Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hjwss Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T12:33:00.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-learning goes hand-in-hand with metacognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2024

Chris Fields Open the ORCID record for Chris Fields [Opens in a new window]  and
James F. Glazebrook Open the ORCID record for James F. Glazebrook [Opens in a new window]
Chris Fields
Affiliation:
Allen Discovery Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA fieldsres@gmail.com https://chrisfieldsresearch.com
James F. Glazebrook*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA jfglazebrook@eiu.edu Adjunct Faculty (Mathematics), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA https://faculy.math.illinois.edu/glazebro/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Binz et al. propose a general framework for meta-learning and contrast it with built-by-hand Bayesian models. We comment on some architectural assumptions of the approach, its relation to the active inference framework, its potential applicability to living systems in general, and the advantages of the latter in addressing the explanation problem.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e151
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Biswas, S., Clawson, W., & Levin, M. (2022). Learning in transcriptional network models: Computational discovery of pathway-level memory and effective interventions. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biswas, S., Manika, S., Hoel, E., & Levin, M. (2021). Gene regulatory networks exhibit several kinds of memory: Quantification of memory in biological and random transcriptional networks. IScience, 24, 102131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chater, N. (2018). The mind is flat. The remarkable shallowness of the improvising brain. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, M. T. (2005). Metacognition in computation: A selected research review. Artificial Intelligence, 169, 104–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, C., Fabrocini, F., Friston, K. J., Glazebrook, J. F., Hazan, H., Levin, M., & Marcianò, A. (2023). Control flow in active inference systems, part I: Classical and quantum formulations of active inference. IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological, and Multi-Scale Communications, 9, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, C., Friston, K. J., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. (2022). A free energy principle for generic quantum systems. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 173, 36–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fields, C., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2020). Do process-1 simulations generate the epistemic feelings that drive process-2 decision making? Cognitive Processing, 21, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. (2024). Principled limitations on self-representations for generic physical systems. Entropy, 26(3), 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. (2019). A free energy principle for a particular physics, Preprint arxiv:1906.10184.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Da Costa, L., Sakthivadivel, D. A. R., Heins, C., Pavliotis, G. A., Ramstead, M. J., & Parr, T. (2023) Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things. Physics of Life Reviews, 47, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K., FitzGerald, T., Rigoli, F., Schwartenbeck, P., O'Doherty, J., & Pezzulo, G. (2016). Active inference and learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 862–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glahn, D. C., Winkler, A. M., Kochunov, P., & Blangero, J. (2010) Genetic control over the resting brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 10(7), 1223–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchling, F., Fields, C., & Levin, M. (2022). Metacognition as a consequence of competing evolutionary time scales. Entropy, 24, 601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, M. (2022). Technological approach to mind everywhere: An experimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16, 768201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, M. (2023). Darwin's agential materials: Evolutionary implications of multiscale competency in developmental biology. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 80(6), 142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramstead, M. J.,Sakthivadivel, D. A. R., Heins, C., Koudahl, M., Millidge, B., Da Costa, L., … Friston, K. J. (2022). On Bayesian mechanics: A physics of and by beliefs. Interface Focus, 13(2923), 20220029.Google Scholar
Samek, W., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Anders, C. J., & Müller, K.-R. (2021) Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109, 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, N., & Frith, C. D. (2019). The global workspace needs metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 560–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J. E. T., & Taylor, G. W. (2021). Artificial cognition: How experimental psychology can help generate artificial intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J. X. (2021). Meta-learning in artificial and natural intelligence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 38, 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar