Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This perspective paper argues that AI alignment must cover not only what machines should prefer but how they generalise, and it maps the gap between human and machine generalisation across three dimensions to show why current alignment is…

desk verdict A useful conceptual map of human and machine generalisation, but the central call for new alignment methods rests on an unargued normative premise that the paper's own output-alignment caveat undermines. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15626 v2 pith:2RXPRQK5 submitted 2024-11-23 cs.AI

Filip Ilievski , Barbara Hammer , Frank van Harmelen , Benjamin Paassen , Sascha Saralajew , Ute Schmid , Michael Biehl , Marianna Bolognesi
show 17 more authors
Xin Luna Dong Kiril Gashteovski Pascal Hitzler Giuseppe Marra Pasquale Minervini Martin Mundt Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo Alessandro Oltramari Gabriella Pasi Zeynep G. Saribatur Luciano Serafini John Shawe-Taylor Vered Shwartz Gabriella Skitalinskaya Clemens Stachl Gido M. van de Ven Thomas Villmann
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords generalisationAIalignmenthuman-AIteamingcognitivescienceout-of-distributionneurosymboliccompositionalityevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that AI alignment is incomplete if it only makes AI act according to human preferences: it must also align how machines generalise. Humans and machines arrive at different products of generalisation — humans form sparse, compositional abstractions and causal concepts from few examples, whereas statistical AI fits probability distributions that stay close to the training data. The paper maps these differences across three dimensions — notions, methods, and evaluation of generalisation — and concludes that aligning machine generalisation to human-like ability requires new methods, not just new evaluation. A sympathetic reader would take this as a research agenda: treat generalisation behaviour as a first-class alignment target in human-AI teaming.

What carries the argument

The organising device is a three-part decomposition of generalisation: as a process (abstraction, extension, analogy), as a product (categories, rules, prototypes, exemplars, probability distributions), and as an operator (applying a product to new data). This decomposition shows that process-level differences drive product-level differences, and that the operator-level divergence — how far a model can be applied beyond its data — is the alignment gap. The paper also categorises machine methods by their source-target relationship: statistical generalisation transfers observations to a population, knowledge-informed generalisation seeks evidence for an explicit theory, and instance-based generalisation translates from specific cases to new specific cases.

