Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 1989 / Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction

Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction

Paper · 1989 · Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard

Summary

Holyoak and Thagard ask how a reasoner decides which parts of a familiar source situation correspond to which parts of a new target. This step underlies knowledge transfer in problem solving, explanation, argument and metaphor. Because the number of possible one-to-one mappings grows explosively, they propose that three soft pressures jointly guide mapping:

  • Structural consistency: relations should correspond isomorphically.
  • Semantic similarity: mapped predicates should have similar meanings.
  • Pragmatic centrality: elements that matter for the analogist's goal should weigh more.

The theory is implemented in ACME (Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine). ACME builds a network whose units represent candidate element pairings. Units that cohere excite each other, and rival units inhibit each other. A cooperative parallel relaxation procedure then settles on the set of pairings that best satisfies all constraints together. ACME was run on problem, story, explanatory, formal and argumentative analogies and on metaphors. It exploits semantic and pragmatic cues when they are available, yet still maps purely isomorphic analogs that share no similar elements. The theory also fits human findings on the effects of consistency and similarity. Unlike Gentner's mainly structural account, it treats analogy as multi-constraint satisfaction.

Key points

  • The search problem is large. With m predicates and n constants per analog, there are m!n! candidate mappings. Analogs with 10 predicates and 5 constants already exceed 400 million.
  • ACME treats mapping like stereo vision, following Marr & Poggio. Local constraints interact until a single coherent set of correspondences emerges.
  • ACME requires semantic and pragmatic weights to be supplied directly. Its companion retrieval model, ARCS (Analog Retrieval by Constraint Satisfaction), derives semantic similarity from WordNet relations such as superordination and meronymy.
  • The authors acknowledge several limitations. Predicates map only to predicates with the same number of arguments, and converse relations such as surround/enclosed-by cannot be matched. Re-representation of analogs is not addressed.
  • The program was also implemented on the Connection Machine and reimplemented in *LISP. The authors present parallel constraint satisfaction as closer to Gestalt psychology than to associationism.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓Princeton UniversityPrinceton · United States137 works · 53,849 citations🎓University of California, Los AngelesLos Angeles · United States110 works · 58,034 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 19,503 worksArtificial Intelligence · 18,805 worksPsychology · 1,673 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 950 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Reasoning · 1,948 works

Cite

Cite as Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard. 1989. Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog1303_1

@inproceedings{holyoak1989analogical,
  title = {{Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction}},
  author = {Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard},
  booktitle = {Cognitive Science},
  year = {1989},
  doi = {10.1207/s15516709cog1303\_1},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1303_1}
}

