The ability to acquire abstract knowledge is a hallmark of human intelligence and is believed by many to be one of the core differences between humans and neural network models. Agents can be endowed with an inductive bias towards abstraction through meta-learning, where they are trained on a distribution of tasks that share some abstract structure that can be learned and applied. However, because neural networks are hard to interpret, it can be difficult to tell whether agents have learned the underlying abstraction, or alternatively statistical patterns that are characteristic of that abstraction. In this work, we compare the performance of humans and agents in a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm in which tasks are generated from abstract rules. We define a novel methodology for building "task metamers" that closely match the statistics of the abstract tasks but use a different underlying generative process, and evaluate performance on both abstract and metamer tasks. We find that humans perform better at abstract tasks than metamer tasks whereas common neural network architectures typically perform worse on the abstract tasks than the matched metamers. This work provides a foundation for characterizing differences between humans and machine learning that can be used in future work towards developing machines with more human-like behavior.

For a long time the ability to solve abstract reasoning tasks was considered one of the hallmarks of human intelligence. Recent advances in application of deep learning (DL) methods led, as in many other domains, to surpassing human abstract reasoning performance, specifically in the most popular type of such problems - the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPMs). While the efficacy of DL systems is indeed impressive, the way they approach the RPMs is very different from that of humans. State-of-the-art systems solving RPMs rely on massive pattern-based training and sometimes on exploiting biases in the dataset, whereas humans concentrate on identification of the rules / concepts underlying the RPM (or generally a visual reasoning task) to be solved. Motivated by this cognitive difference, this work aims at combining DL with human way of solving RPMs and getting the best of both worlds. Specifically, we cast the problem of solving RPMs into multi-label classification framework where each RPM is viewed as a multi-label data point, with labels determined by the set of abstract rules underlying the RPM. For efficient training of the system we introduce a generalisation of the Noise Contrastive Estimation algorithm to the case of multi-label samples. Furthermore, we propose a new sparse rule encoding scheme for RPMs which, besides the new training algorithm, is the key factor contributing to the state-of-the-art performance. The proposed approach is evaluated on two most popular benchmark datasets (Balanced-RAVEN and PGM) and on both of them demonstrates an advantage over the current state-of-the-art results. Contrary to applications of contrastive learning methods reported in other domains, the state-of-the-art performance reported in the paper is achieved with no need for large batch sizes or strong data augmentation.

Humans flexibly solve new problems that differ qualitatively from those they were trained on. This ability to generalize is supported by learned concepts that capture structure common across different problems. Here we develop a naturalistic drawing task to study how humans rapidly acquire structured prior knowledge. The task requires drawing visual objects that share underlying structure, based on a set of composable geometric rules. We show that people spontaneously learn abstract drawing procedures that support generalization, and propose a model of how learners can discover these reusable drawing programs. Trained in the same setting as humans, and constrained to produce efficient motor actions, this model discovers new drawing routines that transfer to test objects and resemble learned features of human sequences. These results suggest that two principles guiding motor program induction in the model - abstraction (general programs that ignore object-specific details) and compositionality (recombining previously learned programs) - are key for explaining how humans learn structured internal representations that guide flexible reasoning and learning.

Benchmark data sets are an indispensable ingredient of the evaluation of graph-based machine learning methods. We release a new data set, compiled from International Planning Competitions (IPC), for benchmarking graph classification, regression, and related tasks. Apart from the graph construction (based on AI planning problems) that is interesting in its own right, the data set possesses distinctly different characteristics from popularly used benchmarks. The data set, named IPC, consists of two self-contained versions, grounded and lifted, both including graphs of large and skewedly distributed sizes, posing substantial challenges for the computation of graph models such as graph kernels and graph neural networks. The graphs in this data set are directed and the lifted version is acyclic, offering the opportunity of benchmarking specialized models for directed (acyclic) structures. Moreover, the graph generator and the labeling are computer programmed; thus, the data set may be extended easily if a larger scale is desired. The data set is accessible from \url{https://github.com/IBM/IPC-graph-data}.

We consider the problem of finding generalized plans for situations where the number of objects may be unknown and unbounded during planning. The input is a domain specification, a goal condition, and a class of concrete problem instances or initial states to be solved, expressed in an abstract first-order representation. Starting with an empty generalized plan, our overall approach is to incrementally increase the applicability of the plan by identifying a problem instance that it cannot solve, invoking a classical planner to solve that problem, generalizing the obtained solution and merging it back into the generalized plan. The main contributions of this paper are methods for (a) generating and solving small problem instances not yet covered by an existing generalized plan, (b) translating between concrete classical plans and abstract plan representations, and (c) extending partial generalized plans and increasing their applicability. We analyze the theoretical properties of these methods, prove their correctness, and illustrate experimentally their scalability. The resulting hybrid approach shows that solving only a few, small, classical planning problems can be sufficient to produce a generalized plan that applies to infinitely many problems with unknown numbers of objects.

State abstraction has been widely used for state aggregation in approaches to AI search and planning. In this paper we use a powerful abstraction technique from software model checking for representing collections of states with different object quantities and properties. We exploit this method to develop precise abstractions and action operators for use in AI. This enables us to find scalable, algorithm-like plans with branches and loops which can solve problems of unbounded sizes. We describe how this method of abstraction can be effectively used in AI, with compelling results from implementations of two planning algorithms.