We describe a multi-network, or modular, connectionist architecture that captures that fact that many tasks have structure at a level of granularity intermediate to that assumed by local and global function approximation schemes. The main innovation of the architecture is that it combines associative and competitive learning in order to learn task decompositions. A task decomposition is discovered by forcing the networks comprising the architecture to compete to learn the training patterns. As a result of the competition, different networks learn different training patterns and, thus, learn to partition the input space. The performance of the architecture on a "what" and "where" vision task and on a multi-payload robotics task are presented.

We describe a multi-network, or modular, connectionist architecture that captures that fact that many tasks have structure at a level of granularity intermediate to that assumed by local and global function approximation schemes. The main innovation of the architecture is that it combines associative and competitive learning in order to learn task decompositions. A task decomposition is discovered by forcing the networks comprising the architecture to compete to learn the training patterns. As a result of the competition, different networks learn different training patterns and, thus, learn to partition the input space. The performance of the architecture on a "what" and "where" vision task and on a multi-payload robotics task are presented.

We describe a multi-network, or modular, connectionist architecture that captures that fact that many tasks have structure at a level of granularity intermediate to that assumed by local and global function approximation schemes. The main innovation of the architecture is that it combines associative and competitive learning in order to learn task decompositions. A task decomposition is discovered by forcing the networks comprising the architecture to compete to learn the training patterns. As a result of the competition, different networks learn different training patterns and, thus, learn to partition the input space. The performance of the architecture on a "what" and "where" vision task and on a multi-payload robotics task are presented.

The forward modeling approach is a methodology for learning control when data is available in distal coordinate systems. We extend previous work by considering how this methodology can be applied to the optimization of quantities that are distal not only in space but also in time. In many learning control problems, the output variables of the controller are not the natural coordinates in which to specify tasks and evaluate performance. Tasks are generally more naturally specified in "distal" coordinate systems (e.g., endpoint coordinates for manipulator motion) than in the "proximal" coordinate system of the controller (e.g., joint angles or torques). Furthermore, the relationship between proximal coordinates and distal coordinates is often not known a priori and, if known, not easily inverted. The forward modeling approach is a methodology for learning control when training data is available in distal coordinate systems. A forward model is a network that learns the transformation from proximal to distal coordinates so that distal specifications can be used in training the controller (Jordan & Rumelhart, 1990). The forward model can often be learned separately from the controller because it depends only on the dynamics of the controlled system and not on the closed-loop dynamics. In previous work, we studied forward models of kinematic transformations (Jordan, 1988, 1990) and state transitions (Jordan & Rumelhart, 1990).

The forward modeling approach is a methodology for learning control whendata is available in distal coordinate systems. We extend previous work by considering how this methodology can be applied to the optimization of quantities that are distal not only in space but also in time. In many learning control problems, the output variables of the controller are not the natural coordinates in which to specify tasks and evaluate performance. Tasks are generally more naturally specified in "distal" coordinate systems (e.g., endpoint coordinates for manipulator motion) than in the "proximal" coordinate system of the controller (e.g., joint angles or torques). Furthermore, the relationship between proximal coordinates and distal coordinates is often not known a priori and, if known, not easily inverted.