arXiv Machine Learning By Przemys{\l}aw \'Sliwi\'nski

An entropic explanation of insistence on sameness in autism

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 04616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An information theory-based framework is proposed in attempt to explain insistence on sameness in autism as an instance of a general behavior pattern in which an individual tries to reduce surprise and uncertainty.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 5

An entropic explanation of insistence on sameness in autism

An information theory-based framework is proposed in attempt to explain insistence on sameness in autism as an instance of a general behavior pattern in which an individual tries to reduce surprise and uncertainty. It offers a new definition of autism as an impairment in which cognitive functions are restricted to discrimination, memorization and prediction of tangible properties of the environment.

arXiv AI
Sep 24

Contextual Information Allocation in Shared-State Cognitive Models: An Information-Theoretic Bound

The paper derives an information‑theoretic bound for a shared‑state cognitive architecture that uses an auxiliary variable to mediate context. It shows that the residual dependence of observable behavior on context, given the shared state, is bounded by the information carried by the auxiliary variable and its conditional entropy. A recognition‑memory example illustrates how to compute and compare this bound across different representational choices, providing a framework for analyzing context‑memory‑control trade‑offs in cognitive models and artificial agents.

By Song-Ju Kim
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 16

Faithful Action-unit Causal Reasoning for Counterfactually Faithful Emotion Explanations

arXiv:2606. 15779v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal models can name the action units (AUs) behind a facial emotion, but their AU->emotion rationales are typically plausible rather than faithful: nothing forces the AUs a model invokes to be the AUs that actually drive its prediction.

By Van Thong Huynh, Hong Hai Nguyen, Thuy Pham, Trong Nghia Nguyen, Soo-Hyung Kim