Cited by 373Categorization, perception, and languageBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceCognitive Science and Education Research

Rational approximations to rational models: alternative algorithms for category learning

Open access
Sanborn, Adam N., Griffiths, Thomas L., Navarro, Daniel J.·2010·Psychological Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Rational models of cognition typically consider the abstract computational problems posed by the environment, assuming that people are capable of optimally solving those problems. This differs from more traditional formal models of cognition, which focus on the psychological processes responsible for behavior. A basic challenge for rational models is thus explaining how optimal solutions can be approximated by psychological processes. We outline a general strategy for answering this question, namely to explore the psychological plausibility of approximation algorithms developed in computer science and statistics. In particular, we argue that Monte Carlo methods provide a source of rational process models that connect optimal solutions to psychological processes. We support this argument through a detailed example, applying this approach to Anderson's (1990, 1991) rational model of categorization (RMC), which involves a particularly challenging computational problem. Drawing on a connection between the RMC and ideas from nonparametric Bayesian statistics, we propose 2 alternative algorithms for approximate inference in this model. The algorithms we consider include Gibbs sampling, a procedure appropriate when all stimuli are presented simultaneously, and particle filters, which sequentially approximate the posterior distribution with a small number of samples that are updated as new data become available. Applying these algorithms to several existing datasets shows that a particle filter with a single particle provides a good description of human inferences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020511

Cites

97 of 97 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 samplers can match behavioral stochasticity in tasks such as perception, categorization, causal reasoning, and decision making.

    “Bayesian samplers can match behavioral stochasticity in tasks such as perception, categorization, causal reasoning, and decision making [20,21,23,24].”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
  • University of California System (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2010
Volume
117
Issue
4
Pages
1144-1167
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2038407704
Cited by
369
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 29
FWCI
34.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-0845410)
  • Royal Society
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-07-1-0351)
  • Australian Research Council (DP0773794)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
category learning, categorization, approximation algorithms, Monte Carlo methods, Gibbs sampling, particle filter, approximate inference, sequential inference, human inference
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Cognition, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Learning, Models, Psychological, Monte Carlo Method, Probability, Models, Statistical

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