Editorial: What Makes JAGI Special

<abstract xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper shows that a constraint on universal Turing machines is necessary for Legg's and Hutter's formal measure of intelligence to be unbiased. Their measure, defined in terms of Turing machines, is adapted to finite state machines. A No Free Lunch result is proved for the finite version of the measure.</abstract>

Bias and No Free Lunch in Formal Measures of Intelligence

<abstract xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">General-purpose, intelligent, learning agents cycle through sequences of observations, actions, and rewards that are complex, uncertain, unknown, and non-Markovian. On the other hand, reinforcement learning is well-developed for small finite state Markov decision processes (MDPs). Up to now, extracting the right state representations out of bare observations, that is, reducing the general agent setup to the MDP framework, is an art that involves significant effort by designers. The primary goal of this work is to automate the reduction process and thereby significantly expand the scope of many existing reinforcement learning algorithms and the agents that employ them. Before we can think of mechanizing this search for suitable MDPs, we need a formal objective criterion. The main contribution of this article is to develop such a criterion. I also integrate the various parts into one learning algorithm. Extensions to more realistic dynamic Bayesian networks are developed in Part II (Hutter, 2009c). The role of POMDPs is also considered there.</abstract>

Feature Reinforcement Learning: Part I. Unstructured MDPs

<abstract xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This article analyzes and compares several approaches of formalizing the notion of evidence in the context of general-purpose reasoning system. In each of these approaches, the notion of evidence is defined, and the evidence-based degree of belief is represented by a binary value, a number (such as a probability), or two numbers (such as an interval). The binary approaches provide simple ways to represent conclusive evidence, but cannot properly handle inconclusive evidence. The one-number approaches naturally represent inconclusive evidence as a degree of belief, but lack the information needed to revise this degree. It is argued that for systems opening to new evidence, each belief should at least have two numbers attached to indicate its evidential support. A few such approaches are discussed, including the approach used in NARS, which is designed according to the considerations of general-purpose intelligent systems, and provides novel solutions to several traditional problems on evidence.</abstract>

Formalization of Evidence: A Comparative Study

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 14 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 13 (2022): Issue 1 (October 2022)

Volume 12 (2021): Issue 1 (January 2021)

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 2 (February 2020) Special Issue “On Defining Artificial Intelligence” — Commentaries and Author’s Response

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 2 (January 2019)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 1 (January 2019)

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 8 (2017): Issue 1 (December 2017)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 1 (December 2016)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 1 (December 2015)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (December 2014)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 3 (December 2013) Brain Emulation and Connectomics: a Convergence of Neuroscience and Artificial General Intelligence, Editors: Randal Koene and Diana Deca

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 2 (December 2013) Conceptual Commitments of AGI Systems, Editors:	Haris Dindo, James Marshall, and Giovanni Pezzulo

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 1 (November 2013)

Volume 3 (2012): Issue 3 (December 2012) Self-Programming and Constructivist Methodologies for AGI,
 Editors: Kristinn R. Thórisson, Eric Nivel and Ricardo Sanz

Volume 3 (2012): Issue 2 (November 2012)

Volume 3 (2012): Issue 1 (May 2012)

Volume 2 (2010): Issue 2 (December 2010) Cognitive Architectures, Model Comparison, and AGI, Editors: Christian Lebiere, Cleotilde Gonzalez and Walter Warwick

Volume 2 (2010): Issue 1 (June 2010)

Volume 1 (2009): Issue 1 (December 2009)

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence

 Journal of Artificial General Intelligence (JAGI) is a peer-reviewed open-access academic journal, owned by the Artificial General Intelligence Society (AGIS).  Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is an emerging field aiming at the building of "thinking machines", that is, general-purpose systems with intelligence comparable to that of the human mind. While this was the original goal of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the mainstream of AI research has turned toward domain-dependent and problem-specific solutions; therefore it has become necessary to use a new name to indicate research that still pursues the "Grand AI Dream". Similar labels for this kind of research include "Strong AI", "Human-level AI", etc.  The problems involved in creating general-purpose intelligent systems are very different from those involved in creating special-purpose systems. Therefore, this journal is different from conventional AI journals in its stress on the long-term potential of research towards the ultimate goal of AGI, rather than immediate applications. Articles focused on details of AGI systems are welcome, if they clearly indicate the relation between the special topics considered and intelligence as a whole, by addressing the generality, extensibility, and scalability of the techniques proposed or discussed.  Since AGI research is still in its early stage, the journal strongly encourages novel approaches coming from various theoretical and technical traditions, including (but not limited to) symbolic, connectionist, statistical, evolutionary, robotic and information-theoretic, as well as integrative and hybrid approaches.  Rejection Rate  &gt;30%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 