Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34819537›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

General intelligence disentangled via a generality metric for natural and artificial intelligence.

José Hernández-Orallo, Bao Sheng Loe, Lucy Cheke, Fernando Martínez-Plumed, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

José Hernández-OralloVRAIN, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Bao Sheng LoePsychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Lucy ChekeLeverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Fernando Martínez-PlumedVRAIN, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain. Fernando.MARTINEZ-PLUMED@ec.europa.eu.
Seán Ó hÉigeartaighLeverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Defense Sciences Office, DARPA HR00112120007 (RECoG-AI)DG CONNECT and DG JRC of the European Commission AI-Watch projectEU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO RTI2018-094403-B-C32European Commission EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 952215 (TAILOR).Future of Life Institute RFP2-152Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEO/2019/098Leverhulme Trust Grant for the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Success in all sorts of situations is the most classical interpretation of general intelligence. Under limited resources, however, the capability of an agent must necessarily be limited too, and generality needs to be understood as comprehensive performance up to a level of difficulty. The degree of generality then refers to the way an agent's capability is distributed as a function of task difficulty. This dissects the notion of general intelligence into two non-populational measures, generality and capability, which we apply to individuals and groups of humans, other animals and AI systems, on several cognitive and perceptual tests. Our results indicate that generality and capability can decouple at the individual level: very specialised agents can show high capability and vice versa. The metrics also decouple at the population level, and we rarely see diminishing returns in generality for those groups of high capability. We relate the individual measure of generality to traditional notions of general intelligence and cognitive efficiency in humans, collectives, non-human animals and machines. The choice of the difficulty function now plays a prominent role in this new conception of generality, which brings a quantitative tool for shedding light on long-standing questions about the evolution of general intelligence and the evaluation of progress in Artificial General Intelligence.

Identifiers

PMID34819537
PMCPMC8613222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.