PreprintCited by 3Psychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceReinforcement Learning in RoboticsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Attention schema in neural agents

Open access
Liu, Dianbo, Bolotta, Samuele, Zhu, He, Bengio, Yoshua, Dumas, Guillaume·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Attention has become a common ingredient in deep learning architectures. It adds a dynamical selection of information on top of the static selection of information supported by weights. In the same way, we can imagine a higher-order informational filter built on top of attention: an Attention Schema (AS), namely, a descriptive and predictive model of attention. In cognitive neuroscience, Attention Schema Theory (AST) supports this idea of distinguishing attention from AS. A strong prediction of this theory is that an agent can use its own AS to also infer the states of other agents' attention and consequently enhance coordination with other agents. As such, multi-agent reinforcement learning would be an ideal setting to experimentally test the validity of AST. We explore different ways in which attention and AS interact with each other. Our preliminary results indicate that agents that implement the AS as a recurrent internal control achieve the best performance. In general, these exploratory experiments suggest that equipping artificial agents with a model of attention can enhance their social intelligence.

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.2305.17375

Cites

26 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Liu et al.'s system performed better than the others with different architectures made up of the same components on the multi-agent RL tasks.

    “This system performed better than the others, with different architectures made up of the same components, which were tested on the multi-agent RL tasks.”

    From Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness (2023) · cites this paper as Liu et al. (2023)

    Section 6.1 reports that the attention-schema architecture achieved the best performance among five architectures in the GhostRun multi-agent reinforcement-learning task; Section 6.3 reports the best performance for its 5.4 variant in Maze-Cleaners. The claim that the compared architectures were all made up of the same components is too broad: Section 4.1 says components were kept the same where shared, while Section 5 describes variants that remove or rearrange components. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent studies have used AI to test predictions of AST and GWT.

    “For example, recent studies have used AI to test predictions of AST [ 75,76] and GWT [ 77,78].”

    From Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems (2026) · cites this paper as [75]

  • Attention schema-like models which enable the effective control of attention could be valuable for the increasing number of AI systems which employ attention.

    “Attention schema-like models which enable the effective control of attention could be valuable for the increasing number of AI systems which employ attention-here understood as active control of information flow (Liu et al. 2023).”
  • Two notable studies have implemented simple attention schemas in artificial systems.

    “Two notable studies have implemented simple attention schemas in artificial systems.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2016. URL https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2016/hash/ c7635bfd99248a2cdef8249ef7bfbef4-Abstract. html.
  2. Graziano, M. S. and Webb, T. W. The attention schema theory: a mechanistic account of subjective awareness. Frontiers in psychology, pp. 500, 2015a.
  3. PMLR, May 2019. URL https://proceedings. mlr.press/v97/iqbal19a.html.
  4. PMLR, 2020.
  5. Moerland, T. M., Broekens, J., and Jonker, C. M. Model-based reinforcement learning: A survey. arXiv:2006.16712 [cs, stat], Feb 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16712. arXiv: 2006.16712. · arXiv
  6. Webb, T. W. and Graziano, M. S. The attention schema theory: a mechanistic account of subjective awareness. Frontiers in psychology, 6:500, 2015. URL https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, D., Bolotta, S., Zhu, H., Bengio, Y., & Dumas, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378770540
Cited by
1
References
31
Citations by year
2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Microsoft Research
  • DeepMind
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
attention schema theory, attention, multi-agent reinforcement learning, social intelligence, agent coordination

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