Abstract

Existing computational models of human inductive reasoning have been constructed based on psychological evaluations concerning the similarities or relationships between entities. However, the costs involved in collecting psychological evaluations for the sheer number of entities that exist mean that they are prohibitively impractical. In order to avoid this problem, the present article examines three types of models: a category-based neural network model, a category-based Bayesian model, and a feature-based neural network model. These models utilize the results of a statistical analysis of a Japanese corpus computing co-occurrence probabilities for word pairs, rather than using psychological evaluations. Argument strength ratings collected by a psychological experiment were found to correlate well with simulations for the category-based neural network model.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.