CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Disentangling Abstraction from Statistical Pattern Matching in Human and Machine Learning

Open access
Kumar, Sreejan, Dasgupta, Ishita, Daw, Nathaniel D., Cohen, Jonathan D., Griffiths, Thomas L.·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2204.01437arXiv 2204.01437PMC PMC10497163
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The ability to acquire abstract knowledge is a hallmark of human intelligence and is believed by many to be one of the core differences between humans and neural network models. Agents can be endowed with an inductive bias towards abstraction through meta-learning, where they are trained on a distribution of tasks that share some abstract structure that can be learned and applied. However, because neural networks are hard to interpret, it can be difficult to tell whether agents have learned the underlying abstraction, or alternatively statistical patterns that are characteristic of that abstraction. In this work, we compare the performance of humans and agents in a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm in which tasks are generated from abstract rules. We define a novel methodology for building "task metamers" that closely match the statistics of the abstract tasks but use a different underlying generative process, and evaluate performance on both abstract and metamer tasks. We find that humans perform better at abstract tasks than metamer tasks whereas common neural network architectures typically perform worse on the abstract tasks than the matched metamers. This work provides a foundation for characterizing differences between humans and machine learning that can be used in future work towards developing machines with more human-like behavior.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2204.01437

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Grounding meta-learned agents in natural language descriptions improved their performance and led to more human-like inductive biases.

    “They found that grounding meta-learned agents in natural language descriptions not only improved their performance but also led to more human-like inductive biases”

    From Meta-learned models of cognition (2024) · cites this paper as Kumar, Dasgupta, et al., 2022

