CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine Theory of Mind

Rabinowitz, Neil C., Perbet, Frank, Song, H. Francis, Zhang, Chiyuan, Eslami, S. M. Ali, Botvinick, Matthew·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1802.07740arXiv 1802.07740
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Theory of mind (ToM; Premack & Woodruff, 1978) broadly refers to humans' ability to represent the mental states of others, including their desires, beliefs, and intentions. We propose to train a machine to build such models too. We design a Theory of Mind neural network -- a ToMnet -- which uses meta-learning to build models of the agents it encounters, from observations of their behaviour alone. Through this process, it acquires a strong prior model for agents' behaviour, as well as the ability to bootstrap to richer predictions about agents' characteristics and mental states using only a small number of behavioural observations. We apply the ToMnet to agents behaving in simple gridworld environments, showing that it learns to model random, algorithmic, and deep reinforcement learning agents from varied populations, and that it passes classic ToM tasks such as the "Sally-Anne" test (Wimmer & Perner, 1983; Baron-Cohen et al., 1985) of recognising that others can hold false beliefs about the world. We argue that this system -- which autonomously learns how to model other agents in its world -- is an important step forward for developing multi-agent AI systems, for building intermediating technology for machine-human interaction, and for advancing the progress on interpretable AI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1802.07740

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Abbeel, Pieter and Ng, Andrew Y. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In ICML, 2004.
  2. Albrecht, Stefano V and Stone, Peter. Autonomous agents modelling other agents: A comprehensive survey and open problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08071, 2017. · arXiv
  3. Alemi, Alexander A, Fischer, Ian, Dillon, Joshua V, and Murphy, Kevin. Deep variational information bottle- neck. arXiv:1612.00410, 2016. · arXiv
  4. Baillargeon, Renée, Scott, Rose M, and Bian, Lin. Psycho- logical reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychol- ogy, 67:159-186, 2016.
  5. Baker, Chris, Saxe, Rebecca, and Tenenbaum, Joshua. Bayesian theory of mind: Modeling joint belief-desire attribution. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science So- ciety, volume 33, 2011.
  6. Baker, Chris L, Jara-Ettinger, Julian, Saxe, Rebecca, and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4):0064, 2017.
  7. Botvinick, M., Barrett, D. G. T., Battaglia, P., de Freitas, N., Kumaran, D., Leibo, J. Z, Lillicrap, T., Modayil, J., Mohamed, S., Rabinowitz, N. C., Rezende, D. J., San- toro, A., Schaul, T., Summerfield, C., Wayne, G., Weber, T., Wierstra, D., Legg, S., and Hassabis, D. Building Machines that Learn and Think for Themselves: Com- mentary on Lake et al., Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2017. arXiv:1711.08378, November 2017. · arXiv
  8. Boularias, Abdeslam, Kober, Jens, and Peters, Jan. Relative entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 182-189, 2011.
  9. Brown, George W. Iterative solution of games by fictitious play. Activity analysis of production and allocation, 13 (1):374-376, 1951.
  10. Buresh, Jennifer Sootsman and Woodward, Amanda L. In- fants track action goals within and across agents. Cogni- tion, 104(2):287-314, 2007.
  11. Camerer, Colin F, Ho, Teck-Hua, and Chong, Juin-Kuan. A cognitive hierarchy model of games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3):861-898, 2004.
  12. Carey, Susan. The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press, 2009.
  13. Churchland, Paul. The neural representation of the social world. In May, Larry, Friedman, Marilyn, and Clark, Andy (eds.), Mind and morals: essays on cognitive sci- ence and ethics. MIT Press, 1996.
  14. Clayton, Nicola S, Dally, Joanna M, and Emery, Nathan J. Social cognition by food-caching corvids. the western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sci- ences, 362(1480):507-522, 2007.
  15. Dayan, Peter. Improving generalization for temporal dif- ference learning: The successor representation. Neural Computation, 5(4):613-624, 1993.
