The foci or features/characteristics of approaches I chose are, 1) Biomimetic, 2) Connectionist, 3) Bayesian, 4) Developmental, 5) Embodiment, 6) Task-Oriented, 7) Symbolic, 8) Linguistic, 9) Social and 10) Theoretical. Here, 6) Task-Oriented means that the goal of an approach is to create systems to perform certain tasks rather than structural, cognitive functional or theoretical concerns. On the other hand, a 10) Theoretical approach would be concerned about theoretical aspects of cognitive systems. These features are by no means mutually independent.
The approaches to be compared here are:
a) AIXI, b) OpenCog (CogPrime), c) Soar, d) ACT-R, e) BESOM, f) Whole Brain Architecture (BICA), g) RoboCup@Home, h) a developmental robotics approach, i) Social robotics approach, j) a developmental linguistic robotics approach, and k) my humble project.
The approaches a) through f) would fall within cognitive architectures and g) through k) robotics approaches.
f) Whole Brain Architecture (WBA, hereafter) is an approach proposed by researchers in Japan, which basically tries to mimic the functions of brain organs to realize human-level AGI. You may just assume this as a biologically inspired cognitive architecture (BICA).
h) Developmental Robotics
As there are many projects in this approach, I had an approach at Osaka University that tries to simulate early development of children in mind for the comparison.
i) Social Robotics
Social robotics may involve verbal/non-verbal communication.
j) Developmental Linguistic Robotics
Generally, it is concerned with language acquisition by robots. My humble project (k) also falls under this category. For the comparison, I had a bit unique, particular approach (Symbol Emergence in Robotics) in mind.
The below is the comparison table I made. The scores (0-10) are subjectively and tentatively given; I think people wouldn't agree on such scoring anyway (you can make a similar table for yourself).
a)
AIXI |
b)
OpenCog |
c)
Soar |
d)
ACT-R |
e)
BESOM |
f)
WBA |
g)
RoboCup @Home |
h)
Dev. Robotics |
i)
Social Robotics |
j)
Dev. Ling. Robotics |
k)
Rondelion |
|
| Biomimetic | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Connectionist | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Bayesian | 10 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 |
| Developmental | 0 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Embodiment | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Task-Oriented | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Symbolic | 5 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 5 |
| Linguistic | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 8 |
| Social | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Theoretical | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
The following is radar charts generated from the table (note that the maximal score differs depending on the chart).
The area of a radar chart does not mean much, as it depends on the ordering of features. The feature vector length may have better indication of the scope:
a)
AIXI |
b)
OpenCog |
c)
Soar |
d)
ACT-R |
e)
BESOM |
f)
WBA |
g)
RoboCup @Home |
h)
Dev. Robotics |
i)
Social Robotics |
j)
Dev. Ling. Robotics |
k)
Rondelion | |
| Extent | 15.0 | 15.2 | 11.9 | 11.4 | 17.3 | 16.7 | 18.1 | 18.8 | 20.7 | 22.4 | 17.5 |
Finally, I show a graph showing the proximity of the approaches above.
No comments:
Post a Comment