Modeling Analogical Problem Solving in a Production System Architecture

We propose an approach to developing models of analogical reasoning within production system architectures. Though existing theories of analogy have succeeded in capturing many aspects of analogical behavior, they have several limitations. First, the theories use empirical support that focuses almost exclusively on high-level data that illustrate the results of analogy, ignoring low-level data that illustrate step-by-step processes during analogy. Second, the theories cannot fully account for variability prevalent in analogical behavior, nor can they account for the adaptation of analogical strategies in learning. Third, some of the theories cannot be readily incorporated into a unified theory of cognition. We show how production rule models of analogy can address and to some extent overcome these limitations. As our exemplar, we describe empirical and modeling results for a task in which subjects solved simple physics problems by analogy. The empirical results, which include both highand low-level data, give evidence that subjects use multiple analogical strategies and shift between strategies. The modeling results show that an ACT-R (Anderson, 1993) production rule model of the task can account for much of subjects’ observed behavior. We also present a model for a similar analogical task involving picture analogies (Sternberg, 1977) to illustrate how the simple physics model can generalize to other tasks. Analogical Problem Solving, 1

[1]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Error Modeling in the ACT-R Production System , 2019, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[2]  David E. Kieras,et al.  An Overview of the EPIC Architecture for Cognition and Performance With Application to Human-Computer Interaction , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task , 1997, TCHI.

[4]  Michael Matessa,et al.  A Production System Theory of Serial Memory , 1997 .

[5]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Working Memory: Activation Limitations on Retrieval , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Allen Newell,et al.  Deduction as verbal reasoning. , 1995 .

[7]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[8]  Mark T. Keane Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Lauretta M. Reeves,et al.  The Role of Content and Abstract Information in Analogical Transfer , 1994 .

[10]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Better Learners Use Analogical Problem Solving Sparingly , 1993, ICML.

[11]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Rules of the Mind , 1993 .

[12]  C. P. Dolan,et al.  Neuro-Soar: a neural-network architecture for goal-oriented behavior , 1993 .

[13]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Integrating knowledge sources in language comprehension , 1993 .

[14]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[15]  Richard Reviewer-Granger Unified Theories of Cognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mathematical problem solving by analogy. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  John E. Laird,et al.  Integrating, Execution, Planning, and Learning in Soar for External Environments , 1990, AAAI.

[18]  B. Ross,et al.  Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving , 1990 .

[19]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Use of analogy in a production system architecture , 1989 .

[20]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .

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

[22]  B. Ross Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

[23]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The Transfer of Cognitive Skill , 1989 .

[24]  Matthew W. Lewis,et al.  Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  L. R. Novick Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[27]  H. Simon,et al.  Learning Mathematics From Examples and by Doing , 1987 .

[28]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

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

[30]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Unities in inductive reasoning , 1983 .

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

[33]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[34]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  A Computational Model of Analogical Problem Solving , 1981, IJCAI.

[35]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

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

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

[38]  Susan E. Whitely,et al.  The implications of processing event sequences for theories of analogical reasoning , 1979 .

[39]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Component Processes in Analogical Reasoning. , 1977 .

[40]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[41]  J. S. Dowker,et al.  Fundamentals of Physics , 1970, Nature.

[42]  M. Scheerer,et al.  Problem Solving , 1967, Nature.