    The Methods passage describes a meta-learning agent trained on tile-revealing tasks; it does not describe grounding the agent in natural-language descriptions. The Discussion reports that the tested agents’ inductive biases differed from humans’, but it does not test whether language grounding would improve performance or make those biases more human-like (no page numbers available in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Giunchiglia F., & Walsh T. (1992). A theory of abstraction. Artificial intelligence, 57(2-3), 323-389.
  2. Hull C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution of concepts: An experimental study. Psychological Monographs, 28(1), i-86. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093130 · DOI
  3. Bruner J.S., Goodnow J.J., & Austin G.A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. Routledge.
  4. Wagemans J., Feldman J., Gepshtein S., Kimchi R., Pomerantz J. R., van der Helm P. A., et al. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psy- chological Bulletin, 138(6), 1218-1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029334 PMID: 22845750 · DOI
  5. Hafri A., & Firestone C. (2021). The perception of relations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 475- 492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.01.006 PMID: 33812770 · DOI
  6. Summerfield C., Luyckx F., & Sheahan H. (2020). Structure learning and the posterior parietal cortex. Progress in neurobiology, 184, 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.101717 PMID: 31669186 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Behrens T. E., Muller T. H., Whittington J. C., Mark S., Baram A. B., Stachenfeld K. L., et al. (2018). What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron, 100(2), 490-509. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002 PMID: 30359611 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ho M. K., Abel D., Griffiths T. L., & Littman M. L. (2019). The value of abstraction. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.05.001 · DOI
  9. Braun D. A., Aertsen A., Wolpert D. M., & Mehring C. (2009). Motor task variation induces structural learning. Current Biology, 19(4), 352-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.036 PMID: 19217296 · DOI
  10. McCarthy W. P., Hawkins R. D., Wang H., Holdaway C., Fan J. E. (2021). Learning to communicate about shared procedural abstractions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00077. · arXiv
  11. Lake B. M., Ullman T. D., Tenenbaum J. B., & Gershman S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837 PMID: 27881212 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dehaene S. (2021). How we learn: Why brains learn better than any machine. . . for now. Penguin.
  13. Sable ´-Meyer M., Ellis K., Tenenbaum J., & Dehaene S. (2022). A language of thought for the mental representation of geometric shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 139, 101527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cogpsych.2022.101527 PMID: 36403385 · DOI
  14. Mitchell M. (2021). Abstraction and analogy-making in artificial intelligence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1505(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14619 PMID: 34173249 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Johnson J., Hariharan B., van der Maaten L., Fei-Fei L., Zitnick C. L., Girshick R. (2017, July). CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoning. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 1988-1997). IEEE Computer Society.
  16. Tsividis P. A., Loula J., Burga J., Foss N., Campero A., Pouncy T et al. (2021). Human-level reinforce- ment learning through theory-based modeling, exploration, and planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12544. · arXiv
  17. Chollet F. (2019). On the measure of intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547. · arXiv
  18. Zhang C., Gao F., Jia B., Zhu Y., & Zhu S. C. (2019). Raven: A dataset for relational and analogical visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion (pp. 5317-5327).
  19. Mao J., Gan C., Kohli P., Tenenbaum J. B., & Wu J. (2019). The neuro-symbolic concept learner: Inter- preting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12584. · arXiv
  20. Hospedales T. M., Antoniou A., Micaelli P., & Storkey A. J. (2021). Meta-Learning in Neural Networks: A Survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, PP, 10.1109/ TPAMI.2021.3079209. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3079209 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Dasgupta I., Wang J., Chiappa S., Mitrovic J., Ortega P., Raposo D., et al. (2019). Causal reasoning from meta-reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08162. · arXiv
  22. Lake B. M. (2019). Compositional generalization through meta sequence-to-sequence learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05381. · arXiv
  23. McCoy R. T., Grant E., Smolensky P., Griffiths T. L., & Linzen T. (2020). Universal linguistic inductive biases via meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16324. · arXiv
  24. Rabinowitz N., Perbet F., Song F., Zhang C., Eslami S. A., & Botvinick M. (2018). Machine theory of mind. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 4218-4227).
  25. Geirhos R., Rubisch P., Michaelis C., Bethge M., Wichmann F. A., & Brendel W. (2018). ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  26. Wang J. X., Kurth-Nelson Z., Kumaran D., Tirumala D., Soyer H., Leibo J. Z., et al. (2018). Prefrontal cortex as a meta-reinforcement learning system. Nature neuroscience, 21(6), 860-868. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41593-018-0147-8 PMID: 29760527 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Geirhos R., Rubisch P., Michaelis C., Bethge M., Wichmann F. A., Brendel W. (2018). ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. arXiv pre- print arXiv:1811.12231. · arXiv
  28. Lake B. M., Salakhutdinov R., & Tenenbaum J. B. (2015). Human-level concept learning through prob- abilistic program induction. Science, 350(6266), 1332-1338. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3050 PMID: 26659050 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Johnson A., Vong W. K., Lake B. M., & Gureckis T. M. (2021). Fast and flexible: Human program induc- tion in abstract reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05823. · arXiv
  30. Drew M. S., & Funt B. V. (1992). Natural metamers. CVGIP: Image Understanding, 56(2), 139-151.
  31. Feather J., Durango A., Gonzalez R., & McDermott J. (2019). Metamers of neural networks reveal divergence from human perceptual systems. In NeurIPS (pp. 10078-10089).
  32. Ritter S., Barrett D. G., Santoro A., Botvinick M. M. (2017, July). Cognitive psychology for deep neural networks: A shape bias case study. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 2940-2949). PMLR.
  33. Piloto L., Weinstein A., TB D., Ahuja A., Mirza M., Wayne G., et al. (2018). Probing physics knowledge using tools from developmental psychology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01128. · arXiv
  34. Markant D., & Gureckis T. (2012). Does the utility of information influence sampling behavior?. In Pro- ceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 34, No. 34).
  35. Minsky M., & Papert S. A. (1969). Perceptrons: An introduction to computational geometry. MIT press.
  36. Lake B., & Baroni M. (2018, July). Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 2873-2882).
  37. Dasgupta I., Guo D., Stuhlmu ¨ller A., Gershman S. J., & Goodman N. D. (2018). Evaluating composition- ality in sentence embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04302. · arXiv
  38. Devlin J., Chang M. W., Lee K., & Toutanova K. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transfor- mers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  39. Efros A. A., & Freeman W. T. (2001). Image quilting for texture synthesis and transfer. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (pp. 341-346).
  40. Geman S., & Geman D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (6), 721-741. https://doi. org/10.1109/tpami.1984.4767596 PMID: 22499653 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Duan Y., Schulman J., Chen X., Bartlett P. L., Sutskever I., & Abbeel P. (2016). Rl 2 : Fast reinforcement learning via slow reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02779. · arXiv
  42. AlKhamissi B., Srinivasan A., Nelson Z. K., & Ritter S. (2021). How to Learn and Represent Abstrac- tions: An Investigation using Symbolic Alchemy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08360. · arXiv
  43. Ritter S., Faulkner R., Sartran L., Santoro A., Botvinick M., & Raposo D. (2021). Rapid Task-Solving in Novel Environments. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  44. Vaswani A., Shazeer N., Parmar N., Uszkoreit J., Jones L., Gomez A. N., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 5998-6008).
  45. Kerg G., Mittal S., Rolnick D., Bengio Y., Richards B., Lajoie G. (2022). On Neural Architecture Inductive Biases for Relational Tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05056. · arXiv
  46. Dosovitskiy A., Beyer L., Kolesnikov A., Weissenborn D., Zhai X., Unterthiner T., et al. (2020). An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929. · arXiv
  47. Mnih V., Badia A. P., Mirza M., Graves A., Lillicrap T., Harley T. et al, (2016, June). Asynchronous meth- ods for deep reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 1928-1937).
  48. Webb T. W., Sinha I., & Cohen J. D. (2020). Emergent symbols through binding in external memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14601. · arXiv
  49. Ni T., Eysenbach B., & Salakhutdinov R. (2022). Recurrent model-free rl can be a strong baseline for many pomdps. In the International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 16691-16723). PMLR.
  50. Santoro A., Hill F., Barrett D., Morcos A., & Lillicrap T. (2018, July). Measuring abstract reasoning in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 4477-4486).
  51. Fiser J., & Aslin R. N. (2002). Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 458. https:// doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.458 PMID: 12018498 · DOI
  52. Maheu M., Meyniel F., & Dehaene S. (2022). Rational arbitration between statistics and rules in human sequence processing. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(8), 1087-1103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562- 021-01259-6 PMID: 35501360 · DOI
  53. Battaglia P. W., Hamrick J. B., Bapst V., Sanchez-Gonzalez A., Zambaldi V., Malinowski M., et al, (2018). Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01261. · arXiv
  54. Ellis K., Wong C., Nye M., Sable ´-Meyer M., Morales L., Hewitt L, et at. (2021). DreamCoder: bootstrapping inductive program synthesis with wake-sleep library learning. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (pp. 835-850).
  55. Bommasani R., Hudson D. A., Adeli E., Altman R., Arora S., von Arx S., et al. (2021). On the opportu- nities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. · arXiv
  56. Diaconis P., Graham R. L., & Morrison J. A. (1990). Asymptotic analysis of a random walk on a hyper- cube with many dimensions. Random Structures & Algorithms, 1(1), 51-72.
  57. Bergstra J., Bardenet R., Bengio Y., & Ke ´gl B. (2011). Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, S., Dasgupta, I., Daw, N. D., Cohen, J. D., & Griffiths, T. L.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Kumar, Sreejan
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
e1011316-e1011316
ISSN
1553-734X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2204.01437
arXiv
2204.01437
PMC
PMC10497163
OpenAlex
W4386156648
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (T32MH065214)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH065214)
  • Defense Sciences Office, DARPA
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-, W911NF, W911NF‑16‑1‑0474)
  • Life Sciences Division, Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-0474)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
abstraction, meta-learning, meta-reinforcement learning, inductive bias, neural network interpretability, generative processes
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Concept Formation, Humans, Intelligence, Neural Networks, Computer, Knowledge

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