DOCSLIB.ORG

Algorithmic Probability, Heuristic Programming and AGI

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Algorithmic Probability, Heuristic Programming and AGI Algorithmic Probability, Heuristic Programming and AGI Ray J. Solomono® Visiting Professor, Computer Learning Research Center Royal Holloway, University of London IDSIA, Galleria 2, CH{6928 Manno{Lugano, Switzerland [email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjs/pubs.html Introduction Machine with three tapes: a unidirectional input tape, This paper is about Algorithmic Probability (ALP) and a unidirectional output tape, and a bidirectional work Heuristic Programming and how they can be combined tape. If we feed it an input tape with 0's and 1's on it, to achieve AGI. It is an update of a 2003 report de- the machine may print some 0's and 1's on the output scribing a system of this kind (Sol03). We ¯rst describe | It could print nothing at all or print a ¯nite string ALP, giving the most common implementation of it, and stop or it could print an in¯nite output string, or it then the features of ALP relevant to its application to could go into an in¯nite computing loop with no print- AGI. ing at all. They are: Completeness, Incomputability, Subjectiv- Suppose we want to ¯nd the ALP of ¯nite string x. ity and Diversity. We then show how these features en- We feed random bits into the machine. There is a cer- able us to create a very general, very intelligent prob- tain probability that the output will be a string that lem solving machine. For this we will devise \Training starts out with the string x. That is the ALP of string Sequences"| sequences of problems designed to put x. problem-solving information into the machine. We de- To compute the ALP of string x: scribe a few kinds of training sequences. X1 ¡jSi(x)j The problems are solved by a \generate and test" al- PM (x) = 2 gorithm, in which the candidate solutions are selected i=0 through a \Guiding Probability Distribution". The use Here PM (x) is the ALP (also called Universal Prob- of Levin's search procedure enables us to e±ciently con- ability) of string x with respect to machine, M. sider the full class of partial recursive functions as possi- There are many ¯nite string inputs to M that will ble solutions to our problems. The guiding probability give an output that begins with x. We call such strings distribution is updated after each problem is solved, so \codes for x". Most of these codes are redundant in that the next problem can pro¯t from things learned in the sense that if one removes its most recent bit the the previously solved problems. resultant string will still be a \code for x". A \minimal We describe a few updating techniques. Improve- code for x" is one that is not redundant. If one removes ments in updating based on heuristic programming is its last bit, the result will no longer be a\code for x". th one of the principal directions of current research. De- Say jSi(x)j is the length in bits of the i \Minimal code signing training sequences is another important direc- for x". tion. 2¡jSi(x)j is the probability that the random input will For some of the simpler updating algorithms, it is begin with the\ ith minimal code for x". easy to \merge" the guiding probabilities of machines PM (x) is then the sum of the probabilities of all the that have been educated using di®erent training se- ways that a string beginning with x, could be generated. quences | resulting in a machine that is more intel- This de¯nition has some interesting properties: ligent than any of the component machines . First, it assigns high probabilities to strings with short descriptions | This is in the spirit of Ockham's What is Algorithmic Probability? razor. It is the converse of Hu®man coding that assigns ALP is a technique for the extrapolation of a sequence short codes to high probability symbols. of binary symbols | all induction problems can be put Second, its value is somewhat independent of what into this form. We ¯rst assign a probability to any ¯- universal machine is used, because codes for one uni- nite binary sequence. We can then use Bayes' theorem versal machine can always be obtained from another to compute the probability of any particular continua- universal machine by the addition of a ¯nite sequence tion sequence. The big problem is: how do we assign of translation instructions. these probabilities to strings? In one of the commonest A less apparent but clearly desirable property | implementations of ALP, we have a Universal Turing PM (x) is complete. This means that if there is any describable regularity in a batch of data, PM will ¯nd The usual question is | \What good is it if you can't it, using a relatively small amount of the data. At this compute it?" The answer is that for practical predic- time, it is the only induction method known to be com- tion we don't have to compute ALP exactly. Approxi- plete (Sol78). mations to it are quite usable and the closer an approx- More exactly: Suppose ¹(x) is a probability distribu- imation is to ALP, the more likely it is to share ALP's tion on ¯nite binary strings. For each x = x1; x2 ¢ ¢ ¢ xi, desirable qualities. ¹ gives a probability that the next bit, xi+1 will be 1: Perhaps the simplest kind of approximation to an in- ¹(xi+1 = 1jx1; x2 ¢ ¢ ¢ xi) computablep number involves making rational approxi- From PM we can obtain a similar function P (xi+1 = mations to 2. We know that there is no rational num- 1jx1; x2 ¢ ¢ ¢ xi). ber whose square is 2, but we can get arbitrarily close Suppose we use ¹ to generate a sequence, x, Monte approximations. We can also compute an upper bound Carlo-wise. ¹ will assign a probability to the i + 1th on the error of our approximation and for most meth- bit based on all previous bits. Similarly, P will assign ods of successive approximation we are assured that the th a probability to the i + 1 bit of x. If PM is a very errors approach zero. In the case of ALP, though we good predictor, the probability values obtained from ¹ are assured that the approximations will approach ALP and from PM will be very close, on the average, for long arbitrarily closely, the incomputability implies that we sequences. What I proved was: cannot ever compute useful upper bounds on approxi- mation error | but for few if any practical applications do we need this information. Xn The approximation problem for the universal distri- E¹ (¹(xi+1 = 1jx1; x2 ¢ ¢ ¢ xi) bution is very similar to that of approximating a so- i=1 lution to the Traveling Salesman Problem, when the 1 ¡P (x = 1jx ; x ¢ ¢ ¢ x ))2 · k ln 2 number of cities is too large to enable an exact solu- i+1 1 2 i 2 tion. When we make trial paths, we always know the total length of each path | so we know whether one The expected value of the sum of the squares of trial is better than another. In approximations for the the di®erences between the probabilities is bounded by universal distribution, we also always know when one about :35k. k is the minimum number of bits that M, approximation is better than another | and we know the reference machine, needs to describe ¹. If the func- how much better. In some cases, we can combine trials tion ¹ is describable by functions that are close to M's to obtain a trial that is better than either of the compo- primitive instruction set, then k will be small and the nent trials. In both TSP and ALP approximation, we error will be small. | But whether large or small, the never know how far we are from the theoretically best, squared error in probability must converge faster than 1 P 1 yet in both cases we do not hesitate to use approximate n (because n diverges). solutions to our problems. Later research has shown this result to be very robust The incomputability of ALP is closely associated with | we can use a large, (non-binary) alphabet and/or its completeness. Any complete induction system can- use error functions that are di®erent from total square not be computable. Conversely, any computable induc- di®erence (Hut02). The probability obtained can be tion system cannot be complete. For any computable normalized or unnormalized (semi-measure)(G¶ac97). induction system, it is possible to construct a space of The function ¹ to be \discovered" can be any describ- data sequences for which that system gives extremely able function | primitive recursive, total recursive, or poor probability values. The sum of the squared errors partial recursive. When ALP uses an unnormalized diverges linearly in the sequence length. semi-measure, it can discover incomputable functions Appendix B gives a simple construction of this kind. as well. We note that the incomputability of ALP makes such The desirable aspects of ALP are quite clear. We a construction impossible and its probability error al- know of no other model of induction that is nearly as ways converges to zero for any ¯nitely describable se- good quence. An apparent di±culty | PM (x) is incomputable: To explain our earlier remark on incomputability as The equation de¯ning PM (x) tells us to ¯nd all strings a very desirable feature: Incomputability is the only that are \minimal codes for x." Because of the Halting way we can achieve completeness. In ALP this incom- Problem, it is impossible to tell whether certain strings putability imposes no penalty on its practical applica- are codes for x or not.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Foundations of Solomonoff Prediction
    The Foundations of Solomonoff Prediction MSc Thesis for the graduate programme in History and Philosophy of Science at the Universiteit Utrecht by Tom Florian Sterkenburg under the supervision of prof.dr. D.G.B.J. Dieks (Institute for History and Foundations of Science, Universiteit Utrecht) and prof.dr. P.D. Gr¨unwald (Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica; Universiteit Leiden) February 2013 ii Parsifal: Wer ist der Gral? Gurnemanz: Das sagt sich nicht; doch bist du selbst zu ihm erkoren, bleibt dir die Kunde unverloren. – Und sieh! – Mich dunkt,¨ daß ich dich recht erkannt: kein Weg fuhrt¨ zu ihm durch das Land, und niemand k¨onnte ihn beschreiten, den er nicht selber m¨ocht’ geleiten. Parsifal: Ich schreite kaum, - doch w¨ahn’ ich mich schon weit. Richard Wagner, Parsifal, Act I, Scene I iv Voor mum v Abstract R.J. Solomonoff’s theory of Prediction assembles notions from information theory, confirmation theory and computability theory into the specification of a supposedly all-encompassing objective method of prediction. The theory has been the subject of both general neglect and occasional passionate promotion, but of very little serious philosophical reflection. This thesis presents an attempt towards a more balanced philosophical appraisal of Solomonoff’s theory. Following an in-depth treatment of the mathematical framework and its motivation, I shift attention to the proper interpretation of these formal results. A discussion of the theory’s possible aims turns into the project of identifying its core principles, and a defence of the primacy of the unifying principle of Universality supports the development of my proposed interpretation of Solomonoff Prediction as the statement, to be read in the context of the philosophical problem of prediction, that in a universal setting, there exist universal predictors.
