Modeling Visual Problem Solving as Analogical Reasoning

We present a computational model of visual problem solving, designed to solve problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test. The model builds on the claim that analogical reasoning lies at the heart of visual problem solving, and intelligence more broadly. Images are compared via structure mapping, aligning the common relational structure in 2 images to identify commonalities and differences. These commonalities or differences can themselves be reified and used as the input for future comparisons. When images fail to align, the model dynamically rerepresents them to facilitate the comparison. In our analysis, we find that the model matches adult human performance on the Standard Progressive Matrices test, and that problems which are difficult for the model are also difficult for people. Furthermore, we show that model operations involving abstraction and rerepresentation are particularly difficult for people, suggesting that these operations may be critical for performing visual problem solving, and reasoning more generally, at the highest level.

[1]  M. Wertheimer Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .

[2]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales , 1962 .

[3]  R. Cattell Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. , 1963 .

[4]  H. R. Burke,et al.  Raven's Progressive Matrices: More on Construct Validity. , 1969 .

[5]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[6]  R. Sternberg Intelligence, Information Processing and Analogical Reasoning : The Componential Analysis of Human Abilities , 1977 .

[7]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[10]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out” , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  J. Grudin Processes in Verbal Analogy Solution. , 1980 .

[12]  R. Glaser,et al.  Components of geometric analogy solution , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  J. Arbit,et al.  Structure of a Psychodiagnostic Test Battery for Children. , 1980 .

[14]  W. McKeachie Implications of cognitive psychology for college teaching , 1980 .

[15]  R. Maki Why do categorization effects occur in comparative judgment tasks? , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[16]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Images and Their Transformations , 1982 .

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

[18]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[19]  Kenneth D. Forbus Qualitative Reasoning About Space and Motion , 1983 .

[20]  B. Julesz A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision , 1984, Trends in Neurosciences.

[21]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[22]  M. Bornstein,et al.  Discrimination and matching within and between hues measured by reaction times: some implications for categorical perception and levels of information processing , 1984, Psychological research.

[23]  C. E. Bethell-Fox,et al.  Adaptive reasoning: Componential and eye movement analysis of geometric analogy performance ☆ , 1984 .

[24]  S. Ullman Visual routines , 1984, Cognition.

[25]  B. Farell,et al.  Same-different judgments: a review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine * , 2003 .

[27]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

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

[29]  C. B. Cave,et al.  Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  R. Snow,et al.  Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. , 1989 .

[31]  M A Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1990 What one intelligence test measures : A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test , 2016 .

[32]  Richard G. Kurial,et al.  Representation and recognition , 1990 .

[33]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  H. C. Nothdurft,et al.  Texture segmentation and pop-out from orientation contrast , 1991, Vision Research.

[35]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Reasoning: The Clock Project , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[36]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

[37]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[38]  G. Halford Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Complexity in Cognitive Development , 1992 .

[39]  L. Lagasse,et al.  Effects of good form and spatial frequency on global precedence , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  M. W. Molen,et al.  Error analysis of raven test performance , 1994 .

[41]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

[43]  D. Hofstadter Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, Douglas Hofstadter. 1994. Basic Books, New York, NY. 512 pages. ISBN: 0-465-05154-5. $30.00 , 1995 .

[44]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Long-term working memory. , 1995, Psychological review.

[45]  M. Goodale Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate , 1995 .

[46]  J. Hummel,et al.  An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description , 1996 .

[47]  D. Gentner,et al.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[48]  R. W. Ferguson,et al.  Modeling Qualitative Differences in Symmetry Judgments , 1996 .

[49]  H. Hughes,et al.  Global Precedence, Spatial Frequency Channels, and the Statistics of Natural Images , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[52]  S. Embretson A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests : Application to abstract reasoning , 1998 .

[53]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  A Structural Account of Global and Local Processing , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[55]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Exploring analogy in the large , 2000 .

[56]  J. Hulleman,et al.  Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  J. L. Ellis,et al.  A Rasch analysis of Raven’s standard progressive matrices , 2000 .

[58]  E. Cooper,et al.  Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[59]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[60]  N. Chater,et al.  Similarity as transformation , 2003, Cognition.

[61]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  A Theory of Rerepresentation in Analogical Matching , 2003 .

[62]  Robert M. French,et al.  Computational Models of Analogy-Making , 2003 .

[63]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[64]  Margaret A. Boden,et al.  Douglas Hofstadter and the Fluid Analogies Research Group, Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[65]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Varieties of sameness: the impact of relational complexity on perceptual comparisons , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[66]  K. A. Stevens The information content of texture gradients , 1981, Biological Cybernetics.

[67]  J. Allik,et al.  Sex Differences on Three Factors Identified in Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices , 2004 .

[68]  R. Engle,et al.  Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between Operation Span and Raven , 2005 .

[69]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and learning: Evidence from the serial reaction time task , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[70]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[71]  John Eustis Williams,et al.  Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[72]  E. Spelke,et al.  Core Knowledge of Geometry in an Amazonian Indigene Group , 2006, Science.

[73]  U. Andersson The contribution of working memory to children's mathematical word problem solving , 2007 .

[74]  Vladimir M Sloutsky,et al.  The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math , 2008, Science.

[75]  Derek C. Penn,et al.  Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[76]  Leonidas A A Doumas,et al.  A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. , 2008, Psychological review.

[77]  Alvaro J. Arce-Ferrer,et al.  Studying the Equivalence of Computer-Delivered and Paper-Based Administrations of the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test , 2009 .

[78]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Solving Geometric Analogy Problems Through Two-Stage Analogical Mapping , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[79]  H. Gust,et al.  Solving Geometric Proportional Analogies with the Analogy Model HDTP , 2009 .

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

[81]  Simone Cirillo,et al.  An Anthropomorphic Solver for Raven's Progressive Matrices , 2010 .

[82]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Categorical perception. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[83]  C. Geiser,et al.  On the relationship between solution strategies in two mental rotation tasks , 2010 .

[84]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Organizing and Representing Space for Visual Problem-Solving , 2011 .

[85]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Edge-cycles: A qualitative sketch representation to support recognition , 2011 .

[86]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  CogSketch: Sketch Understanding for Cognitive Science Research and for Education , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[87]  Chris Eliasmith,et al.  A Neural Model of Rule Generation in Inductive Reasoning , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[88]  A. Lovett,et al.  Cultural commonalities and differences in spatial problem-solving: A computational analysis , 2011, Cognition.

[89]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Modeling Multiple Strategies for Solving Geometric Analogy Problems , 2012, CogSci.

[90]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than metric changes in the relations between simple shapes in the lateral occipital cortex , 2012, NeuroImage.

[91]  Eyal Sagi,et al.  What Difference Reveals About Similarity , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

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

[93]  Maithilee Kunda,et al.  A computational model for solving problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test using iconic visual representations , 2013, Cognitive Systems Research.

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

[95]  J. Hummel,et al.  Comparison and Mapping Facilitate Relation Discovery and Predication , 2013, PloS one.

[96]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Far-Out Thinking , 2014, Psychological science.

[97]  Maithilee Kunda,et al.  Fractals and Ravens , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[98]  N. Taatgen Between architecture and model: Strategies for cognitive control , 2014, BICA 2014.

[99]  Hongjing Lu,et al.  Animation Facilitates Source Understanding and Spontaneous Analogical Transfer , 2015, CogSci.

[100]  R. Levy,et al.  General and specialized brain correlates for analogical reasoning: A meta‐analysis of functional imaging studies , 2016, Human brain mapping.

[101]  Annett Wechsler Analogy Making As Perception A Computer Model , 2016 .