Action understanding as inverse planning

Cognition

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 329-349

  Baker, Chris L ^a   Saxe, Rebecca ^a   Tenenbaum, Joshua B ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Action understanding; Bayesian models; Goal inference; Inverse reinforcement learning; Theory of mind

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BEHAVIOR; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MAZE TEST; MENTAL HEALTH; MOTIVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; STIMULUS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; GOALS; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; THEORY OF MIND; THINKING;

EID: 70350569456     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Anderson J.R. The adaptive character of thought (1990), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
2. Baker, C. L., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Saxe, R. R. (2006). Bayesian models of human action understanding. In Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 18, pp. 99-106).
3. Baker, C. L., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Theory-based social goal inference. In Proceedings of the thirtieth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1447-1455).
4. Barrett H., Todd P.M., Miller G., and Blythe P. Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: A cross-cultural study. Evolution and Human Behavior 26 4 (2005) 313-331
5. Barrow H.G., and Tenenbaum J.M. Interpreting line drawings as three dimensional surfaces. Artificial Intelligence 17 1-3 (1981) 75-117
6. Bartsch K., and Wellman H.M. Children talk about the mind (1995), Oxford University Press, New York
7. Bellman R. Dynamic programming (1957), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
8. Bertsekas D.P. Dynamic programming and optimal control. 2nd ed. Vol. 2 (2001), Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA
9. Bertsekas D.P., and Tsitsiklis J. Neuro-dynamic programming (1996), Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA
10. Blythe P.W., Todd P.M., and Miller G.F. How motion reveals intention: categorizing social interactions. In: Gigerenzer G., and Todd P.M. (Eds). Simple heuristics that make us smart (1999), Oxford University Press, New York 257-286
11. Botvinick M.M., Niv Y., and Barto A.C. Hierarchically organized behavior and its neural foundations: A reinforcement learning perspective. Cognition 113 3 (2009) 262-280
12. Bui H., Venkatesh S., and West G. Policy recognition in the abstract hidden Markov model. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (2002) 17
13. Castelli F., Happe F., Frith U., and Frith C. Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. Neuroimage 12 3 (2000) 314-325
14. Charniak, E., & Goldman, R. (1991). A probabilistic model of plan recognition. In Proceedings of the tenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 160-165).
15. Cohen P.R. Empirical methods in artificial intelligence (1995), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
16. Csibra G., Biró S., Koós O., and Gergely G. One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science 27 (2003) 111-133
17. Csibra G., and Gergely G. Teleological reasoning in infancy: The infant's naive theory of rational action: A reply to Premack and Premack. Cognition 63 2 (1997) 227-233
18. Csibra G., Gergely G., Biró S., Koós O., and Brockbank M. Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of 'pure reason' in infancy. Cognition 72 (1999) 237-267
19. Daw N.D., Niv Y., and Dayan P. Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience 8 12 (2005) 1704-1711
20. Dayan P., and Daw N.D. Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8 4 (2008) 429-453
21. Dennett D.C. The intentional stance (1987), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
22. Dickinson A. Actions and habits: the development of behavioural autonomy. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 308 (1985) 67-78
23. Dietterich T.G. Hierarchical reinforcement learning with the MAXQ value function decomposition. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 13 (2000) 227-303
24. Doya K. What are the computations of the cerebellum, the vasal ganglia and the cerebral cortex?. Neural Networks 12 (1999) 961-974
25. In: Feinberg E.A., and Shwartz A. (Eds). Handbook of Markov decision processes: Methods and applications (2002), John Wiley and Sons, New York
26. Filar J., and Vrieze K. Competitive Markov decision processes (1997), Springer, New York
27. Fodor J. A theory of the child's theory of mind. Cognition 44 3 (1992) 283-296
28. Gelman A., Carlin J.B., Stern H.S., and Rubin D.B. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed. (2003), Chapman & Hall, New York
29. Gelman R., Durgin F., and Kaufman L. Distinguishing between animates and inanimates: not by motion alone. In: Sperber D., Premack D., and Premack A.J. (Eds). Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (1995), Clarendon Press, Oxford 150-184
30. Gergely G., Bekkering H., and Király I. Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415 (2002) 755
31. Gergely G., Nádasdy Z., Csibra G., and Biró S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56 (1995) 165-193
32. Gold E.M. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10 (1967) 447-474
33. Goldman A.I. Simulating minds (2006), Oxford University Press
34. Good I.J. Some history of the hierarchical Bayesian methodology. In: Bernardo J., DeGroot M., Lindley D., and Smith A. (Eds). Bayesian statistics (1980), Valencia University Press, Valencia 489-519
35. Goodman, N. D., Baker, C. L., Bonawitz, E. B., Mansinghka, V. K., Gopnik, A., Wellman, H., et al. (2006). Intuitive theories of mind: A rational approach to false belief. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1382-1390).
36. Gopnik A., and Meltzoff A.N. Words, thoughts, and theories (1997), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
37. Guajardo J.J., and Woodward A.L. Is agency skin deep? surface attributes influence infants' sensitivity to goal-directed action. Infancy 6 3 (2004) 361-384
38. Guestrin C., Koller D., Parr R., and Venkataraman S. Efficient solution algorithms for factored MDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19 (2003) 399-468
39. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the asssociation for computational linguistics (pp. 159-166).
40. Heberlein A.S., and Adolphs R. Impaired spontaneous anthropomorphizing despite intact perception and social knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 19 (2004) 7487-7491
41. Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations (1958), Wiley, New York
42. Heider F., and Simmel M.A. An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology 57 (1944) 243-249
43. Hernstein R.J., and Prelec D. Melioration: a theory of distributed choice. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 3 (1991) 137-156
44. Jefferys W., and Berger J. Ockham's razor and Bayesian analysis. American Scientist 80 (1992) 64-72
45. Johnson S., Slaughter V., and Carey S. Whose gaze will infants follow? The elicitation of gaze following in 12-month-olds. Developmental Science 1 2 (1998) 233-238
46. Kaelbling L.P., Littman M.L., and Cassandra A.R. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence 101 (1998) 99-134
47. In: Kahneman D., Slovic P., and Tversky A. (Eds). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (1982), Cambridge University Press
48. Kautz, H., & Allen, J. (1986). Generalized plan recognition. In Proceedings of the fifth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 32-37).
49. Kemp C., Perfors A., and Tenenbaum J.B. Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10 3 (2007) 307-321
50. Körding K. Decision theory: What "should" the nervous system do?. Science 318 5850 (1997) 606-610
51. Liao, L., Fox, D., & Kautz, H. (2004). Learning and inferring transportation routines. In Proceedings of the nineteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 348-353).
52. Littman, M.L. (1994). Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on machine learning (pp. 157-163).
53. Liu Z., Knill D.C., and Kersten D. Object classification for human and ideal observers. Vision Research 35 4 (1995) 549-568
54. McCloskey M., Caramazza A., and Green B. Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science 210 4474 (1980) 1139-1141
55. Meltzoff A.N. Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology 24 (1988) 470-476
56. Meltzoff A.N. Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31 5 (1995) 838-850
57. Ng, A. Y. & Russell, S. (2000). Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on machine learning (pp. 663-670).
58. Parr, R., & Russell, S. (1998). Reinforcement learning with hierarchies of machines. In Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 10, pp. 1001-1007).
59. Perner J. Understanding the representational mind (1991), MIT Press
60. Phillips A.T., and Wellman H.M. Infants' understanding of object-directed action. Cognition 98 (2005) 137-155
61. Puterman M.L. Markov decision processes: Discrete stochastic dynamic programming (2005), Wiley, New York
62. Richards W., Jepson A., and Feldman J. Priors, preferences, and categorical percepts. In: Knill D., and Richards W. (Eds). Perception as Bayesian inference (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (pp. 93-122)
63. Saxe R. Against simulation: the argument from error. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 4 (2005)
64. Saxe R., Tenenbaum J.B., and Carey S. Secret agents: inferences about hidden causes by 10- and 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science 16 12 (2005) 995-1001
65. Schank R.C., and Abelson R.P. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures (1977), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
66. Scholl B.J., and Tremoulet P.D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 8 (2000) 299-309
67. Schultz W., Dayan P., and Montague P.R. A neural substrate of prediction and reward (1997), Science
68. Schultz J., Friston K., Wolpert D.M., and Frith C.D. Activation in posterior superior temporal sulcus parallels parameter inducing the percept of animacy. Neuron 45 (2005) 625-635
69. Schultz R.T., Grelotti D.J., Klin A., Kleinman J., der Gaag C.V., Marois R., et al. The role of the fusiform face area in social cognition: Implications for the pathobiology of autism. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 358 1430 (2003) 415-427
70. Shiffrin R.M., and Steyvers M. A model for recognition memory: REM: Retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4 2 (1997) 145-166
71. Sodian B., Schoeppner B., and Metz U. Do infants apply the principle of rational action to human agents?. Infant Behavior and Development 27 (2004) 31-41
72. Sutton R.S., and Barto A.G. Reinforcement learning: an introduction (1998), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
73. Tenenbaum J.B., Griffiths T.L., and Kemp C. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 7 (2006) 309-318
74. Tesauro G. Td-gammon, a self-teaching backgammon program, achieves master-level play. Neural Computation 6 2 (1994) 215-219
75. Todorov E. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature Neuroscience 7 9 (2004) 907-915
76. Tremoulet P.D., and Feldman J. Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29 (2000) 943-951
77. Tremoulet P.D., and Feldman J. The influence of spatial context and the role of intentionality in the interpretation of animacy from motion. Perception and Psychophysics 29 (2006) 943-951
78. Verma, D., & Rao, R. (2006). Goal-based imitation as probabilistic inference over graphical models. In Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 18, pp. 1393-1400).
79. Watkins, C. J. C. H. (1989). Learning from delayed rewards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.
80. Weiss Y., Simoncelli E.P., and Adelson E.H. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience 5 6 (2002) 598-604
81. Wellman H.M. The child's theory of mind (1990), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
82. Wellman H.M., and Bartsch K. Young children's reasoning about beliefs. Cognition 30 (1988) 239-277
83. Woodward A.L. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 69 (1998) 1-34
84. Yoshida W., Dolan R.J., and Friston K.J. Game theory of mind. PLoS Computational Biology 4 12 (2008) 1-14
85. Zacks J.M. Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science 28 (2004) 979-1008