Team Flowers

Overall Objectives
Scientific Foundations
Application Domains
New Results
Contracts and Grants with Industry
Other Grants and Activities

Section: Scientific Foundations

Scientific Foundations

Research in artificial intelligence, machine learning and pattern recognition has produced a tremendous amount of results and concepts in the last decades. A blooming number of learning paradigms - supervised, unsupervised, reinforcement, active, associative, symbolic, connectionist, situated, hybrid, distributed learning... - nourished the elaboration of highly sophisticated algorithms for tasks such as visual object recognition, speech recognition, robot walking, grasping or navigation, the prediction of stock prices, the evaluation of risk for insurances, adaptive data routing on the internet, etc... Yet, we are still very far from being able to build machines capable of adapting to the physical and social environment with the flexibility, robustness, and versatility of a one-year-old human child.

Indeed, one striking characteristic of human children is the nearly open-ended diversity of the skills they learn. They not only can improve existing skills, but also continuously learn new ones. If evolution certainly provided them with specific pre-wiring for certain activities such as feeding or visual object tracking, evidence shows that there are also numerous skills that they learn smoothly but could not be “anticipated” by biological evolution, such as for example learning to drive a tricycle, using an electronic piano toy or using a video game joystick. On the contrary, existing learning machines, and robots in particular, are typically only able to learn a single pre-specified task or a single kind of skill. Once this task is learnt, for example walking with two legs, learning is over. If one wants the robot to learn a second task, for example grasping objects in its visual field, then an engineer needs to re-program manually its learning structures: traditional approaches to task-specific machine/robot learning typically include engineer choices of the relevant sensorimotor channels, specific design of the reward function, choices about when learning begins and ends, and what learning algorithms and associated parameters shall be optimized.

As can be seen, this makes a lot of important choices from the engineer, and one could hardly use the term “autonomous” learning. On the contrary, human children do not learn following anything looking like that process, at least during their very first years. Babies develop and explore the world by themselves, focusing their interest on various activities driven both by internal motives and social guidance from adults who only have a folk understanding of their brains. Adults provide learning opportunities and scaffolding, but eventually young babies always decide for themselves what activity to practice or not. Specific tasks are rarely imposed to them. Yet, they steadily discover and learn how to use their body as well as its relationships with the physical and social environment. Also, the spectrum of skills that they learn continuously expands in an organized manner: they undergo a developmental trajectory in which simple skills are learnt first, and skills of progressively increasing complexity are subsequently learnt.

A grand challenge is thus to be able to build robotic machines that possess this capability to discover, adapt and develop continuously new know-how and new knowledge in unknown and changing environments, like human children. In 1950, Turing wrote that the child's brain would show us the way to intelligence: “Instead of trying to produce a program to simulate the adult mind, why not rather try to produce one which simulates the child's” [60] . Maybe, in opposition to work in the field of Artificial Intelligence who has focused on mechanisms trying to match the capabilities of “intelligent” human adults such as chess playing or natural language dialogue [39] , it is time to take the advice of Turing seriously. This is what a new field, called developmental (or epigenetic) robotics, is trying to achieve [45] [62] . The approach of developmental robotics consists in importing and implementing concepts and mechanisms from developmental psychology [47] , cognitive linguistics [30] , and developmental cognitive neuroscience [42] where there has been a considerable amount of research and theories to understand and explain how children learn and develop. A number of general principles are underlying this research agenda: embodiment [26] , grounding [37] , situatedness [18] , self-organization [58] , enaction [61] , and incremental learning [28] .