    [Show full text]
  • An Algorithmic Approach to Information and Meaning a Formal Framework for a Philosophical Discussion∗
    An Algorithmic Approach to Information and Meaning A Formal Framework for a Philosophical Discussion∗ Hector Zenil [email protected] Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (Paris 1/ENS Ulm/CNRS) http://www.algorithmicnature.org/zenil Abstract I'll survey some of the aspects relevant to a philosophical discussion of information taking into account the developments of algorithmic information theory. I will propose that meaning is deep in Bennett's logical depth sense, and that algorithmic probability may provide the stability for a robust algorithmic definition of meaning, taking into consideration the interpretation and the receiver's own knowledge encoded in the story of a message. Keywords: information content; meaning; algorithmic probability; algorithmic complexity; logical depth; philosophy of information; in- formation theory. ∗Presented at the Interdisciplinary Workshop: Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Aspects of Computer Science, Philosophy of Simulation (SimTech Clus- ter of Excellence), Institute of Philosophy, at the Faculty of Informatics, University of Stuttgart, Germany, July 7, 2011. 1 1 Introduction Information can be a cornerstone for interpreting all kind of world phenom- ena as it can constitute the basis for the description of objects. While it is legitimate to study ideas and concepts related to information in their broad- est sense, that the use of information outside formal contexts amounts to misuse cannot and should not be overlooked. It is not unusual to come across surveys and volumes devoted to information (in the larger sense) in which the mathematical discussion does not venture beyond the state of the field as Shannon [30] left it some 60 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Graph and Network Complexity from an Algorithmic Information Perspective
    entropy Review A Review of Graph and Network Complexity from an Algorithmic Information Perspective Hector Zenil 1,2,3,4,5,*, Narsis A. Kiani 1,2,3,4 and Jesper Tegnér 2,3,4,5 1 Algorithmic Dynamics Lab, Centre for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden; [email protected] 2 Unit of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden; [email protected] 3 Science for Life Laboratory (SciLifeLab), 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden 4 Algorithmic Nature Group, Laboratoire de Recherche Scientifique (LABORES) for the Natural and Digital Sciences, 75005 Paris, France 5 Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division (BESE), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Received: 21 June 2018; Accepted: 20 July 2018; Published: 25 July 2018 Abstract: Information-theoretic-based measures have been useful in quantifying network complexity. Here we briefly survey and contrast (algorithmic) information-theoretic methods which have been used to characterize graphs and networks. We illustrate the strengths and limitations of Shannon’s entropy, lossless compressibility and algorithmic complexity when used to identify aspects and properties of complex networks. We review the fragility of computable measures on the one hand and the invariant properties of algorithmic measures on the other demonstrating how current approaches to algorithmic complexity are misguided and suffer of similar limitations than traditional statistical approaches such as Shannon entropy. Finally, we review some current definitions of algorithmic complexity which are used in analyzing labelled and unlabelled graphs. This analysis opens up several new opportunities to advance beyond traditional measures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction
    Entropy 2011, 13, 1076-1136; doi:10.3390/e13061076 OPEN ACCESS entropy ISSN 1099-4300 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy Article A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction Samuel Rathmanner and Marcus Hutter ? Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, Corner of North and Daley Road, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia ? Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]. Received: 20 April 2011; in revised form: 24 May 2011 / Accepted: 27 May 2011 / Published: 3 June 2011 Abstract: Understanding inductive reasoning is a problem that has engaged mankind for thousands of years. This problem is relevant to a wide range of fields and is integral to the philosophy of science. It has been tackled by many great minds ranging from philosophers to scientists to mathematicians, and more recently computer scientists. In this article we argue the case for Solomonoff Induction, a formal inductive framework which combines algorithmic information theory with the Bayesian framework. Although it achieves excellent theoretical results and is based on solid philosophical foundations, the requisite technical knowledge necessary for understanding this framework has caused it to remain largely unknown and unappreciated in the wider scientific community. The main contribution of this article is to convey Solomonoff induction and its related concepts in a generally accessible form with the aim of bridging this current technical gap. In the process we examine the major historical contributions that have led to the formulation of Solomonoff Induction as well as criticisms of Solomonoff and induction in general. In particular we examine how Solomonoff induction addresses many issues that have plagued other inductive systems, such as the black ravens paradox and the confirmation problem, and compare this approach with other recent approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • No Free Lunch Versus Occam's Razor in Supervised Learning
