Recognition at end of Year 1
•
0 likes•255 views
Presentation by Recognition at the Awareness Inter-Project Day, Bologna 2012
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to Recognition at end of Year 1
Similar to Recognition at end of Year 1 (20)
More from FET AWARE project - Self Awareness in Autonomic Systems
More from FET AWARE project - Self Awareness in Autonomic Systems (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Recognition at end of Year 1
- 1. Cogni&ve contents Franco Bagnoli and Andrea Guazzini University of Florence RECOGNITION year 1 review 1 10th November 2011
- 2. MoGvaGon and Background • Pervasive compuGng devices – Mobility, Portability – Wireless connecGvity – Sensors – MulGmedia capabiliGes • Cheap and portable hardware with processing, storage and communicaGon capability – FacilitaGng new ways to provide and share content – CreaGng more and more diverse content RECOGNITION year 1 review 2 10th November 2011
- 3. Content-‐centric approach • Content is generated everywhere – IntegraGon human acGvity and mobility – Greater user parGcipaGon (e.g., web 2.0) • Content is diverse – Pictures, data from sensors, news, caching from the Internet, messages – Unleashed from tradiGonal Internet • Content can be shared & forwarded – Short range wireless technology for forwarding and sharing – Awareness of locaGon and context – a spaGal context RECOGNITION year 1 review 3 10th November 2011
- 4. RECOGNITION mission • Seeking to capture the behavioural characterisGcs of the most intelligent living species, namely human beings • Fundamental approaches to cogniGon that are grounded in the organ responsible for the most sophisGcated autonomic behaviour – the brain… • PotenGally begin to represent the needs and characterisGcs of the individual users inside the network itself and inside content. • Include fundamental characterisGcs of human cogniGve behaviour, such as the ability to infer, believe, understand, and assert relevance, interact and respond in the face of massive amounts of informa&on. RECOGNITION year 1 review 4 10th November 2011
- 5. The Approach… • Developing models of cogni&ve behaviour from psychology that are transferable to the ICT domain; – Key psychological principles to facilitate self-‐awareness • ExploiGng models of cogniGve behaviour for a content-‐centric Internet – self-‐awareness can provide new levels of cogniGve behaviour to enhance content acquisiGon. RECOGNITION year 1 review 5 10th November 2011
- 6. Human Awareness Behaviours • Approach: Capture & exploit key behaviours of the most intelligent living species – Human capability is phenomenal in navigaGng complex & diverse sGmuli – Filter & suppress informaGon in “noisy” situaGons with ambient sGmuli – Extract knowledge in presence of uncertainty – Exercise rapid value judgment for prioriGsaGon – Engage a social context and mulG-‐scale learning RECOGNITION year 1 review 6 10th November 2011
- 7. Project ObjecGves 1. To iden&fy and engage a robust psychological basis for self-‐ awareness in ICT. – This will involve engaging cogniGve-‐based processes from the human brain that enable understanding, inference and relevance to be established while suppressing irrelevant informaGon in the context of massive scale and heterogeneity. 2. To exploit the psychological basis for self-‐awareness in a content centric Internet. • This will involve engaging the spaGal dimension, interacGons and intelligent processes that reflect cogniGve behavioural heurisGcs to provide content and knowledge flow to other parGcipants and network components. RECOGNITION year 1 review 7 10th November 2011
- 8. RECOGNITION approach CogniGve psychological basis For awareness and understanding Defining key principles for exploitaGon by technology components Embedding these principles for self-‐awareness in autonomic content acquisiGon in pervasive environments PotenGal change in behaviour due to self–awareness in ICT RECOGNITION year 1 review 8 10th November 2011
- 9. Minimal self-‐awareness cogniGve agent Self-‐awareness can be classified on the basis of three criteria: Gmescales, cogniGve costs and evoluGonary features. Timescales -‐(Reac&on &mes) • Unconscious Knowledge (PercepGon and Pre-‐ahenGve acGvaGons)-‐> Fast (<.500 ms) • Conscious knowledge (reasoning) -‐> medium (from seconds to hours) • Learning/development -‐> slow (from minutes to month) Cost (Cogni&ve Economy Principle -‐ Amount of neural ac&va&on) • Unconscious knowledge -‐> light (small and local acGvaGons) • Conscious knowledge -‐> heavy (large and diffused acGvaGons) • Learning/development -‐> very heavy (diffused acGvaGons) Evolu&onary features (Cogni&ve development) • Unconscious knowledge -‐> criGcal period and Hebbian learning only (ACTr) • Conscious knowledge -‐> trial and error, observaGon/imitaGon and inducGon. • Learning/development -‐> fixed hard wired rules. RECOGNITION year 1 review 9 10th November 2011