  16. Dennett, Daniel C. Two contrasts: folk craft versus folk science, and belief versus opinion. The future of folk psy- chology: Intentionality and cognitive science, pp. 135- 148, 1991.
  17. Dennett, Daniel Clement. The intentional stance. MIT press, 1973.
  18. Dragan, Anca D, Lee, Kenton CT, and Srinivasa, Sid- dhartha S. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction, pp. 301-308. IEEE, 2013.
  19. Duan, Yan, Andrychowicz, Marcin, Stadie, Bradly, Ho, Jonathan, Schneider, Jonas, Sutskever, Ilya, Abbeel, Pieter, and Zaremba, Wojciech. One-shot imitation learning. arXiv:1703.07326, 2017. · arXiv
  20. Evans, Owain, Stuhlmüller, Andreas, and Goodman, Noah D. Learning the preferences of ignorant, incon- sistent agents. In AAAI, pp. 323-329, 2016.
  21. Finn, Chelsea and Levine, Sergey. Meta-learning and uni- versality: Deep representations and gradient descent can approximate any learning algorithm. arXiv:1710.11622, 2017. · arXiv
  22. Fisac, Jaime F, Gates, Monica A, Hamrick, Jessica B, Liu, Chang, Hadfield-Menell, Dylan, Palaniappan, Malayandi, Malik, Dhruv, Sastry, S Shankar, Griffiths, Thomas L, and Dragan, Anca D. Pragmatic-pedagogic value alignment. arXiv:1707.06354, 2017. · arXiv
  23. Gallese, Vittorio and Goldman, Alvin. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in cogni- tive sciences, 2(12):493-501, 1998.
  24. Gergely, György, Nádasdy, Zoltán, Csibra, Gergely, and Bíró, Szilvia. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2):165-193, 1995.
  25. Gopnik, Alison and Astington, Janet W. Children's under- standing of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child development, pp. 26-37, 1988.
  26. Gopnik, Alison and Wellman, Henry M. Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7 (1-2):145-171, 1992.
  27. Gordon, Robert M. Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language, 1(2):158-171, 1986.
  28. Hassabis, Demis, Spreng, R Nathan, Rusu, Andrei A, Robbins, Clifford A, Mar, Raymond A, and Schacter, Daniel L. Imagine all the people: how the brain creates and uses personality models to predict behavior. Cere- bral Cortex, 24(8):1979-1987, 2013.
  29. Hochreiter, Sepp, Younger, A Steven, and Conwell, Pe- ter R. Learning to learn using gradient descent. In Inter- national Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, pp. 87-94. Springer, 2001.
  30. Hula, Andreas, Montague, P Read, and Dayan, Peter. Monte carlo planning method estimates planning hori- zons during interactive social exchange. PLoS computa- tional biology, 11(6):e1004254, 2015.
  31. Jaderberg, Max, Mnih, Volodymyr, Czarnecki, Woj- ciech Marian, Schaul, Tom, Leibo, Joel Z, Silver, David, and Kavukcuoglu, Koray. Reinforcement learning with unsupervised auxiliary tasks. In ICLR, 2017.
  32. Jara-Ettinger, Julian, Gweon, Hyowon, Schulz, Laura E, and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. The naïve utility calculus: computational principles underlying commonsense psy- chology. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(8):589-604, 2016.
  33. Kris Cao, Angeliki Lazaridou, Marc Lanctot Joel Z Leibo Karl Tuyls Stephen Clark. Emergent communication through negotiation. ICLR submission.
  34. Krupenye, Christopher, Kano, Fumihiro, Hirata, Satoshi, Call, Josep, and Tomasello, Michael. Great apes antici- pate that other individuals will act according to false be- liefs. Science, 354(6308):110-114, 2016.
  35. Lanctot, Marc, Zambaldi, Vinicius, Gruslys, Audrunas, Lazaridou, Angeliki, Perolat, Julien, Silver, David, Graepel, Thore, et al. A unified game-theoretic ap- proach to multiagent reinforcement learning. In NIPS, pp. 4193-4206, 2017.