What would settle it

If human–AI teams performed at or above the best individual human or best AI across a broad battery of out-of-distribution and compositional tasks without any generalisation-specific alignment, the claim that alignment must target generalisation would be weakened. A direct test is to run paired human and model assessments on the same distribution-shift and compositionality benchmarks and check whether equalising preference agreement alone leaves systematic generalisation disagreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that because humans and machines use different processes (e.g., abstraction vs. data-driven learning), they arrive at different products (e.g., categories and rules vs. probability distributions) that generalise differently; therefore, if we wish to align machines to human-like generalisation ability as an operator, we need new methods to achieve machine generalisation. The paper substantiates this by surveying three families of AI methods — statistical, knowledge-informed, and instance-based — showing they have complementary strengths: statistical methods offer universal approximation but black-box behaviour and poor out-of-distribution performance, knowledge-informed methods provide compositionality and explainability but are limited to formalisable domains, and instance-based methods are robust to distribution shift and support lifelong learning but depend critically on the chosen representation. On evaluation, it argues that current practice — train/test splits, distribution-shift measures, and contamination checks — is necessary but insufficient because human notions of under- and overgeneralisation involve adapting to task variations and avoiding hallucination-like overconfidence beyond the data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that human-like generalisation is the right standard for AI alignment; the paper asserts this as the goal but does not defend it against alternatives such as task-level competence or value alignment without cognitive mimicry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Alignment research should target generalisation behaviour, not only stated preferences, because human-AI teaming fails when machine generalisation behaviour diverges from human expectation.
  • No single AI method family currently provides human-like generalisation across the board: statistical methods lack out-of-distribution generalisation and compositionality, knowledge-informed methods are limited to formalisable domains, and instance-based methods depend on suitable representations.
  • Evaluation of generalisation must go beyond IID train/test splits to measure distributional shifts, under- and overgeneralisation, and the memorisation–generalisation boundary, since test-set leakage in foundation models can invalidate reported performance.
  • Neurosymbolic and hybrid methods, plus new theory for few-shot and zero-shot feasibility, are needed to close the operator-level gap between humans and machines.
  • The framework implies that generalisation guarantees, such as compositionality and robustness bounds, should be part of the certification of AI systems in human-AI teaming contexts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If human-like generalisation becomes the alignment target, then benchmarks for alignment should be built around human performance on distribution shifts and compositional tasks, not just human preference ratings, which would make alignment measurable across the three dimensions the paper defines.
  • A concrete test suggested by the framework: measure whether a model's error profile on out-of-distribution tasks matches the error profile of human raters on the same tasks; a systematic mismatch would quantify misalignment in operator-level generalisation.
  • The paper leaves implicit that aligning generalisation may require giving AI systems explicit causal models, common-sense priors, or compositional inductive biases rather than more data, because the human advantage draws on prior-driven abstraction rather than raw statistical learning.
  • The argument extends naturally to generative AI: hallucination is an overgeneralisation rather than a preference failure, so alignment methods that only tune preferences may miss the generalisation errors that most undermine trust in human-AI teams.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This perspective paper argues that human and machine generalisation differ systematically and that aligning machine generalisation with human generalisation is an overlooked aspect of AI alignment. It develops a trichotomy of generalisation as process, product, and operator; maps AI method families (statistical, knowledge-informed, and instance-based) onto these notions; and surveys evaluation practices and open challenges. The central claim, stated in Section 3.4, is that because humans and machines use different processes and produce different products, and if one wishes to align machines to human-like generalisation ability, then new methods are needed. The paper does not present new experiments or formal results; its contribution is a synthesis and a research agenda for interdisciplinary work at the intersection of AI and cognitive science.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper identifies a genuine gap: alignment research has focused on preferences, while generalisation behaviour has received less attention. The paper's strengths are its interdisciplinary scope, the clear process/product/operator taxonomy, and the structured comparison of statistical, analytical, and instance-based methods in Tables 2 and 3. It is also honest about caveats such as human overgeneralisation and context-dependent categorisation. However, as a position paper it does not provide a formal definition of generalisation alignment, a defended normative target, or quantitative evidence for the capability attributions in Table 3. The paper would be substantially strengthened if it specified a measurable criterion for generalisation alignment and made explicit which claims are consensus views and which are the authors' own position. Its value is heuristic: it maps a territory and poses questions rather than settling them.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4] The central claim is conditional: 'if we wish to align machines to human-like generalisation ability, we need new methods to achieve machine generalisation.' As stated, this is close to tautological, and the load-bearing content is the normative antecedent. The paper does not defend human-like generalisation as the appropriate alignment target against alternatives such as task-level competence under distribution shift, user-specified generalisation preferences, or calibrated robustness. Because the abstract and Section 1 frame alignment as acting according to preferences, the relationship between preference alignment and generalisation alignment must be made explicit. Please add a substantive defence of the normative premise, or explicitly reframe the contribution as a conditional research agenda.
  2. [§2] The output-level sufficiency caveat undercuts the inference from process/product differences to the need for new methods. Section 2 states that for effective human-AI teaming it is sufficient that the output of a learnt model is aligned with human cognitive concepts, and footnote 1 disclaims that the capabilities enabling preferences need to be similar between humans and AI. If only outputs matter, the fact that humans and machines use different processes and produce different products does not by itself imply that current alignment methods are inadequate. The paper should show a concrete way in which machine generalisation behaviour on novel inputs feeds back into preference satisfaction, and it should reconcile Section 2 with Section 6, where realignment is said to impose stricter requirements for collaboration at the process level.
