The problem of rapid variable creation
Abstract
Both Marcus (2001) and Jackendoff (2002) have emphasized the importance of finding credible explanations for the occurrence of variables within cognitive representations. Marcus, in particular, has argued that a prevailing form of connectionist modeling, eliminative connectionism, cannot adequately explain crucial forms of human generalization. Eliminative connectionism eschews the use of explicitly represented variables, and the latter, Marcus contends, play an essential role in the forms of generalization that he considers. Recently, van der Velde and de Kamps (2006) proposed a neural blackboard architecture, which they assert to have satisfied the variable representation needs that Marcus and Jackendoff identified. However, this letter argues that closely related variants of Marcus's generalization examples possess variable requirements that are incompatible with the van der Velde and de Kamps approach. Moreover, it is argued here that these newly proposed variants present a severe challenge not only for eliminative connectionism but for all network training methods that require iterative tuning of synaptic strengths. The letter focuses on generalization cases that necessitate either virtually instantaneous creation of variables or very rapid deployment of preexisting variables within highly novel contexts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Language and reasoning appear to present a problem for neural networks: we seem to be able to apply common grammatical rules to sentences regardless of the content of those sentences, and regardless of whether we have ever seen even remotely similar sentences in the training data.
“Language and reasoning appear to present a problem for neural networks (Minsky, 1991; Marcus, 2001; Hadley, 2009): we seem to be able to apply common grammatical rules to sentences regardless of the content of those sentences, and regardless of whether we have ever seen even remotely similar sentences in the training data.”
From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Hadley, 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Hadley, R. F.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hadley, Robert F.
- Venue
- Neural Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 510-532
- ISSN
- 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-888X
- OpenAlex
- W1964746899
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
- Keywords
- generalization, mental representation, connectionist models
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Creativity, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Language, Memory, Models, Theoretical, Time Factors, Neural Networks, Computer, Long-Term Potentiation
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