<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> This paper attempts to replicate the results of evaluating several artificial agents using the Algorithmic Intelligence Quotient test originally reported by Legg and Veness. Three experiments were conducted: One using default settings, one in which the action space was varied and one in which the observation space was varied. While the performance of freq, Q0, Qλ, and HLQλ corresponded well with the original results, the resulting values differed, when using MC-AIXI. Varying the observation space seems to have no qualitative impact on the results as reported, while (contrary to the original results) varying the action space seems to have some impact. An analysis of the impact of modifying parameters of MC-AIXI on its performance in the default settings was carried out with the help of data mining techniques used to identifying highly performing configurations. Overall, the Algorithmic Intelligence Quotient test seems to be reliable, however as a general artificial intelligence evaluation method it has several limits. The test is dependent on the chosen reference machine and also sensitive to changes to its settings. It brings out some differences among agents, however, since they are limited in size, the test setting may not yet be sufficiently complex. A demanding parameter sweep is needed to thoroughly evaluate configurable agents that, together with the test format, further highlights computational requirements of an agent. These and other issues are discussed in the paper along with proposals suggesting how to alleviate them. An implementation of some of the proposals is also demonstrated.</abstract>

Towards General Evaluation of Intelligent Systems: Lessons Learned from Reproducing AIQ Test Results

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> A computational model for artificial animals (animats) interacting with real or artificial ecosystems is presented. All animats use the same mechanisms for learning and decisionmaking. Each animat has its own set of needs and its own memory structure that undergoes continuous development and constitutes the basis for decision-making. The decision-making mechanism aims at keeping the needs of the animat as satisfied as possible for as long as possible. Reward and punishment are defined in terms of changes to the level of need satisfaction. The learning mechanisms are driven by prediction error relating to reward and punishment and are of two kinds: multi-objective local Q-learning and structural learning that alter the architecture of the memory structures by adding and removing nodes. The animat model has the following key properties: (1) autonomy: it operates in a fully automatic fashion, without any need for interaction with human engineers. In particular, it does not depend on human engineers to provide goals, tasks, or seed knowledge. Still, it can operate either with or without human interaction; (2) generality: it uses the same learning and decision-making mechanisms in all environments, e.g. desert environments and forest environments and for all animats, e.g. frog animats and bee animats; and (3) adequacy: it is able to learn basic forms of animal skills such as eating, drinking, locomotion, and navigation. Eight experiments are presented. The results obtained indicate that (i) dynamic memory structures are strictly more powerful than static; (ii) it is possible to use a fixed generic design to model basic cognitive processes of a wide range of animals and environments; and (iii) the animat framework enables a uniform and gradual approach to AGI, by successively taking on more challenging problems in the form of broader and more complex classes of environments</abstract>

Learning and decision-making in artificial animals

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. 

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence

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

Towards General Evaluation of Intelligent Systems: Lessons Learned from Reproducing AIQ Test Results

Learning and decision-making in artificial animals

Chercher

Tous les volumes et éditions dans cette revue