Cited by 259Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceCategorization, perception, and languageLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning

Open access
Kemp, Charles, Tenenbaum, Joshua B.·2009·Psychological Review

Abstract

Everyday inductive inferences are often guided by rich background knowledge. Formal models of induction should aim to incorporate this knowledge and should explain how different kinds of knowledge lead to the distinctive patterns of reasoning found in different inductive contexts. This article presents a Bayesian framework that attempts to meet both goals and describes [corrected] 4 applications of the framework: a taxonomic model, a spatial model, a threshold model, and a causal model. Each model makes probabilistic inferences about the extensions of novel properties, but the priors for the 4 models are defined over different kinds of structures that capture different relationships between the categories in a domain. The framework therefore shows how statistical inference can operate over structured background knowledge, and the authors argue that this interaction between structure and statistics is critical for explaining the power and flexibility of human reasoning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014282

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bayesian models of cognition have primarily flourished as explanations of the complex dependency of behavior on the environment in domains including intuitive physics, causal learning, perception, motor control, and language.

    “Bayesian models of cognition have primarily flourished as explanations of the complex dependency of behavior on the environment in domains including intuitive physics, causal learning, perception, motor control, and language [1-10]”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [8]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2009
Volume
116
Issue
1
Pages
20-58
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W1994114516
Cited by
259
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 24
FWCI
29.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository
Funders
  • US Air Force Office of Scientific Research
  • William Asbjornsen Albert Memorial Fellowship
  • Paul E. Newton Chair
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Keywords
inductive reasoning, prior knowledge, structured priors, taxonomic model, spatial modeling, threshold model, causal models, probabilistic inference, category structure, human reasoning
MeSH terms
Association Learning, Bayes Theorem, Concept Formation, Decision Making, Humans, Judgment, Problem Solving, Psychological Theory, Mental Recall, Models, Statistical, Neural Networks, Computer, Knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review