Marina del Rey, Calif.: ACM International Conference on Autonomous Agents.

  • Thórisson, K. R. 1999. A Mind Model for Multimodal Communicative Creatures and Humanoids. International Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence. 13:(4-5): 519-538.

  • Thórisson, K. R., Benko, H., Abramov D., Arnold, A., Maskey, S., Vaseekaran A. 2004. Constructionist Design Methodology for Interactive Intelligences. AI Magazine. 25(4): 77-90.

  • Thórisson, K. R. 2009. From Constructionist to Constructivist A. I. Keynote, Technical Report, FS-09-01, AAAI press, Menlo Park, Calif.

  • Wang, P. 1995. Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System: Exploring the Essence of Intelligence. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, Indiana Univ., CITY, Indiana.

  • Wang, P. 1996. Problem-solving under insufficient resources. In Working Notes of the Symposium on Flexible Computation, 148-155. Cambridge, Mass.: AAAI Press.

  • Wang, P. 2006. Rigid Flexibility: The Logic of Intelligence. New York, NY: Springer.

About the article


Published Online: 2012-05-21



Citation Information: Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, ISSN (Online) 1946-0163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10229-011-0015-3. Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in