- 10. External Tri-‐parGte model Data Reac&on &me Module I Unconscious knowledge Flexibility perceptive and attentive processes Relevance Heuristic Cogni&ve costs Module II Reasoning Goal Heuristic Recognition Heuristic Solve Heuristic Module III Learning Behavior Evaluation Heuristic RECOGNITION year 1 review 10 10th November 2011
- 11. An applicaGon: cogniGve audio stream • Many people live inside an audio sphere: portable music, radio, ambient music.. • Music streams (playlists) can be assembled manually, or by means of automaGc systems: – Randomly (shuffling) – Based on similariGes among clips (Pandora) – SimilariGes among users (like amazon) – Based on mood (moodagent) – SubscripGon (podcasts) – DelegaGon (radio) – Direct suggesGon (friends) RECOGNITION year 1 review 11 10th November 2011
- 12. The “radio” structure • The delegaGon mode (i.e., classical radio) allows the discovering of new elements (informaGon, entertainment, new genres) • Favours social interacGon (commenGng, voGng) and parGcipaGon • But is hard to be personalized RECOGNITION year 1 review 12 10th November 2011
- 13. CogniGve playlist • Context: locaGon, Gme, weekday, status (e.g., work, commuGng, home..), network access/bandwidth, mood (user input), memory (played clips), feedback (user input), user profile • External data: sugges&ons from a server, based on user pahern similariGes, clip similariGes, user choices, direct suggesGons from social networks/friends RECOGNITION year 1 review 13 10th November 2011
- 14. SuggesGons • SuggesGons contains the descripGon of the resource and its availability (downloadable, local, stream, permission, cost), clip characterisGcs that can be used for context matching. • They originate the actual playlist according with their score, assigned by methods (schemes). • A dynamical score is assigned to suggesGons by schemes (actually, each scheme proposes a score). The score is recalculated dynamically since the context and the schemes may vary. RECOGNITION year 1 review 14 10th November 2011
- 15. From suggesGons to playlist • The goal is that of building a dynamical playlist based by the match (score) between suggesGons and the context. • The matching is performed by methods (schemes) that compete/ collaborate for assigning scores to suggesGons. For instance, a method may propose random scores (shuffling), simply avoiding repeGGons, another may propose scores based on status and clip genre. • Schemes themselves have a score, assigned to heurisGcs (meta-‐ schemes), according to user feedback (for instance clip skipping, voGng, suggesGons). RECOGNITION year 1 review 15 10th November 2011
- 16. HeurisGcs • HeurisGcs are similar to schemes, and assign a score to schemes, based on feedbacks, performances of schemes, collisions. • For instance, it may happen that no schemes proposes a sufficiently high score to any suggesGon in a given context (this is reported to the server), then heurisGcs may decide to import other schemes from the server • It may happen also that a scheme systemaGcally proposes scores that are different from others, or finally that the clips selected by a method receives negaGve feedbacks. The method can be purged by the pool. RECOGNITION year 1 review 16 10th November 2011
- 17. The compeGGve environment • HeurisGcs try to maintain an assorted pool of schemes that cooperates (proposing scores that are not systemaGcally in conflict) and that do not receive negaGve feedbacks. • The scores are used to instanGate suggesGons into a short playlist (since context changes), and possibly also to build a tree anGcipaGng context changes (for instance, switching from commuGng to work) • The feedback (for instance that a clip has been listened or skipped or that a suggesGon is never promoted to playlist) is reported to the server, together withe direct suggesGons to friends. RECOGNITION year 1 review 17 10th November 2011
- 18. The server architecture • The server is essenGally a database of user profiles and clip choices • From the overlap among user profiles (clip choices, messages, social informaGon) one obtains the affinity among users, that can be used to infer suggesGons based on heurisGcs (weighted, take the best, etc.) • It may use also databases of clip similariGes like pandora • Collects direct suggesGons RECOGNITION year 1 review 18 10th November 2011
- 19. Conclusions • Three-‐level cogniGve system (server/suggesGons, schemes, heurisGcs) • Related to Hypermusic (context-‐based, user input) • Ecosystem-‐like, compeGGon/cooperaGon • Decentralized, adapGve, pervasive • Can be exported to other scenarios (e.g., learning objects). RECOGNITION year 1 review 19 10th November 2011