Analogy just looks like high level perception: Why a domain-general approach to analogical mapping is right

Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 231-257

  Forbus, Kenneth D ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^a   Markman, Arthur B ^b   Ferguson, Ronald W ^a  

^a Institute for the Learning Sciences   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Cognitive simulation; Qualitative physics; Similarity; Structure mapping

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032390890     PISSN: 0952813X     EISSN: 13623079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095281398146842     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Ballard, D. H. (1991) Animate vision. Artificial Intelligence, 48: 57-86.
2. Boden, M. A. (1991) The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (New York: Basic Books).
3. Burns, B. B. (1996) Meta-analogical transfer: transfer between episodes of analogical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4): 1032-1048.
4. Burstein, M. H. (1988) Incremental learning from multiple analogies. In A. Prieditis (eds.), Analogica (Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann) pp. 37-62.
5. Chalmers, D. J., French, R. M. and Hofstadter, D. R. (1992) High-level perception, representation and analogy: a critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 4: 185-211.
6. Clement, C. A. and Gentner, D. (1991) Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15: 89-132.
7. Decoste, D. (1990) Dynamic across-time measurement interpretation. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
8. Dunbar, K. (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.) The nature of insight (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 365-396.
9. Engelmore, B. and Morgan, T. (1988) Blackboard Systems (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
10. Erman, L. D., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V. R. and Reddy, D. R. (1980) The Hearsay II speech understanding system: integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Computing Surveys, 12(2) 213-253.
11. Falkenhainer, B. (1987) An examination of the third stage in the analogy process: verification-based analogical learning. In Proceedings of IJCAI-87, pp. 260-263.
12. Falkenhainer, B. (1988) Learning from physical analogies: a study in analogy and the explanation process. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
13. Falkenhainer, B. (1990a) A unified approach to explanation and theory formation. In Shrager and Langley (eds.) ComputationalM odels of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann). Also in Shavlik and Dietterich (eds.) (1990) Readings in Machine Learning (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann).
14. Falkenhainer, B. (1990b) Analogical interpretation in context. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Cambridge, MA: Erlbaum).
15. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D. and Gentner, D. (1986) The structure-mapping engine. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
16. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D. and Gentner, D. (1989) The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41(1): 1-63.
17. Ferguson, R. W. (1994) MAGI: Analogy-based encoding using symmetry and regularity. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
18. Forbus, K. D. (1984) Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence, 24(1): 85-168.
19. Forbus, K. D. (1990). The qualitative process engine. In D. S. Weld and J. de Kleer (eds.) Readings in Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann) pp. 220-235.
20. Forbus, K. D., Ferguson, R. W., and Gentner, D. (1994) Incremental structure-mapping. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 313-318.
21. Forbus, K. D. and Gentner, D. (1989) Structural evaluation of analogies: what counts? In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Ann Arbor, MI: Erlbaum) pp. 341-348.
22. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D. and Law, D. (1995) MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2): 141-205.
23. Forbus, K. and Whalley, P. (1994) Using qualitative physics to build articulate software for thermodynamics education. In Proceedings of AAAI-94, Seattle, Washington, USA.
24. French, R. M. (1995) The Subtlety of Similarity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
25. Gentner, D. (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 23: 155-170.
26. Gentner, D. (1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. V osniad ou and A. Ortony (eds.) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (New York: Cambridge University Press) 199-241.
27. Gentner, D. and Boronot, C. B. (1991) Metaphors are (sometimes) processed as generative domain-mappings. Paper presented at the symposium on Metaphor and Conceptual Change, Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL, USA.
28. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P. and Forbus, K. D. (1997) Conceptual change via analogical reasoning: a case study of Johannes Kepler. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1): 3-40.
29. Gentner, D. and Forbus, K. D. (1991) MAC /FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
30. Gentner, D. and Holyoak, K. J. (1997) Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52: 32-34.
31. Gentner, D. and Imai, M. (1992) Is the future always ahead? Evidence for system-mappings in understanding space-time metaphors. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Bloomington, IN: Erlbaum).
32. Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1994) Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3): 152-158.
33. Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1995) Similarity is like analogy. In C. Caciari (ed.) Similarity. (Brussels: BREPOLS) pp. 111-148.
34. Gentner, D. and Markman, A.B. (1997) Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1): 45-56.
35. Gentner, D. and Rattermann, M. J. (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman and J. P. Byrnes (eds.) Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 225-277.
36. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J. and Forbus, K. D. (1993) The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524-575.
37. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., Markman, A. B. and Kotovsky, L. (1995) Two forces in the development of relational structure. In T. Simon and G. Halford (eds.) Developing Cognitive Competence: New Approaches to Process Modeling (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
38. Goldstone, R. L. and Medin, D. L. (1994) Similarity, interactive-activation and mapping. In K. J. Holyoak and J.A.Barnden (eds.) Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory, Vol. 2, Analogical Connections (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
39. Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L. and Gentner, D. (1991) Relational similarity and the non-independence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 23: 222-262.
40. Greiner, R. (1988) Learning by understanding analogies. Artificial Intelligence, 35: 81-125.
41. Halford, G. S. (1992) Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive development. Human Development 35(4), 193-217.
42. Hammond, K. J. (1990) Explaining and repairing plans that fail. Artificial Intelligence, 45: 173-228.
43. Hofstadter, D. H. (1995a) Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies (New York: Basic Books).
44. Hofstadter, D. H. (1995b) A review of mental leaps: analogy in creative thought. A. I. Magazine, 16: 75-80.
45. Holyoak, K. J. and Koh, K. (1987) Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory and Cognition, 15(4): 332-340.
46. Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3): 295-355.
47. Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. (1995) Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
48. Hummel, J. E. and Holyoak, K. J. (1997) Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), 427-466.
49. Kahneman, D. and Miller, D. T. (1986) Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2): 136-153.
50. Keane, M. T. G. (1990) Incremental analogizing: theory and model. In K. J. Gilhooly, M. T. G. Deane, R. H. Logie and G. Erdos (eds.) Lines of Thinking London: Wiley pp. 221-235.
51. Keane, M. T., Ledgeway, T. and Duff, S. (1994) Constraints on analogical mapping: a comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 18, 387-438.
52. Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1985) Toward a computational model of purpose-d irected analogy. In A. Prieditis (eds.) Analogica. (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann) pp. 89-108.
53. Kittay, E. (1987) Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure (Oxford: Clarendon).
54. Kolodner, J. L. (1994) Case-based Reasoning (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann).
55. Kosslyn, S. (1994) Image and Brain (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
56. Kotovsky, L. and Gentner, D. (1990). Pack light: you will go farther. In J. Dinsmore and T. Koschmann (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Society Conference, Carbondale, IL, pp. 60-67.
57. Lange, T. E. and Wharton, C. M. (1993) Dynamic memories: analysis of an integrated comprehension and episodic memory retrieval model. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
58. Law, B. K., Forbus, K. D. and Gentner, D. (1994) Simulating similarity-based retrieval: a comparison of ARCS and MAC/FAC. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
59. Markman, A. B. (in press) Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science.
60. Markman, A. B. and Gentner, D. (1990) Analogical mapping during similarity judgements. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
61. Markman, A. B. and Gentner, D. (1993a) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4): 431-467.
62. Markman, A. B. and Gentner, D. (1993b) Splittingthe differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4): 517-535.
63. Markman, A. B. and Gentner, D. (1996) Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24(2): 235-249.
64. Marr, D. (1982) Vision (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company).
65. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L. and Gentner, D. (1993) Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2): 254-278.
66. Mitchell, M. (1993) Analogy-making as Perception: A Computer Model (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
67. Morrison, C. and Dietrich, E. (1995) Structure-mapping vs. high-level perception: the mistaken fight over the explanation of analogy. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Pittsburgh, PA: Erlbaum), pp. 678-682.
68. Nersessian, N. J. (1992) How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (ed.) Cognitive Models of Science (Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press) pp. 3-44.
69. Rattermann, M. J. and Gentner, D. (1990) The development of similarity use: it's what you know, not how you know it. In Proceedings of the Second Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Society Conference (Carbondale, IL) pp. 54-59.
70. Rattermann, M. J. and Gentner, D. (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman and J. P. Byrnes (eds.) Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development (London: Cambridge University Press).
71. Ross, B. H. (1987) This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13(4): 629-639.
72. Schank, R. C. (1982) Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
73. Skorstad, J., Gentner, D. and Medin, D. (1988) Abstraction processes during concept learning: a structural view. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Montreal: Erlbaum).
74. Spellman, B. A. and Holyoak, K. J. (1993) An inhibitory mechanism for goal-directed analogical mapping. In The Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 947-952). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
75. Spellman, B. A. and Holyoak, K. J. (1996) Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31: 307-346.
76. Thagard, P., Holyoak, K. J., Nelson, G. and Gochfeld, D. (1990) Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 46: 259-310.
77. Waldrop, M. (1987) Causality, structure, and common sense. Science, 237: 1297-1299.
78. Winston, P. H. (1975) Learning structural descriptions from examples. In P. H. Winston (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).