A Simple Sequential Algorithm for Approximating Bayesian Inference

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 2463-2468

  Bonawitz, Elizabeth ^a   Denison, Stephanie ^a   Chen, Annie ^a   Gopnik, Alison ^a   Griffiths, Thomas L ^a  

^a Department of Psychology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

algorithmic level; Bayesian inference; causal learning

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; INFERENCE ENGINES; LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

ALGORITHMIC LEVELS; APPROXIMATE BAYESIAN INFERENCE; BAYESIAN INFERENCE; CAUSAL LEARNING; COGNITIVE RESOURCES; HUMAN BEHAVIORS; INDUCTIVE INFERENCE; LEARNING TASKS; SEQUENTIAL ALGORITHM; SIMPLE++;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 84866754284     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (p. 209-254). New York: Academic Press.
2. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & S. Gelman (Eds.), Epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2010). Preschoolers rationally sample hypotheses. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society.
5. Doucet, A., Freitas, N. de, & Gordon, N. (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. New York: Springer.
6. German, T., & Nichols, S. (2003). Children’s inferences about long and short causal chains. Developmental Science, 6, 514-523.
7. Gerstadt, C., Hong, Y., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 - 7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129-153.
8. Goodman, N., Tenenbaum, J., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32:1, 108-154.
9. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1-31.
10. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 371-377.
12. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (Eds.). (2007). Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. (2009). Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review, 116, 661-716.
14. Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 354-384.
15. Gweon, H., Schulz, L., & Tenenbaum, J. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107(20), 9066-9071.
16. Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146.
17. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
18. Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evidence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychology, 44, 186-196.
19. Levine, M. (1975). A cognitive theory of learning: Research on hypothesis testing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Levy, R., Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, & L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 (pp. 937–944).
21. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
22. Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364, 56-58.
23. Restle, F. (1962). The selection of strategies in cue learning. Psychological Review, 69, 329-343.
24. Robbins, H. (1952). Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 58, 527-535.
25. Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
26. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J. (2006). A more rational model of categorization. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Can being scared make your tummy ache? naive theories, ambiguous evidence, and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1124-1139.
29. Shafto, P., & Goodman, N. (2008). Teaching games: Statistical sampling assumptions for pedagogical situations. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
30. Siegler, R. (1975). Defining the locus of developmental differences in children’s causal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 512-525.
31. Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 309-318.
32. Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.