Deep Analogical Inference as the Origin of Hypotheses

The ability to generate novel hypotheses is an important problem-solving capacity of humans. This ability is vital for making sense of the complex and unfamiliar world we live in. Often, this capacity is characterized as an inference to the best explanation - selecting the "best" explanation from a given set of candidate hypotheses. However, it remains unclear where these candidate hypotheses originate from. In this paper we contribute to computationally explaining these origins by providing the contours of the computational problem solved when humans generate hypotheses. The origin of hypotheses, otherwise known as abduction proper, is hallmarked by seven properties: (1) isotropy, (2) open-endedness, (3) novelty, (4) groundedness, (5) sensibility, (6) psychological realism, and (7) computational tractability. In this paper we provide a computational-level theory of abduction proper that unifies the first six of these properties and lays the groundwork for the seventh property of computational tractability. We conjecture that abduction proper is best seen as a process of deep analogical inference.

[1]  Peter A. van der Helm,et al.  Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: from surprisals to precisals. , 2000 .

[2]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  High-level perception, representation, and analogy: a critique of artificial intelligence methodology , 1992, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[3]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Dean Allemang,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Abduction , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[5]  J. Fodor.  The Mind Doesn't Work That Way : The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology , 2000 .

[6]  John H. Holland,et al.  Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.

[7]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Church: a language for generative models , 2008, UAI.

[8]  P. Thagard,et al.  Coherence in Thought and Action , 2000 .

[9]  Nick Chater,et al.  The Rational Analysis Of Mind And Behavior , 2000, Synthese.

[10]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Bootstrapping the Mind: Analogical Processes and Symbol Systems , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Serena Sordi,et al.  Patterns of Discovery , 2006 .

[12]  D. Hofstadter,et al.  Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking , 2013 .

[13]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of communication , 2012 .

[14]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 2003 .

[15]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  Experimental Semiotics: A New Approach for Studying Communication as a Form of Joint Action , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Concepts in a Probabilistic Language of Thought , 2014 .

[17]  D. Gentner,et al.  Where Hypotheses Come From: Learning New Relations by Structural Alignment , 2010 .

[18]  R. French.  The computational modeling of analogy-making , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Putnam,et al.  The Collected Papers. , 1988 .

[20]  Ashraf M. Abdelbar,et al.  Approximating MAPs for Belief Networks is NP-Hard and Other Theorems , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Mark T. Keane.  On Adaptation in Analogy: Tests of Pragmatic Importance and Adaptability in Analogical Problem Solving , 1996 .

[22]  H. Barlow.  Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[23]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  David H. Glass,et al.  Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation , 2007, Synthese.

[25]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[26]  Marcello Frixione,et al.  Tractable Competence , 2001, Minds and Machines.

[27]  Charles Cole,et al.  Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought , 1996 .

[28]  Gustav Nordh,et al.  Propositional Abduction is Almost Always Hard , 2005, IJCAI.

[29]  J. Schoffelen,et al.  Neural mechanisms of communicative innovation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction , 2019, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  Karolin Baecker,et al.  Inference to the Best Explanation: , 2021, The Material Theory of Induction.

[33]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatics in Analogical Mapping , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Conceptual Alignment: How Brains Achieve Mutual Understanding , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Towards a Computational Model of Evaluating and Using Analogical Inferences , 1997 .

[36]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction , 2015, Science.

[37]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[38]  S. Garrod,et al.  Conversation, co-ordination and convention: an empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions , 1994, Cognition.

[39]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Abduction in Natural Language Understanding , 2008 .

[40]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  The Tractable Cognition Thesis , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity as a Selection Constraint in Analogical Mapping , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture , 1993 .

[43]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Simulating Time-Course Phenomena in Perceptual Similarity via Incremental Encoding , 2006 .

[44]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[45]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Neural Correlates of Intentional Communication , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[46]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  A computational-level explanation of the speed of goal inference , 2013 .

[48]  Patricia A. Evans,et al.  Identifying Sources of Intractability in Cognitive Models: An Illustration Using Analogical Structure Mapping , 2008 .

[49]  J. D. Ruiter,et al.  On the origin of intentions , 2007 .

[50]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[51]  D. Gentner,et al.  Analogical Learning and Reasoning , 2013 .

[52]  Oron Shagrir,et al.  The Non-Redundant Contributions of Marr's Three Levels of Analysis for Explaining Information-Processing Mechanisms , 2015, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[53]  D. Gentner,et al.  Similarity and the development of rules , 1998, Cognition.

[54]  Todd Wareham,et al.  What Does (and Doesn’t) Make Analogical Problem Solving Easy? A Complexity-Theoretic Perspective , 2011, J. Probl. Solving.

[55]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. , 1997 .

[56]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping , 2000 .

[57]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Analogical Processes in Human Thinking and Learning , 2010 .

[58]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations , 2012, Synthese.

[59]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Sources of variability in human communicative skills , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[60]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Most probable explanations in Bayesian networks: Complexity and tractability , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[61]  Willem F. G. Haselager,et al.  Cognitive Science and Folk Psychology: The Right Frame of Mind , 1997 .

[62]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Analogy just looks like high level perception: why a domain-general approach to analogical mapping is right , 1998, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[63]  Giorgio Gambosi,et al.  Complexity and approximation: combinatorial optimization problems and their approximability properties , 1999 .

[64]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  Cerebral coherence between communicators marks the emergence of meaning , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[65]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[66]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Intentional Communication: Computationally Easy or Difficult? , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[67]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[68]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[69]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mutual bootstrapping between language and analogical processing , 2010, Language and Cognition.

[70]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[71]  Charles Kemp,et al.  How to Grow a Mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction , 2011, Science.

[72]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[73]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[74]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Early Social Experience Predicts Referential Communicative Adjustments in Five-Year-Old Children , 2013, PloS one.

[75]  Amy Perfors,et al.  Bayesian Models of Cognition: What's Built in After All? , 2012 .

[76]  M. Pickering,et al.  An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[77]  Mark Blokpoel.  Sculpting Computational-Level Models , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[78]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Structural Evaluation of Analogies : What Counts? , 1989 .

[79]  N. Chater.  The Search for Simplicity: A Fundamental Cognitive Principle? , 1999 .

[80]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Change: A Case Study of Johannes Kepler , 1997 .

[81]  S. Vereza.  Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 2001 .

[82]  Simon Garrod,et al.  Experimental Semiotics: A Review , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[83]  Jon Dorling,et al.  THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE* , 1975, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[84]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[85]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Computational models of analogy. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[86]  P. Thagard,et al.  Computational Philosophy of Science , 1988 .

[87]  Mark Blokpoel,et al.  Recipient design in human communication: simple heuristics or perspective taking? , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[88]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  The career of metaphor. , 2005, Psychological review.

[89]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .