The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning
Open accessAbstract
This article proposes a new model of human concept learning that provides a rational analysis of learning feature-based concepts. This model is built upon Bayesian inference for a grammatically structured hypothesis space-a concept language of logical rules. This article compares the model predictions to human generalization judgments in several well-known category learning experiments, and finds good agreement for both average and individual participant generalizations. This article further investigates judgments for a broad set of 7-feature concepts-a more natural setting in several ways-and again finds that the model explains human performance.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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 [7]
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
Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1699114 · Cited by 37,192
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Artificial intelligence: a modern approach
Kumar, D. A., Balasubramanian, S., Byeon, D. H., & Manerkar, P. G. V. (1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1577 · Cited by 22,191
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Lakoff, G. P. (1987) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 · Cited by 13,358
Ambrose, A., Wittgenstein, L., & Anscombe, G. E. M. (1954) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.2307/2103745 · Cited by 12,289
Artificial intelligence: A modern approach
Nilsson, N. J. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 · Cited by 10,730
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice
Arnaud Doucet, B. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3437-9 · Cited by 7,516
Probability theory the logic of science
Jaynes, E. T., & Bretthorst, G. L. (2003) · Cited by 4,600
Fodor, J. A. (1975) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,588
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Briscoe E., 2006, Proceedings of the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1038
- Bruner J. S., 1956, A study of thinking
- Gentner D., 2005, Learning and using relational categories, 151
- Goodman N. D., The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science
- Marr D., 1982, Vision
- Sanborn A., 2006, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
- Tenenbaum J. B., 2000, Advances in neural information processing systems 12, 59
- Von Humboldt W., 1863, On language
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533
Vul (2014) · doi:10.1111/cogs.12101 · Cited by 502
Bayesian Brains without Probabilities
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.003 · Cited by 307
A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.015 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goodman, Noah D.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108-154
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2142336306
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 23.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0339062)
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research
- 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
- Bayesian inference, category learning, rational analysis, individual differences in learning
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