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Australian National University No Free Lunch versus Occam's Razor in Supervised Learning Tor Lattimore1 and Marcus Hutter1;2;3 Research School of Computer Science 1Australian National University and 2ETH Z¨urich and 3NICTA ftor.lattimore,[email protected] 15 November 2011 Abstract The No Free Lunch theorems are often used to argue that domain specific knowledge is required to design successful algorithms. We use algorithmic in- formation theory to argue the case for a universal bias allowing an algorithm to succeed in all interesting problem domains. Additionally, we give a new al- gorithm for off-line classification, inspired by Solomonoff induction, with good performance on all structured (compressible) problems under reasonable as- sumptions. This includes a proof of the efficacy of the well-known heuristic of randomly selecting training data in the hope of reducing the misclassification rate. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Preliminaries 3 3 No Free Lunch Theorem 4 4 Complexity-based classification 8 5 Discussion 12 A Technical proofs 14 Keywords Supervised learning; Kolmogorov complexity; no free lunch; Occam's razor. 1 1 Introduction The No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems, stated and proven in various settings and domains [Sch94, Wol01, WM97], show that no algorithm performs better than any other when their performance is averaged uniformly over all possible problems of a particular type.1 These are often cited to argue that algorithms must be designed for a particular domain or style of problem, and that there is no such thing as a general purpose algorithm.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Data Analytics, Small Data Matters and Correlation Versus Causation Arxiv:1309.1418V9 [Cs.CE] 26 Jul 2017
    Algorithmic Data Analytics, Small Data Matters and Correlation versus Causation∗ Hector Zenil Unit of Computational Medicine, SciLifeLab, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, UK; and Algorithmic Nature Group, LABORES, Paris, France. Abstract This is a review of aspects of the theory of algorithmic information that may contribute to a framework for formulating questions related to complex, highly unpredictable systems. We start by contrasting Shannon entropy and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, which epit- omise correlation and causation respectively, and then surveying classical results from algorithmic complexity and algorithmic proba- bility, highlighting their deep connection to the study of automata frequency distributions. We end by showing that though long-range algorithmic prediction models for economic and biological systems may require infinite computation, locally approximated short-range estimations are possible, thereby demonstrating how small data can deliver important insights into important features of complex “Big Data”. arXiv:1309.1418v9 [cs.CE] 26 Jul 2017 Keywords: Correlation; causation; complex systems; algorithmic probability; computability; Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity. ∗Invited contribution to the festschrift Predictability in the world: philosophy and science in the complex world of Big Data edited by J. Wernecke on the occasion of the retirement of Prof. Dr. Klaus Mainzer, Springer Verlag. Chapter based on an invited talk delivered to UNAM-CEIICH via videoconference from The University of Sheffield in the U.K. for the Alan Turing colloquium “From computers to life” http: //www.complexitycalculator.com/TuringUNAM.pdf) in June, 2012. 1 1 Introduction Complex systems have been studied for some time now, but it was not until recently that sampling complex systems became possible, systems ranging from computational methods such as high-throughput biology, to systems with sufficient storage capacity to store and analyse market transactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Universal Intelligence Models with Formal Notion of Representation
    Extending Universal Intelligence Models with Formal Notion of Representation Alexey Potapov, Sergey Rodionov AIDEUS, Russia {potapov,rodionov}@aideus.com Abstract. Solomonoff induction is known to be universal, but incomputable. Its approximations, namely, the Minimum Description (or Message) Length (MDL) principles, are adopted in practice in the efficient, but non-universal form. Recent attempts to bridge this gap leaded to development of the Repre- sentational MDL principle that originates from formal decomposition of the task of induction. In this paper, possible extension of the RMDL principle in the context of universal intelligence agents is considered, for which introduction of representations is shown to be an unavoidable meta-heuristic and a step toward efficient general intelligence. Hierarchical representations and model optimiza- tion with the use of information-theoretic interpretation of the adaptive reso- nance are also discussed. Key words: Universal Agents, Kolmogorov Complexity, Minimum Descrip- tion Length Principle, Representations 1 Introduction The idea of universal induction and prediction on the basis of algorithmic information theory was invented a long time ago [1]. In theory, it eliminates the fundamental problem of prior probabilities, incorrect solutions of which result in such negative practical effects as overlearning, overfitting, oversegmentation, and so on. It would be rather natural to try to develop some models of universal intelligence on this basis. However, the corresponding detailed models were published only relatively recently (e.g. [2]). Moreover, the theory of universal induction was not popular even in ma- chine learning. The reason is quite obvious – it offers incomputable methods, which additionally require training sets of large sizes in order to make good predictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Artificial Intelligence Philosophical, Mathematical, and Computational Foundations of Inductive Inference and Intelligent Agents the Learn
