No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Meta-learning goes hand-in-hand with metacognition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2024
Abstract
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.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Biswas, S., Clawson, W., & Levin, M. (2022). Learning in transcriptional network models: Computational discovery of pathway-level memory and effective interventions. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biswas, S., Manika, S., Hoel, E., & Levin, M. (2021). Gene regulatory networks exhibit several kinds of memory: Quantification of memory in biological and random transcriptional networks. IScience, 24, 102131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chater, N. (2018). The mind is flat. The remarkable shallowness of the improvising brain. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, M. T. (2005). Metacognition in computation: A selected research review. Artificial Intelligence, 169, 104–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, C., Fabrocini, F., Friston, K. J., Glazebrook, J. F., Hazan, H., Levin, M., & Marcianò, A. (2023). Control flow in active inference systems, part I: Classical and quantum formulations of active inference. IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological, and Multi-Scale Communications, 9, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, C., Friston, K. J., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. (2022). A free energy principle for generic quantum systems. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 173, 36–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fields, C., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2020). Do process-1 simulations generate the epistemic feelings that drive process-2 decision making? Cognitive Processing, 21, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. (2024). Principled limitations on self-representations for generic physical systems. Entropy, 26(3), 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. (2019). A free energy principle for a particular physics, Preprint arxiv:1906.10184.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Da Costa, L., Sakthivadivel, D. A. R., Heins, C., Pavliotis, G. A., Ramstead, M. J., & Parr, T. (2023) Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things. Physics of Life Reviews, 47, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K., FitzGerald, T., Rigoli, F., Schwartenbeck, P., O'Doherty, J., & Pezzulo, G. (2016). Active inference and learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 862–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glahn, D. C., Winkler, A. M., Kochunov, P., & Blangero, J. (2010) Genetic control over the resting brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 10(7), 1223–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchling, F., Fields, C., & Levin, M. (2022). Metacognition as a consequence of competing evolutionary time scales. Entropy, 24, 601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, M. (2022). Technological approach to mind everywhere: An experimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16, 768201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, M. (2023). Darwin's agential materials: Evolutionary implications of multiscale competency in developmental biology. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 80(6), 142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramstead, M. J.,Sakthivadivel, D. A. R., Heins, C., Koudahl, M., Millidge, B., Da Costa, L., … Friston, K. J. (2022). On Bayesian mechanics: A physics of and by beliefs. Interface Focus, 13(2923), 20220029.Google Scholar
Samek, W., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Anders, C. J., & Müller, K.-R. (2021) Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109, 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, N., & Frith, C. D. (2019). The global workspace needs metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 560–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J. E. T., & Taylor, G. W. (2021). Artificial cognition: How experimental psychology can help generate artificial intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J. X. (2021). Meta-learning in artificial and natural intelligence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 38, 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Meta-learned models of cognition
Related commentaries (22)
Bayes beyond the predictive distribution
Challenges of meta-learning and rational analysis in large worlds
Combining meta-learned models with process models of cognition
Integrative learning in the lens of meta-learned models of cognition: Impacts on animal and human learning outcomes
Is human compositionality meta-learned?
Learning and memory are inextricable
Linking meta-learning to meta-structure
Meta-learned models as tools to test theories of cognitive development
Meta-learned models beyond and beneath the cognitive
Meta-learning and the evolution of cognition
Meta-learning as a bridge between neural networks and symbolic Bayesian models
Meta-learning goes hand-in-hand with metacognition
Meta-learning in active inference
Meta-learning modeling and the role of affective-homeostatic states in human cognition
Meta-learning: Bayesian or quantum?
Probabilistic programming versus meta-learning as models of cognition
Quantum Markov blankets for meta-learned classical inferential paradoxes with suboptimal free energy
Quo vadis, planning?
The added value of affective processes for models of human cognition and learning
The hard problem of meta-learning is what-to-learn
The meta-learning toolkit needs stronger constraints
The reinforcement metalearner as a biologically plausible meta-learning framework
Author response
Meta-learning: Data, architecture, and both