References

71 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Anderson, J.R., &Thompson, R. (1989). Use of analogy in a production system architecture. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. London: Cambridge University Press. find
  2. Black, M. (1962). Mode& and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. find
  3. Brown, A.L., Kane, M.J., & Echols, K. (1986). Young children’s mental models determine transfer across problems with a common goal structure. Cognitive Development, 1, 103-122. find
  4. Burstein, M.H. (1986). Amodel of learning by incremental analogical reasoning and debugging. In R. hfichalski. J.G. Carbonell & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artficial intelligence approach (Vol. 2). Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann. find
  5. Carbonell, J.G. (1983). Leaming by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past experience. In R. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artif7cial intelligence approach. Palo Alto, CA: Tioga Press. find
  6. Carbonell, J.G. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2). Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann. find
  7. Coombs, C.H., Dawes, R.M., & Tvcrsky, A. (1970). Mathematicalpsychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. find
  8. Darden, L. (1983). Artificial intelligence and philosophy of science: Reasoning by analogy in theory construction. In P. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), PSA 1982 (Vol. 2). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Society. find
  9. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (Whole No. 270). find
  10. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Gentnu, D. (1986). The structure-mapping engine. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman. find
  11. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Gentner, D. (ii press). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Art&ial Intelligence. Submission Date: December 13, 1988.
  12. Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D.S. Miall (Ed.), Meluphoc Problems andperspeclives. Brighton, England: Harvester Press. find
  13. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-!lO.
  14. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical reasoning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. London: Cambridge University Press. find
  15. Gentner, D.. & Landers, R. (1985). Analogical reminding: A good match is hard to find. In Proceedings of the International Tuscan, AZ. find
  16. Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, IO, 277-300. find
  17. Gholson, B., Bymard, L.A., Long, D., Morgan, D., & Leeming, F.C. (1988). Problem solving, recall, isomorphic transfer, and non-isomorphic transfer among third-grade and fourth-grade children. Cognitive Development, 3. 31-53. find
  18. Gick. M.L.. & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cogntive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
  19. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, l-38. find
  20. Grossberg. S. (1978). A theory of visual coding, memory, and development. In E.L.J. Leeuwenberg & H.F.J. Buffart (Eds.), Formal theories of visual perception. New York: Wiley. find
  21. Halford, G.S. (1987). A structure-mapping approach to cognitive development. Internationul Journal of Psychology, 22, 609442. find
  22. Halford, G.S., &Wilson, W.H. (1980). A category theory approach to cognitive development. Cognifive Psychology. 12. 35641. find
  23. Hall, R. (1989). Computational approaches to analogical reasoning: A comparative analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 39, 39-120. find
  24. Hammond, K.J. (1986). Case-basedplanning: An integrated theory ofplanning, learning, and memory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven. CT. find
  25. Hesse, M.B. (1966). Mode& and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press. ’ Hofstadter, D.R. (1984). The Copycat project: An experiment in nondeterministicand creative x analogies. A.1:’ Laboratory Memo 755). Cambridge, MA: MIT. find
  26. Hofstadtk.‘D.R., & Mitchell, M. (1988). Conceptual slippage and mapping: A report on the Copycat project. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Sci-.ence Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. find
  27. Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett. R.E.. & Thagard, P. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and dkcovety. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. find
  28. Holyoak, K.J. (1982). An analogical framework for literary interpretation. Poe&s, 21, 3’. 105-126. find
  29. Holyoak, K.J. (1984). Mental models in problem solving. In J.R. Anderson & S.M. Kosslyn (Eds.). Tutorials in learning and memory: Esroys in honor of Gordon Bower. San Francisco: Freeman. find
  30. Holyoak. K.J. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), Thepsy-chology of teaming and motivation (Vol. 19). New York: Academic. find
  31. Holyoak, K.J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. find
  32. Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1989). A computational In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (E&j, Similarity Cambridge University Press. find
  33. Coqference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. model of analogical problem solving. and analogical rwsoning. London: HOLYOAK AND THAGARD Holyoak, K.J.. & Thagard, P. (in press). A constraint-satisfaction approach to analogue retrieval and mapping. In K.J. Gilhooly, M.T.G. Keane, R.H. Logie, &G.Erdos (E… find
  34. Indurkhya, B. (1987). Approximate semantic transference: A computational theory of metaphors and analogies. Cognitive Science, 11, 445-480. find
  35. Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1985). Purpose-directed analogy. Proceedings ofthe Seventh Annuul Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Irvine, CA: Cognitive Science’ Society. find
  36. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182. find
  37. Kittay, E. (1987). Metaphor: its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  38. Kolodner, J.L., & Simpson, R.L. (1988). The MEDIATOR: A cuse study of (I case-based problem solver (Tech. Rep. No. GIT-ICS-88/11). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Information and Computer Science. find
  39. Kolodner, J.L., Simpson, R.L.. & Sycara, E. (1985). A process model of case-based reasoning in problem solving. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann. find
  40. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. find
  41. Journal of Personality and Social Lehnert, W. (1987). Learning to integrate syntax and semantics. In P. Langley (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann. find
  42. Maclane, S. (1971). Categories for the working mathematician. New York: Springer-Verlag. find
  43. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: Freeman. find
  44. Marr, D., L Poggio, T. (1976). Cooperative computation of stereo disparity. Science, 194, 283-287. find
  45. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychologicul Review, 88, 375-407. find
  46. Miller, G.A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metuphor ond thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. find
  47. Miller, G.A., Fellbaum, C., Kegl, J., & Miller, K. (1988). WordNet: An electronic lexical reference system based on theories of lexical memory (Tech. Rep. No. 11). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory. find
  48. Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Humun problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. find
  49. Novick, L.R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, SlO-520. find
  50. Palmer, S.E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B.H. Lloyd (Eds.). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. find
  51. Palmer, S.E. (1989). Levels of description in information processing theories of analogy. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. London: Cambridge University Press. find
  52. Polya, G. (1973). Mathematics ondpkuusible reusoning (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. find
  53. Reed, S.K., Ernst, G.W., & Banerji. R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-440. find
  54. Ross, B.J. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-.tion, 13, 629-639. find
  55. Rumelhart, D.E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J.L., t Hinton, G.E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J.L. McCelland, D.E. Rumelhart & the Psychology, 53, 636-647. find
  56. PDP Research Group (Eds.). Parallel distribuledprocessing: Explorations in the micro-of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. find
  57. Schank, R.C. (1982). Dynamic memory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. find
  58. Suppes, P., & Zinnes, J.L. (1963). Basic measurement theory. In R.D. Lute, R.R. Bush & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematicalpsychology. New York: Wiley. find
  59. Tarski, A. (1954). Contributions to the theory of models. Indigationes Mathematicae, 16.572-588. find
  60. Thagard, P. (1984). Frames, knowledge, and inference. Synthese, 61, 301-318. find
  61. Thagard, P. (1986). Parallel computation and the mind-body problem. Cognitive Science, 10, 301-318. find
  62. Thagard, P. (1988a). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. find
  63. Thagard, P. (1988b). Dimensions of analogy. In D. Helman (Ed.), Analogicalreasoning. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer. find
  64. Thagard. P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435-461. find
  65. Thagard, P., Cohen, D., & Holyoak, K.J. (1989). Chemical analogies. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Coflerence on Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann. find
  66. Thagard, P., Holyoak, K.J., Nelson, G., & Gochfeld, D. (1989). Analog retrieval by con-, stmint satiflation. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory. find
  67. Thagard, P,, & Nowak, 0. (1988). The explanatory coherence of continental drift. In A. Fine & J. Leplin, (Eds.), PSA 1988 (Vol. 1, pp. 118-126). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association. find
  68. Tourangeau, R., & Stemberg, R.J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cogni-structure tion, II, 203-204. find
  69. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352. find
  70. Winston, P.H. (1980). Learning and reasoning by analogy. Communications ofthe 689-703.
  71. Ziegler, W.P. (1976). Theory of modelling ACM, 23, York: Wiley. and simulation. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/holyoak-1989-analogical-mapping-constraint-satisfaction/