82 4 Brief Survey of Cognitive Architectures
and (except for the lowest level) supervenes over children whose spatiotemporal scope is a sub- set of its own. The action hierarchy takes care of decomposing tasks into subtasks; whereas the sensation hierarchy takes care of grouping signals into entities and events. The modeling /guid- ance hierarchy mediates interactions between perception and action based on its understanding of the world and the system’s goals.
In his book [AMO01] Albus describes methods for extending 4D/RCS into a complete cognitive architecture, but these extensions have not been elaborated in full detail nor implemented.
Plans for next 24 hours Daily schedule of tasks
500 km maps jE wo [8G |" SURROGATE BATTALION
Plans for next 2 hours
50 km maps SP | war |BG | SURROGATE PLATOON Tasks relative to distant objects
S a =
5 km maps SP [wa |8¢ | suRROGATE SECTION Plans for next 10 minutes Tasks relative to nearby objects 500 m maps SP | wM|BG ] veHIcLe Plans for next 50 seconds
Task to be done on objects of attention
Locomotion = SUBSYSTEM
SP fea on
Subitask on object surface Obstacle-free paths
acl — [s®fwm|se]— —
OPERATOR INTERFACE
0.5 second plans Steering, speed
0.05 second plans ' Actuator output
SENSORS AND ACTUATORS
Fig. 4.11: Albus’s 4D-RCS architecture for a single vehicle
4.5.5 PolyScheme
Nick Cassimatis’s PolyScheme architecture [Cas07| shares with GLAIR the use of multiple logical reasoning methods on a common knowledge store. While its underlying ideas are quite general, currently PolyScheme is being developed in the context of the “object tracking’ domain (construed very broadly). As a logic framework PolyScheme is fairly conventional (unlike GLATR or NARS with their novel underlying formalisms), but PolyScheme has some unique conceptual aspects, for instance its connection with Cassimatis’s theory of mind, which holds that the same core set of logical concepts and relationships underlies both language and physical reasoning [Cas04]. This ties in with the use of a common knowledge store for multiple cognitive processes; for instance it suggests that
e the same core relationships can be used for physical reasoning and parsing, but that each of these domains may involve some additional relationships.
e language processing may be done via physical-reasoning-based cognitive processes, plus the additional activity of some language-specific processes
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012998