Theoretical Assessment of the SOILIE Model of the Human Imagination - eScholarship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Theoretical Assessment of the SOILIE Model of the Human Imagination Michael O. Vertolli (michaelvertolli@gmail.com) Vincent Breault (breault_vincent@gmail.com) Sebastien Ouellet (sebouel@gmail.com) Sterling Somers (sterling@sterlingsomers.com) Jonathan Gagne (gagne.jonathan@gmail.com) Jim Davies (jim@jimdavies.org) Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6 Canada things should be located, the mental scene is passed on for further processing—perhaps mental imagery. Abstract We describe the overall theory of the SOILIE model of the human imagination. In this description, we outline cognitive capacities for learning and storage, image component selection and placement, as well as analogical reasoning. The guiding theory behind SOILIE is that visual imagination is constrained by regularities in visual memories. Keywords: imagination; spatial cognition; analogy; visualization; cognitive model. creativity; Introduction The cognitive literature on imagination involves two related capacities: general creativity and the ability to generate mental simulations of possible worlds, often using sensory data from memory or the environment. The current focus is on the latter, particularly in the visual modality. This type of imagination is implicated in a number of cognitive activities, including reading a novel, planning future actions, recalling previous experiences, fantasizing about the future, and dreaming (Davies, Atance, & Martin Ordas, 2011). Although imagination of visual phenomena is often thought to be identical with pictographic, mental imagery, the view described here sees the rendering of a mental image as a final, optional stage. The process of rendering an imagined scene into neural “pixels” (colors at particular locations) is usually preceded by processes that determine what is to be placed in the image and where. For example, if one is asked to picture “a computer and a mouse,” one is likely to also picture a keyboard, desk, and related objects in an office or similar environment. The question is how does a mind know to combine these particular objects in their appropriate spatial configurations? To address this question, we chose to model a task in which a given agent takes a single word (e.g., “computer”) as the trigger to engage in the act of imagination. The task of the agent is to imagine a “computer” in a realistic scene. Using visual and spatial long-term memories, the agent populates the scene with elements that are likely to appear in an image with the triggering word (such as a keyboard). Once the underlying cognitive processes of the agent have selected what should appear in the image and where those Figure 1: SOILIE’s imagined output given the query ‘mouse’ and the returned labels: ‘computer’, ‘keyboard,’ ‘monitor,’ and ‘screen.’ The Model The Science of Imagination Laboratory Imagination Engine (SOILIE) is a computational model composed of multiple subsystems that together create the informational precursors of a 2D visual scene from an environmental trigger or query. In its current implementation, the engine takes a single word as input and returns a collection of object labels and their relative positions. The over-arching goal is for SOILIE to create visually imagined scenes in the same way that humans do. Many of SOILIE’s underlying subsystems have been discussed in previous work (Breault, Ouellet, Somers, & Davies, 2013; Davies & Gagne, 2010; Somers, Gagne, Astudillo & Davies, 2011; Vertolli & Davies, 2013). In what follows, we will take a step back and look at the entire model as a whole, including parts that are not explicitly used to determine SOILIE’s output. These elements contribute to the overall theory and include what is currently being worked on or extended in the model. Each of the parts will be addressed in chronological order as they might occur in an act of imagination. This chronological account will outline the following processes and structures. The first area is the agent-world interface, or the point at which information in the
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».