No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Computational complexity analysis can help, but first we need a theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2008
Abstract
Leech et al. present a connectionist algorithm as a model of (the development) of analogizing, but they do not specify the algorithm's associated computational-level theory, nor its computational complexity. We argue that doing so may be essential for connectionist cognitive models to have full explanatory power and transparency, as well as for assessing their scalability to real-world input domains.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008
References
Bruck, J. & Goodman, J. (1990) On the power of neural networks for solving hard problems. Journal of Complexity 6:129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1995) Connectionism and the rationale constraint on cognitive explanation. Philosophical Perspectives: AI, Connectionism and Philosophical Psychology 9:105–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (2000) “How does it work?” vs. “What are the laws?”: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In: Explanation and cognition, ed. Keil, F. & Wilson, R., pp. 117–44. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155–70.Google Scholar
Green, C. (2001) Scientific models, connectionist networks, and cognitive science. Theory and Psychology 11:97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, J. S. (1990) Neural network design and the complexity of learning. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mareschal, D. & Thomas, M. S. C. (2007) Computational modeling in developmental psychology. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (Special Issue on Autonomous Mental Development) 11(2):137–50.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Tsotsos, J. K. (1990) Analyzing vision at the complexity level. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(3):423–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, I. (2003) Tractable cognition: Complexity theory in cognitive psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
van Rooij, I., Stege, S., & Kadlec, H. (2005) Sources of complexity in subset choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49:160–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, I. & Wareham, T. (in press) Parameterized complexity in cognitive modeling: Foundations, applications and opportunities. Computer Journal. [DOI: 10.1093/comjnl/bxm034]Google Scholar
Veale, T. & Keane, M. T. (1997) The competence of sub-optimal theories of structure mapping on hard analogies. In: Proceedings of the 1997 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97), vol. 1, pp. 232–37. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Wareham, T. (1999) Systematic parameterized complexity analysis in computational phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar