Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Occam and Bayes in predicting category intuitiveness

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider two models of unsupervised categorization, the simplicity model and the rational model. Their comparison is interesting because the models are based on proximal mathematical principles (minimum description length and Bayesian inference), but their implementation is very different (the simplicity model prefers groupings of similar items, while the rational model groupings which have higher utility). The models’ predictions were assessed with a series of artificial datasets, such that each dataset was designed to reflect a simple intuition about human categorization processes. In the case of linearly separable categories, such that each category was composed of two subgroups, and in the case of non-linearly separable categories, the predictions of the simplicity model and rational diverged. Implications for future developments in unsupervised categorization are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson JR (1991) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychol Rev 98: 409–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR, Matessa M (1992) Explorations of an incremental, Bayesian algorithm for categorization. Mach Learn 9: 275–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby FG, Queller S, Berretty PM (1999) On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Percept Psychophys 61: 1178–1199

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair M, Homa D (2001) Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning. Mem Cognit 29: 1153–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Chater N (1996) Reconciling simplicity and likelihood principles in perceptual organization. Psychol Rev 103: 566–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chater N (1999) The search for simplicity: a fundamental cognitive principle. Q J Exp Psychol 52: 273–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton BJ, Logan GD (1993) Evaluating a computational model of perceptual grouping. Percept Psychophys 53: 403–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton BJ, Logan GD (1999) Judgments of perceptual groups: reliability and sensitivity to stimulus transformation. Percept Psychophys 61: 1320–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Corter JE, Gluck MA (1992) Explaining basic categories: feature predictability and information. Psychol Bull 2: 291–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman J (2000) Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407: 630–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner WR (1974) The processing of information and structure. LEA, Potomac, Md

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn U, Chater N (1998) Similarity and rules: distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable?. Cognition 65: 197–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines P, Pothos EM, Chater N (2007) A non-parametric approach to simplicity clustering. Appl Artif Intell 21: 729–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg JE, McAlister E (1953) A quantitative approach to figural goodness. J Exp Psychol 46: 361–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones GV (1983) Identifying basic categories. Psychol Bull 94: 423–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komatsu LK (1992) Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychol Bull 112: 500–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzanowski WJ, Marriott FHC (1995) Multivariate analysis, part 2: classification, covariance structures and repeated measurements. Arnold, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky S, Roberts L, Yang L (2006) Knowledge partitioning in categorization: boundary conditions. Mem Cognit 34: 1676–1688

    Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Vitányi P (1997) An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (2nd Edition). Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Love BC, Medin DL, Gureckis TM (2004) SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychol Rev 111: 309–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mareschal D, French RM, Quinn P (2000) A connectionist account of asymmetric category learning in infancy. Dev Psychol 36: 635–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL (1983) Structural principles of categorization. In: Shepp B, Tighe T (eds) Interaction: perception, development and cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 203–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Schwanenflugel PJ (1981) Linear separability in classification learning. J Exp Psychol [Hum Learn] 75: 355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton F, Wills AJ (2004) The influence of stimulus properties on category construction. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30: 407–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton FN, Longmore CA, Wills AJ (2009) Processes of overall similarity sorting in free classification. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34(3): 676–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GL (1982) Cue validity and levels of categorization. Psychol Bull 91: 174–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky RM (1989) Further tests of an exemplar-similarity approach to relating identification and categorization. J Exp Psychol Percept Psychophys 45: 279–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky RM (1990) Relations between exemplar-similarity and likelihood models of classification. J Math Psychol 34: 393–418

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky RM (1992) Similarity scaling and cognitive process models. Annu Rev Psychol 43: 25–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky RM, Zaki SR (2002) Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30: 936–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford M, Chater N (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychol Rev 101: 608–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM (2005) The rules versus similarity distinction. Behav Brain Sci 28: 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Chater N (2002) A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cogn Sci 26: 303–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Chater N (2005) Unsupervised categorization and category learning. Q J Exp Psychol 58A: 733–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Wolff JG (2006) The simplicity and power model for inductive inference. Artif Intell Rev 26: 211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Close J (2008) One or two dimensions in spontaneous classification: a simplicity approach. Cognition 107: 581–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissanen J (1978) Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica 14: 465–471

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E, Mervis CB (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol 7: 573–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruts W, Storms G, Hampton JA (2004) Linear separability in superordinate natural language concepts. Mem Cognit 32: 83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanborn AN, Griffiths TL, Navarro D (2006) A more rational model of categorization. In: Sun R, Miyake N (eds) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Schyns PG (1991) A modular neural network model of concept acquisition. Cogn Sci 15: 461–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard RN (1987) Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237: 1317–1323

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JD, Murray MJ Jr, Minda JP (1997) Straight talk about linear separability. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 23: 659–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomonoff RJ (1964) A formal theory of inductive inference. Parts I and II. Inform Control 7: 1–22, 224–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart N, Chater N (2002) The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28: 893–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum J, Griffiths TL (2001) Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behav Brain Sci 24: 629–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths TL, Kemp C (2006) Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 10: 309–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84: 327–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattenmaker WD (1995) Knowledge structures and linear separability: integrating information in object and social categorization. Cogn Psychol 28: 274–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JG (2003) Information compression by multiple alignment, unification and search as a unifying principle in computing and cognition. Artif Intell Rev 19(3): 193–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK

    Emmanuel M. Pothos

Authors
  1. Emmanuel M. Pothos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel M. Pothos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pothos, E.M. Occam and Bayes in predicting category intuitiveness. Artif Intell Rev 28, 257–274 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-009-9102-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-009-9102-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation