Bayesian intractability is not an ailment that approximation can cure
Open accessAbstract
Contains fulltext : 99805.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)
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
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?
The RSA modeling paradigm presupposes a small fixed set of possible messages and that interlocutors only reason about this small space of possible messages in a given context.
“One central criticism of the RSA modeling paradigm is that it presupposes a small fixed set of possible messages and that interlocutors only reason about this small space of possible messages in a given context.”
From The role of pragmatic mechanisms in referential communication and categorization: An emergent communication model (2026) · cites this paper as [64]
The discussion of small inputs (p. 2) and restricted parameter ranges (p. 4) concerns Bayesian cognitive models generally. Our copy does not address RSA, a fixed set of possible messages, or what interlocutors reason about; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe problem of missing peaks applies to any sampling algorithm without prior knowledge of the location of the peaks.
“it applies to any sampling algorithm without prior knowledge of the location of the peaks [28,30]”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [28]
Explicitly representing and calculating probabilities in complex domains such as vision and language is impossible for any physical system, including brains.
“such calculations are too complex for any physical system, including brains, to perform in even moderately complex domains [4,[28][29][30].”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 122
- Authors
- Kwisthout, J., Wareham, T., & van Rooij, I.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-24
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 779-784
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2044665483
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
- Keywords
- approximation, Bayesian inference, computational intractability
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem
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
