Literature DB >> 18722597

Rational and mechanistic perspectives on reinforcement learning.

Nick Chater1.   

Abstract

This special issue describes important recent developments in applying reinforcement learning models to capture neural and cognitive function. But reinforcement learning, as a theoretical framework, can apply at two very different levels of description: mechanistic and rational. Reinforcement learning is often viewed in mechanistic terms--as describing the operation of aspects of an agent's cognitive and neural machinery. Yet it can also be viewed as a rational level of description, specifically, as describing a class of methods for learning from experience, using minimal background knowledge. This paper considers how rational and mechanistic perspectives differ, and what types of evidence distinguish between them. Reinforcement learning research in the cognitive and brain sciences is often implicitly committed to the mechanistic interpretation. Here the opposite view is put forward: that accounts of reinforcement learning should apply at the rational level, unless there is strong evidence for a mechanistic interpretation. Implications of this viewpoint for reinforcement-based theories in the cognitive and brain sciences are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18722597     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  7 in total

1.  Transitive reasoning distorts induction in causal chains.

Authors:  Momme von Sydow; York Hagmayer; Björn Meder
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-04

2.  Learning What to Want: Context-Sensitive Preference Learning.

Authors:  Nisheeth Srivastava; Paul Schrater
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Learning words in space and time: Contrasting models of the suspicious coincidence effect.

Authors:  Gavin W Jenkins; Larissa K Samuelson; Will Penny; John P Spencer
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2021-02-01

4.  How the number of learning trials affects placebo and nocebo responses.

Authors:  Luana Colloca; Predrag Petrovic; Tor D Wager; Martin Ingvar; Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.926

Review 5.  A framework for building cognitive process models.

Authors:  Jana B Jarecki; Jolene H Tan; Mirjam A Jenny
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-12

6.  Artificial Development by Reinforcement Learning Can Benefit From Multiple Motivations.

Authors:  Günther Palm; Friedhelm Schwenker
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2019-02-14

7.  Planning for uncertainty.

Authors:  Erica C Yu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-11-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.