Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Admin
Problem Set 0 grades posted
Problem Set 1 due tomorrow
Outline
Similarity and generalization
Break
Yet . . .
empirically, similarity judgments show
strong and systematic regularities
theoretically, similarity plays a crucial role
in many accounts of how the mind works
Similarity is everywhere
Perceptual grouping
Similarity is everywhere
Perceptual grouping
Categorization
Similarity is everywhere
Perceptual grouping
Categorization
Reasoning
given that lions have protein K in their
blood, what other animals have protein K?
Similarity is everywhere
Perceptual grouping
Categorization
Reasoning
Modeling
language
Modeling similarity
Can we come up with a formal account
of what makes two things similar?
Two approaches
spaces (Shepard)
features (Tversky)
Roger Shepard
Developed methods for
identifying mental
structure from behavior
Response time
Mental
rotation
Angle of rotation
Roger Shepard
Roger Shepard
Shepards strategy
Similarity is a fuzzy notion what is a better
way of thinking about these judgments?
what is the underlying computational problem?
Shepards strategy
Similarity is a fuzzy notion what is a better
way of thinking about these judgments?
what is the underlying computational problem?
Shepards strategy
Similarity is a fuzzy notion what is a better
way of thinking about these judgments?
what is the underlying computational problem?
Spatial representations
x
consequential
region
brightness
Spatial representations
x
y
hue
brightness
Spatial representations
x
y
hue
Best way to represent similarity between points?
brightness
Spatial representations
x
y
hue
One way to do it is: distance!
Euclidean distance = shortest path
Spatial representations
brightness
physical dimension
x
y
hue
Shepard was interested in psychological space,
and NOT physical parameter space!
Spatial representations
brightness
physical dimension
x
y
hue
How do we obtain a psychological space?
Spatial representations
brightness
physical dimension
x
y
hue
How do we obtain a psychological space?
Shepard discovered how! to be continued
Psychological similarity
d ( a ,b )
similarity decreases
exponentially with
distance in
psychological space
Psychological similarity
d ( a ,b )
similarity decreases
exponentially with
distance in
psychological space
Psychological similarity
d ( a ,b )
similarity decreases
exponentially with
distance in
psychological space
WHY?
Y-axis:
Probability that y is in
the consequential
region, given x is.
Possible
hypotheses
(consequential
regions) are
overlapping
intervals of all
possible sizes
Example 1
Interval
includes only
the original
value of 60
Example 2
Interval
includes 58-60
(size of 3)
Smaller
intervals more
probable than
large intervals
(bar thickness)
All probabilities
sum to 1
Case 1:
Stimulus y also
has a value of 60
y is inside all
possible intervals
that include x
Probability that y
is in region is 1.
Case 2:
Stimulus y has a
value of 61
y is inside 16 out
of 21 bars
y is inside 6 less
bars than before
Total probability
of being in the
consequential
region shrinks
Psychological similarity
d ( a ,b )
similarity decreases
exponentially with
distance in
psychological space
Break
Up next:
Spaces vs. features
Psychological similarity
S(a,b) = e
similarity decreases
exponentially with
distance in
psychological space
Amos Tversky
Famous for his work with
Daniel Kahneman on
heuristics and biases
Pursued an axiomatic
approach to modeling
Properties of distances
From the metric axioms:
symmetry
d(a,b) = d(b,a)
triangle inequality d(a,c) d(a,b) + d(b,c)
(Tversky, 1977)
(Tversky, 1977)
(Tversky, 1977)
(Tversky, 1977)
Constraints on neighborhoods
Nearest neighbors
Constraints on neighborhoods
To how many points can a point be the
nearest neighbor?
1 dimension:
Constraints on neighborhoods
To how many points can a point be the
nearest neighbor?
1 dimension: 2
Constraints on neighborhoods
To how many points can a point be the
nearest neighbor?
2 dimensions:
Constraints on neighborhoods
To how many points can a point be the
nearest neighbor?
2 dimensions: 5
Constraints on neighborhoods
To how many points can a point be the
nearest neighbor?
These constraints
may not mix well
with similarity
2 dimensions: 5
Constraints on neighborhoods
Evidence: Hierarchical structures require
some concepts to be the nearest neighbors of
many others
fruit
apple
orange
peach
pear
(Tversky & Hutchinson, 1986)
Constraints on neighborhoods
Evidence: Hierarchical structures require
some concepts to be the nearest neighbors of
many others
Fruit should be
more similar to
apple than apple
is to orange
fruit
apple
orange
Problem?
peach
pear
(Tversky & Hutchinson, 1986)
Properties of distances
From the metric axioms:
symmetry
d(a,b) = d(b,a)
triangle inequality d(a,c) d(a,b) + d(b,c)
Tverskys Approach
Borrows from set theory
Stimuli are sets of features
banana = {yellow, curved, }
Intuition
Two stimuli (two sets of features) can have
overlap
However, distinctive or salient features
also matter
Tverskys Approach
Identifies axioms that must be satisfied:
Matching
Monotonicity
Independence
Solvability
Invariance
AB
BA
S(a,b) = q f (A B) - a f (A - B) - b f (B - A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
A: set of features of a
B: set of features of b
f: function from sets to numbers
: free parameters, all 0
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S (a, b) f ( A B) f ( A B) f ( B A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
A: set of features of a
B: set of features of b
f: function from sets to numbers
: free parameters, all 0
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S (a, b) f ( A B) f ( A B) f ( B A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
A: set of features of a
B: set of features of b
f: function from sets to numbers
: free parameters, all 0
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S (a, b) f ( A B) f ( A B) f ( B A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
A: set of features of a
B: set of features of b
f: function from sets to numbers
: free parameters, all 0
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S (a, b) f ( A B) f ( A B) f ( B A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S (a, b) f ( A B) f ( A B) f ( B A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
distinctive
features of b
AB
BA
S(a,b) = q f (A B) - a f (A - B) - b f (B - A)
common
features
distinctive
features of a
A: set of features of a
B: set of features of b
f: function from sets to numbers
weights features by salience
distinctive
features of b
Tversky on asymmetry
S(a,b) = q f (A B) - a f (A - B) - b f (B - A)
Empirical finding: more prominent or
prototypical stimulus (a) is the better
target of similarity
Tversky on asymmetry
S(a,b) = q f (A B) - a f (A - B) - b f (B - A)
Empirical finding: more prominent or
prototypical stimulus (a) is the better
target of similarity
We say the variant is like the prototype
Assume a = prototype, b = variant
So, we want: S(b,a) > S(a,b)
Tversky on asymmetry
S(a,b) = q f (A B) - a f (A - B) - b f (B - A)
Empirical finding: more prominent,
salient, prototypical stimulus (a) is
the better target of similarity
S(b,a) - S(a,b) = (a -b )[ f (B - A) - f (A - B)]
S(b,a) > S(a,b) under two conditions:
>
f (AB) > f (BA): f (prototype) > f (variant),
i.e., more features or more highly weighted
features for the prototype than the variant
Summary
Similarity (or generalization) can sometimes
be described as decreasing exponentially
with distance in psychological space
But Tverskys arguments work against a
simple translation from distance to similarity
different kinds of representations for different
kinds of stimuli?
Next week
Discovering mental representations
using models of similarity as the basis for
methods for finding spaces/features