    Universal Artificial Intelligence philosophical, mathematical, and computational foundations of inductive inference and intelligent agents the learn Marcus Hutter Australian National University Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia http://www.hutter1.net/ ANU Universal Artificial Intelligence - 2 - Marcus Hutter Abstract: Motivation The dream of creating artificial devices that reach or outperform human intelligence is an old one, however a computationally efficient theory of true intelligence has not been found yet, despite considerable efforts in the last 50 years. Nowadays most research is more modest, focussing on solving more narrow, specific problems, associated with only some aspects of intelligence, like playing chess or natural language translation, either as a goal in itself or as a bottom-up approach. The dual, top down approach, is to find a mathematical (not computational) definition of general intelligence. Note that the AI problem remains non-trivial even when ignoring computational aspects. Universal Artificial Intelligence - 3 - Marcus Hutter Abstract: Contents In this course we will develop such an elegant mathematical parameter-free theory of an optimal reinforcement learning agent embedded in an arbitrary unknown environment that possesses essentially all aspects of rational intelligence. Most of the course is devoted to giving an introduction to the key ingredients of this theory, which are important subjects in their own right: Occam's razor; Turing machines; Kolmogorov complexity; probability theory; Solomonoff induction; Bayesian
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Probability-Guided Supervised Machine Learning on Non-Differentiable Spaces
    Algorithmic Probability-guided Supervised Machine Learning on Non-differentiable Spaces Santiago Hernández-Orozco1,2, Hector Zenil∗2,3,4,5, Jürgen Riedel2,4, Adam Uccello4, Narsis A. Kiani3,4, and Jesper Tegnér∗5 1Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. 2 Oxford Immune Algorithmics, Oxford, U.K. 3Algorithmic Dynamics Lab, Unit of Computational Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. 4Algorithmic Nature Group, LABORES, Paris, France. 5King Abdullah University of, Science and Technology (KAUST), Computer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering, Saudi Arabia. Abstract We show how complexity theory can be introduced in machine learning to help bring together apparently disparate areas of current research. We show that this new approach requires less train- ing data and is more generalizable as it shows greater resilience to random attacks. We investigate the shape of the discrete algorithmic space when performing regression or classification using a loss function parametrized by algorithmic complexity, demonstrating that the property of differentia- tion is not necessary to achieve results similar to those obtained using differentiable programming approaches such as deep learning. In doing so we use examples which enable the two approaches to be compared (small, given the computational power required for estimations of algorithmic complexity). We find and report that (i) machine learning can successfully be performed on a non-smooth surface using algorithmic complexity; (ii) that parameter
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Randomness As Foundation of Inductive Reasoning and Artificial Intelligence
    Algorithmic Randomness as Foundation of Inductive Reasoning and Artificial Intelligence Marcus Hutter RSISE @ ANU and SML @ NICTA Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia [email protected] www.hutter1.net 5 May 2010 Abstract This article is a personal account of the past, present, and future of algo- rithmic randomness, emphasizing its role in inductive inference and artificial intelligence. It is written for a general audience interested in science and philosophy. Intuitively, randomness is a lack of order or predictability. If randomness is the opposite of determinism, then algorithmic randomness is the opposite of computability. Besides many other things, these concepts have been used to quantify Ockham's razor, solve the induction problem, and define intelligence. Contents 1 Why were you initially drawn to the study of computation and randomness? 2 2 What have we learned? 3 3 What don't we know (yet)? 4 4 What are the most important open problems in the field? 5 5 What are the prospects for progress? 7 Keywords algorithmic information theory; individual randomness; Ockham's razor; in- ductive reasoning; artificial intelligence. 1 1 Why were you initially drawn to the study of computation and randomness? Some sequences of events follow a long causal \computable" path, while others are so \random" that the coherent causal path is quite short. I am able to trace back quite far my personal causal chain of events that eventually led me to computability and randomness (C&R), although the path looks warped and random. At about 8 years of age, I got increasingly annoyed at always having to tidy up my room.
