More Like this

1. Individual differences in judging similarity between semantic relations

   Ichien, N.; Lu, H.; & Holyoak, K. J. (January 2019, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society)

   The ability to recognize and make inductive inferences based on relational similarity is fundamental to much of human higher cognition. However, relational similarity is not easily defined or measured, which makes it difficult to determine whether individual differences in cognitive capacity or semantic knowledge impact relational processing. In two experiments, we used a multi-arrangement task (previously applied to individual words or objects) to efficiently assess similarities between word pairs instantiating various abstract relations. Experiment 1 established that the method identifies word pairs expressing the same relation as more similar to each other than to those expressing different relations. Experiment 2 extended these results by showing that relational similarity measured by the multi-arrangement task is sensitive to more subtle distinctions. Word pairs instantiating the same specific subrelation were judged as more similar to each other than to those instantiating different subrelations within the same general relation type. In addition, Experiment 2 found that individual differences in both fluid intelligence and crystalized verbal intelligence correlated with differentiation of relation similarity judgments. 

   more » « less
2. Predicting Human Judgments of Relational Similarity: A Comparison of Computational Models Based on Vector Representations of Meaning

   Snefjella, B.; Ichien, N.; Holyoak, K. J.; Lu, H. (January 2022, Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society)

   Computational models of verbal analogy and relational similarity judgments can employ different types of vector representations of word meanings (embeddings) generated by machine-learning algorithms. An important question is whether human-like relational processing depends on explicit representations of relations (i.e., representations separable from those of the concepts being related), or whether implicit relation representations suffice. Earlier machine-learning models produced static embeddings for individual words, identical across all contexts. However, more recent Large Language Models (LLMs), which use transformer architectures applied to much larger training corpora, are able to produce contextualized embeddings that have the potential to capture implicit knowledge of semantic relations. Here we compare multiple models based on different types of embeddings to human data concerning judgments of relational similarity and solutions of verbal analogy problems. For two datasets, a model that learns explicit representations of relations, Bayesian Analogy with Relational Transformations (BART), captured human performance more successfully than either a model using static embeddings (Word2vec) or models using contextualized embeddings created by LLMs (BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-2). These findings support the proposal that human thinking depends on representations that separate relations from the concepts they relate. 

   more » « less
3. Improving measurements of similarity judgments with machine-learning algorithms

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00098-1  

   Stevens, Jeffrey R.; Polzkill Saltzman, Alexis; Rasmussen, Tanner; Soh, Leen-Kiat (January 2021, Journal of Computational Social Science)

   null (Ed.)

   Intertemporal choices involve assessing options with different reward amounts available at different time delays. The similarity approach to intertemporal choice focuses on judging how similar amounts and delays are. Yet we do not fully understand the cognitive process of how these judgments are made. Here, we use machine-learning algorithms to predict similarity judgments to (1) investigate which algorithms best predict these judgments, (2) assess which predictors are most useful in predicting participants’ judgments, and (3) determine the minimum number of judgments required to accurately predict future judgments. We applied eight algorithms to similarity judgments for reward amount and time delay made by participants in two data sets. We found that neural network, random forest, and support vector machine algorithms generated the highest out-of-sample accuracy. Though neural networks and support vector machines offer little clarity in terms of a possible process for making similarity judgments, random forest algorithms generate decision trees that can mimic the cognitive computations of human judgment making. We also found that the numerical difference between amount values or delay values was the most important predictor of these judgments, replicating previous work. Finally, the best performing algorithms such as random forest can make highly accurate predictions of judgments with relatively small sample sizes (~ 15), which will help minimize the numbers of judgments required to extrapolate to new value pairs. In summary, machine-learning algorithms provide both theoretical improvements to our understanding of the cognitive computations involved in similarity judgments and intertemporal choices as well as practical improvements in designing better ways of collecting data. 

   more » « less
4. Unpacking subjective creativity ratings: Using embeddings to explain and measure idea novelty

   Ahmed, Faez; Fuge, Mark; Hunter, Sam; Miller, Scarlett (August 2018, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences)

   Assessing similarity between design ideas is an inherent part of many design evaluations to measure novelty. In such evaluation tasks, humans excel at making mental connections among diverse knowledge sets and scoring ideas on their uniqueness. However, their decisions on novelty are often subjective and difficult to explain. In this paper, we demonstrate a way to uncover human judgment of design idea similarity using two dimensional idea maps. We derive these maps by asking humans for simple similarity comparisons of the form “Is idea A more similar to idea B or to idea C?” We show that these maps give insight into the relationships between ideas and help understand the domain. We also propose that the novelty of ideas can be estimated by measuring how far items are on these maps. We demonstrate our methodology through the experimental evaluations on two datasets of colored polygons (known answer) and milk frothers (unknown answer) sketches. We show that these maps shed light on factors considered by raters in judging idea similarity. We also show how maps change when less data is available or false/noisy ratings are provided. This method provides a new direction of research into deriving ground truth novelty metrics by combining human judgments and computational methods. 

   more » « less
5. Interpreting Idea Maps: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal What Makes Ideas Novel

   Ahmed, F.; Ramachandran, S.K.; Fuge, M.; Hunter, S.; Miller, S. (February 2019, Journal of mechanical design)

   Assessing similarity between design ideas is an inherent part of many design evaluations to measure novelty. In such evaluation tasks, humans excel at making mental connections among diverse knowledge sets to score ideas on their uniqueness. However, their decisions about novelty are often subjective and difficult to explain. In this paper, we demonstrate a way to uncover human judgment of design idea similarity using two-dimensional (2D) idea maps. We derive these maps by asking participants for simple similarity comparisons of the form “Is idea A more similar to idea B or to idea C?” We show that these maps give insight into the relationships between ideas and help understand the design domain. We also propose that novel ideas can be identified by finding outliers on these idea maps. To demonstrate our method, we conduct experimental evaluations on two datasets—colored polygons (known answer) and milk frother sketches (unknown answer). We show that idea maps shed light on factors considered by participants in judging idea similarity and the maps are robust to noisy ratings. We also compare physical maps made by participants on a white-board to their computationally generated idea maps to compare how people think about spatial arrangement of design items. This method provides a new direction of research into deriving ground truth novelty metrics by combining human judgments and computational methods. 

   more » « less