The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning a theory of causality.
Abstract
The very early appearance of abstract knowledge is often taken as evidence for innateness. We explore the relative learning speeds of abstract and specific knowledge within a Bayesian framework and the role for innate structure. We focus on knowledge about causality, seen as a domain-general intuitive theory, and ask whether this knowledge can be learned from co-occurrence of events. We begin by phrasing the causal Bayes nets theory of causality and a range of alternatives in a logical language for relational theories. This allows us to explore simultaneous inductive learning of an abstract theory of causality and a causal model for each of several causal systems. We find that the correct theory of causality can be learned relatively quickly, often becoming available before specific causal theories have been learned--an effect we term the blessing of abstraction. We then explore the effect of providing a variety of auxiliary evidence and find that a collection of simple perceptual input analyzers can help to bootstrap abstract knowledge. Together, these results suggest that the most efficient route to causal knowledge may be to build in not an abstract notion of causality but a powerful inductive learning mechanism and a variety of perceptual supports. While these results are purely computational, they have implications for cognitive development, which we explore in the conclusion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning
Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.009 · Cited by 880
Self-citation
Cited by
Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction
Lake, B. M., Salakhutdinov, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab3050 · Cited by 2,817
Self-citationHow to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1192788 · Cited by 1,815
Self-citationProbabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004 · Cited by 568
Self-citationJones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533
Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond
Muandet, K., Fukumizu, K., Sriperumbudur, B., & Schölkopf, B. (2017) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000060 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-119
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2043187947
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning a theory of causality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0021336
- The paper
- Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Learning a theory of causality. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021336
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.