  36. Liu, Shari, Ullman, Tomer D, Tenenbaum, Joshua B, and Spelke, Elizabeth S. Ten-month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of actions. Science, 358 (6366):1038-1041, 2017.
  37. Lucas, Christopher G, Griffiths, Thomas L, Xu, Fei, Fawcett, Christine, Gopnik, Alison, Kushnir, Tamar, Markson, Lori, and Hu, Jane. The child as econome- trician: A rational model of preference understanding in children. PloS one, 9(3):e92160, 2014.
  38. MacKay, David JC. Probable networks and plausible pre- dictionsa review of practical bayesian methods for super- vised neural networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 6(3):469-505, 1995.
  39. Milli, Smitha, Hadfield-Menell, Dylan, Dragan, Anca, and Russell, Stuart. Should robots be obedient? arXiv:1705.09990, 2017. · arXiv
  40. Nakahashi, Ryo, Baker, Chris L., and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. Modeling human understanding of complex intentional action with a bayesian nonparametric subgoal model. In AAAI, pp. 3754-3760, 2016.
  41. Ng, Andrew Y, Russell, Stuart J, et al. Algorithms for in- verse reinforcement learning. In ICML, pp. 663-670, 2000.
  42. Ostojić, Ljerka, Shaw, Rachael C, Cheke, Lucy G, and Clayton, Nicola S. Evidence suggesting that desire-state attribution may govern food sharing in eurasian jays. PNAS, 110(10):4123-4128, 2013.
  43. Premack, David and Woodruff, Guy. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4):515-526, 1978.
  44. Rezende, Danilo Jimenez, Mohamed, Shakir, and Wierstra, Daan. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate in- ference in deep generative models. arXiv:1401.4082, 2014. · arXiv
  45. Scholl, Brian J and Tremoulet, Patrice D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4 (8):299-309, 2000.
  46. Southgate, Victoria, Senju, Atsushi, and Csibra, Gergely. Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7):587-592, 2007.
  47. Sutton, Richard S and Barto, Andrew G. Reinforcement learning: An introduction, volume 1. MIT press Cam- bridge, 1998.
  48. Thrun, Sebastian and Pratt, Lorien. Learning to learn: In- troduction and overview. In Learning to learn, pp. 3-17. Springer, 1998.
  49. Ullman, Tomer, Baker, Chris, Macindoe, Owen, Evans, Owain, Goodman, Noah, and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. Help or hinder: Bayesian models of social goal infer- ence. In NIPS, pp. 1874-1882, 2009.
  50. Vilalta, Ricardo and Drissi, Youssef. A perspective view and survey of meta-learning. Artificial Intelligence Re- view, 18(2):77-95, 2002.
  51. Wang, Ziyu, Merel, Josh S, Reed, Scott E, de Freitas, Nando, Wayne, Gregory, and Heess, Nicolas. Robust imitation of diverse behaviors. In NIPS, pp. 5326-5335, 2017.
  52. Wellman, Henry M. The child's theory of mind. The MIT Press, 1992.
  53. Wimmer, Heinz and Perner, Josef. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong be- liefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1):103-128, 1983.
  54. Woodward, Amanda L. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition, 69(1):1-34, 1998.
  55. Woodward, Amanda L. Infants ability to distinguish be- tween purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behavior and Development, 22(2):145-160, 1999.
  56. Yoshida, Wako, Dolan, Ray J, and Friston, Karl J. Game theory of mind. PLoS computational biology, 4(12): e1000254, 2008.
  57. Ziebart, Brian D, Maas, Andrew L, Bagnell, J Andrew, and Dey, Anind K. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In AAAI, volume 8, pp. 1433-1438, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rabinowitz, N. C., Perbet, F., Song, H. F., Zhang, C., Eslami, S. M. A., & Botvinick, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1802.07740
arXiv
1802.07740
References
11
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review