Among the many issues and challenges of developmental robotics, two of them are of paramount importance: exploration mechanisms and mechanisms for abstracting and making sense of initially unknown sensorimotor channels. Indeed, the typical space of sensorimotor skills that can be encountered and learnt by a developmental robot, as those encountered by human infants, is immensely vast and inhomogeneous. With a sufficiently rich environment and multimodal set of sensors and effectors, the space of possible sensorimotor activities is simply too large to be explored exhaustively in any robot's life time: it is impossible to learn all possible skills. Moreover, some skills are very basic to learn, some other very complicated, and many of them require the mastery of others in order to be learnt. For example, learning to manipulate a piano toy requires first to know how to move one's hand to reach the piano and how to touch specific parts of the toy with the fingers. And knowing how to move the hand might require to know how to track it visually.

Exploring such a space of skills randomly is bound to fail or result at best on very inefficient learning [1] . Thus, exploration needs to be organized and guided. The approach of epigenetic robotics is to take inspiration from the mechanisms that allow human infants to be progressively guided, i.e. to develop. There are two broad classes of guiding mechanisms which control exploration:

Psychologists have identified two broad classes of guiding mechanisms which control exploration:

  1. internal guiding mechanisms,and in particular intrinsic motivation, responsible of spontaneous exploration and curiosity in humans, which is one of the central mechanisms investigated in FLOWERS, and technically amounts to achieve on-line active self-regulation of the growth of complexity in learning situations;

  2. social learning and guidance,which exists in many different forms like emotional reinforcement or imitation, some of which being also investigated in FLOWERS;

Internal guiding mechanisms.

In infant development, one observes a progressive increase of the complexity of activities with an associated progressive increase of capabilities [47] , children do not learn everything at one time: for example, they first learn to roll over, then to crawl and sit, and only when these skills are operational, they begin to learn how to stand. Development is progressive and incremental, and this might be a crucial feature explaining the efficiency with which children explore and learn so fast. Taking inspiration from these observations, some roboticists and researchers in machine learning have argued that learning a given task could be made much easier for a robot if it followed a developmental sequence and “started simple” [19] [34] . However, in these experiments, the developmental sequence was crafted by hand: roboticists manually build simpler versions of a complex task and put the robot successively in versions of the task of increasing complexity. And when they wanted the robot to learn a new task, they had to design a novel reward function.

Thus, there is a need for mechanisms that allow the autonomous control and generation of the developmental trajectory. Psychologists have proposed that intrinsic motivations play a crucial role. Intrinsic motivations are mechanisms that push humans to explore activities or situations that have intermediate/optimal levels of novelty, cognitive dissonance, or challenge [22] [31] [33] . The role and structure of intrinsic motivation in humans have been made more precise thanks to recent discoveries in neuroscience showing the implication of dopaminergic circuits and in exploration behaviors and curiosity [32] [40] [55] . Based on this, a number of researchers have began in the past few years to build computational implementation of intrinsic motivation [1] [2] [53] [21] [41] [46] [54] . While initial models were developed for simple simulated worlds, a current challenge is to manage to build intrinsic motivation systems that can efficiently drive exploratory behaviour in high-dimensional unprepared real world robotic sensorimotor spaces [2] [1] [49] . Specific and complex problems are posed by real sensorimotor spaces, in particular due to the fact that they are deeply inhomogeneous: for example, some regions of the space are often unlearnable due to inherent stochasticity or difficulty. In such cases, heuristics based on the incentive to explore zones of maximal unpredictability or uncertainty, which are often used in the field of active learning [29] [38] typically lead to catastrophic results. In FLOWERS, we aim at developing intrinsically motivated exploration mechanisms that scale in those spaces.

Socially guided learning.

Social guidance is as important as intrinsic motivation in the cognitive development of human babies [47] . There is a vast literature on mechanisms allowing a human to socially guide a robot towards the learning of new sensorimotor skills [52] . Yet, many existing experiments focus either on only intrinsically motivated exploration [1] [21] , or only socially guided exploration with imitation, demonstration or social cheering [27] [20] . Only few attempts, such as in [59] , have been tried to couple intrinsic motivation and social learning. In FLOWERS, we work on developing advanced mechanisms for coupling social learning and state-of-the-art intrinsic motivation systems.


Logo Inria