    [Show full text]
  • Probability, Algorithmic Complexity, and Subjective Randomness
    Probability, algorithmic complexity, and subjective randomness Thomas L. Griffiths Joshua B. Tenenbaum [email protected] [email protected] Department of Psychology Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department Stanford University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract accounts that can express the strong prior knowl- We present a statistical account of human random- edge that contributes to our inferences. The struc- ness judgments that uses the idea of algorithmic tures that people find simple form a strict (and flex- complexity. We show that an existing measure of ible) subset of those easily expressed in a computer the randomness of a sequence corresponds to the as- sumption that non-random sequences are generated program. For example, the sequence of heads and by a particular probabilistic finite state automaton, tails TTHTTTHHTH appears quite complex to us, even and use this as the basis for an account that evalu- though, as the parity of the first 10 digits of π, it ates randomness in terms of the length of programs is easily generated by a computer. Identifying the for machines at different levels of the Chomsky hi- kinds of regularities that contribute to our sense of erarchy. This approach results in a model that pre- dicts human judgments better than the responses simplicity will be an important part of any cognitive of other participants in the same experiment. theory, and is in fact necessary since Kolmogorov complexity is not computable (Kolmogorov, 1965). The development of information theory prompted There is a crucial middle ground between Kol- cognitive scientists to formally examine how humans mogorov complexity and the arbitrary encoding encode experience, with a variety of schemes be- schemes to which Simon (1972) objected.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Information Dynamics - Scholarpedia Algorithmic Information Dynamics
    12/10/2020 Algorithmic Information Dynamics - Scholarpedia Algorithmic Information Dynamics Hector Zenil et al. (2020), Scholarpedia, 15(7):53143. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.53143 revision #194701 [link to/cite this article] Dr. Hector Zenil, Oxford Immune Algorithmics and Algorithmic Dynamics Lab, Oxford and Stockholm, United Kingdom and Sweden Dr. Narsis A. Kiani, Algorithmic Dynamics Lab, Unit of Computational Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Felipe S Abrahão, National Laboratory for Scientific Computing (LNCC), Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Prof. Jesper N. Tegnér, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia Algorithmic Information Dynamics (AID) is an algorithmic probabilistic framework for causal discovery and causal analysis. It enables a numerical solution to inverse problems based or motivated on principles of algorithmic probability. AID studies dynamical systems in software space where all possible computable models can be found or approximated under the assumption that discrete longitudinal data such as particle orbits in state and phase space can approximate continuous systems by Turing-computable means. AID combines perturbation analysis and algorithmic information theory to guide a search for sets of models compatible with observations and to precompute and exploit those models as testable generative mechanisms and causal first principles underlying data and systems. AID is an alternative or a complement to other approaches and methods of experimental inference, such as statistical machine learning and classical information theory. AID connects with and across other parallel fields of active research such as logical inference, causal reasoning, and neuro-symbolic computation. AID studies how candidate discrete computable equations as generating mechanisms are affected by changes in observed phenomena over time as a result of a system evolving (e.g.
    [Show full text]