Search

Both Minsky's "society of mind" and Schmidhuber's "learning to think" inspire diverse societies of large multimodal neural networks (NNs) that solve problems by interviewing each other in a "mindstorm." Recent implementations of NN-based societies of minds consist of large language models (LLMs) and other NN-based experts communicating through a natural language interface. In doing so, they overcome the limitations of single LLMs, improving multimodal zero-shot reasoning. In these natural language-based societies of mind (NLSOMs), new agents -- all communicating through the same universal symbolic language -- are easily added in a modular fashion. To demonstrate the power of NLSOMs, we assemble and experiment with several of them (having up to 129 members), leveraging mindstorms in them to solve some practical AI tasks: visual question answering, image captioning, text-to-image synthesis, 3D generation, egocentric retrieval, embodied AI, and general language-based task solving. We view this as a starting point towards much larger NLSOMs with billions of agents-some of which may be humans. And with this emergence of great societies of heterogeneous minds, many new research questions have suddenly become paramount to the future of artificial intelligence. What should be the social structure of an NLSOM? What would be the (dis)advantages of having a monarchical rather than a democratic structure? How can principles of NN economies be used to maximize the total reward of a reinforcement learning NLSOM? In this work, we identify, discuss, and try to answer some of these questions., Comment: 9 pages in main text + 7 pages of references + 38 pages of appendices, 14 figures in main text + 13 in appendices, 7 tables in appendices

Upside-Down Reinforcement Learning (UDRL) is an approach for solving RL problems that does not require value functions and uses only supervised learning, where the targets for given inputs in a dataset do not change over time. Ghosh et al. proved that Goal-Conditional Supervised Learning (GCSL) -- which can be viewed as a simplified version of UDRL -- optimizes a lower bound on goal-reaching performance. This raises expectations that such algorithms may enjoy guaranteed convergence to the optimal policy in arbitrary environments, similar to certain well-known traditional RL algorithms. Here we show that for a specific episodic UDRL algorithm (eUDRL, including GCSL), this is not the case, and give the causes of this limitation. To do so, we first introduce a helpful rewrite of eUDRL as a recursive policy update. This formulation helps to disprove its convergence to the optimal policy for a wide class of stochastic environments. Finally, we provide a concrete example of a very simple environment where eUDRL diverges. Since the primary aim of this paper is to present a negative result, and the best counterexamples are the simplest ones, we restrict all discussions to finite (discrete) environments, ignoring issues of function approximation and limited sample size., presented at the 5th Multidisciplinary Conference on Reinforcement Learning and Decision Making; 5 pages in main text + 1 page of references + 3 pages of appendices, 1 figure in main text; source code available at https://github.com/struplm/UDRL-GCSL-counterexample.git

Under the Bayesian brain hypothesis, behavioural variations can be attributed to different priors over generative model parameters. This provides a formal explanation for why individuals exhibit inconsistent behavioural preferences when confronted with similar choices. For example, greedy preferences are a consequence of confident (or precise) beliefs over certain outcomes. Here, we offer an alternative account of behavioural variability using R��nyi divergences and their associated variational bounds. R��nyi bounds are analogous to the variational free energy (or evidence lower bound) and can be derived under the same assumptions. Importantly, these bounds provide a formal way to establish behavioural differences through an $��$ parameter, given fixed priors. This rests on changes in $��$ that alter the bound (on a continuous scale), inducing different posterior estimates and consequent variations in behaviour. Thus, it looks as if individuals have different priors, and have reached different conclusions. More specifically, $��\to 0^{+}$ optimisation leads to mass-covering variational estimates and increased variability in choice behaviour. Furthermore, $��\to + \infty$ optimisation leads to mass-seeking variational posteriors and greedy preferences. We exemplify this formulation through simulations of the multi-armed bandit task. We note that these $��$ parameterisations may be especially relevant, i.e., shape preferences, when the true posterior is not in the same family of distributions as the assumed (simpler) approximate density, which may be the case in many real-world scenarios. The ensuing departure from vanilla variational inference provides a potentially useful explanation for differences in behavioural preferences of biological (or artificial) agents under the assumption that the brain performs variational Bayesian inference., 23 pages, 5 figures

Traditional off-policy actor-critic Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms learn value functions of a single target policy. However, when value functions are updated to track the learned policy, they forget potentially useful information about old policies. We introduce a class of value functions called Parameter-Based Value Functions (PBVFs) whose inputs include the policy parameters. They can generalize across different policies. PBVFs can evaluate the performance of any policy given a state, a state-action pair, or a distribution over the RL agent's initial states. First we show how PBVFs yield novel off-policy policy gradient theorems. Then we derive off-policy actor-critic algorithms based on PBVFs trained by Monte Carlo or Temporal Difference methods. We show how learned PBVFs can zero-shot learn new policies that outperform any policy seen during training. Finally our algorithms are evaluated on a selection of discrete and continuous control tasks using shallow policies and deep neural networks. Their performance is comparable to state-of-the-art methods., Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2021