  3. [§5.4] No operational definition of 'generalisation alignment' is provided. Section 5.4 lists three aspects (distributional shifts, under- and overgeneralisation, and memorisation versus generalisation) but does not specify a criterion or metric that would distinguish aligned from misaligned generalisation. Consequently, the examples offered in Sections 1 and 4.1 (hallucinations, adversarial sensitivity, OOD brittleness) are suggestive but do not substantiate a claim of misalignment. Moreover, 'human-like generalisation' is not a single coherent benchmark: the paper acknowledges human overgeneralisation (stereotyping) and context-dependent categorisation, so the target needs to specify which human generalisation is intended (expert versus lay, normative versus descriptive, individual versus population). A measurable definition is needed to make the central claim testable.
  4. [Table 3] Table 3's binary '+'/'-' assignments are too coarse and are in places inconsistent with the body text. For example, Section 4.1 states that few-shot and zero-shot mechanisms allow statistical methods to build on learned representations, yet Table 3 assigns 'learning from a few samples' a '-' for statistical methods; Section 4.2 discusses recent progress in compositional generalisation in deep learning through analytical components, yet 'compositionality' is '-' for statistical methods. The table also lacks quantitative evidence or specific references in the evaluation column. Please either soften the table to reflect the caveats discussed in Section 4, or provide evidence for each entry.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5] There is a typographical error in the sentence 'machines are increasingly tested for their ability tohandle complex data'; it should be 'to handle complex data'.
  2. [§6] The phrase 'diluting generalisability to align with empirical observations' is unclear and should be rephrased.
  3. [References] Reference [75] is the arXiv preprint of the present manuscript; in a journal version this self-citation should be replaced with the published version or removed.
  4. [Table 3] The table header 'Method EvaluationS A I' is malformed; the layout should be cleaned up so that the method families and evaluation column are clearly separated.
  5. [§3.3] The 'operator' notion could be defined more sharply: as presented, applying a generalisation to new data is close to the standard notion of model prediction, and the distinction between 'product' and 'operator' should be clarified.
  6. [§5.2] The definition of overgeneralisation as making 'over-confidently false predictions' is unusual; in cognitive science overgeneralisation typically means applying a rule or concept too broadly. Please align the terminology with the cognitive-science literature or justify the deviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective synthesis whose central claim is a conditional research agenda, not a derivation or prediction; its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a perspective paper, not a derivation chain. The central claim in Section 3.4 is explicitly conditional: 'if we wish to align machines to human-like generalisation ability (as an operator), we need new methods to achieve machine generalisation.' The antecedent is a normative research target, not an output derived from the paper's own inputs, and the consequent is a research agenda rather than a fitted prediction. The paper presents no equations whose outputs equal their inputs, no parameters fitted to data and then renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. The self-citations that appear are bibliographic and contextual rather than load-bearing: reference [75] is the paper's own arXiv preprint cited only to locate the manuscript; references such as [69], [74], [80], and [148] support background claims about neurosymbolic AI, human-centric AI, and emerging benchmarks, but those claims are also independently supported by the broader literature cited in the same sections. The footnote in Section 1, stating that alignment 'does not require the corresponding capabilities that enable those preferences to be realised to be similar between humans and AI,' does create tension with the later emphasis on process-level collaboration, but that is an internal consistency or scope concern, not circularity: the paper's output-level alignment caveat is an input assumption, not a conclusion forced by a self-referential definition. Likewise, the observation that the normative choice of human-like generalisation as an alignment target is undefended is a legitimate correctness critique, but under the review rules, a missing defense of a normative premise is not circularity. The mapping of generalisation into process/product/operator along with methods and evaluation is a synthesis of existing ideas, not a renaming of one known result as a new derivation. Overall, no step in the paper's argument reduces to its own inputs, and no claim is statistically forced by a prior fit. Score 0 reflects the absence of circularity, while the normative and consistency concerns belong in a correctness assessment rather than a circularity pass.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; its contributions are organizational. It relies on several domain assumptions, most notably the normative status of human generalisation as the alignment target.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Generalisation is a central component of AI alignment and should be aligned between humans and machines.
    The paper's framing assumes alignment of generalisation is a key requirement, stated in the abstract and Section 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Human-like generalisation is the appropriate benchmark target for machine generalisation alignment.
    Section 3.4 asserts that machines should be aligned to human-like generalisation ability without defending this normative choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The process/product/operator trichotomy captures the relevant structure of generalisation concepts.
    Section 3 introduces this taxonomy as the organizing scheme, but it is a proposal, not an established result.
  • domain assumption Statistical, knowledge-informed, and instance-based method families are a useful partition for analysing generalisation.
    Section 4 uses this partition, which is common in AI but not exhaustive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RXPRQK5

@misc{pith2026241115626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RXPRQK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15626}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in AI -- including generative approaches -- have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment, that is, to make AI systems act according to our preferences. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise. In cognitive science, human generalisation commonly involves abstraction and concept learning. In contrast, AI generalisation encompasses out-of-domain generalisation in machine learning, rule-based reasoning in symbolic AI, and abstraction in neurosymbolic AI. In this perspective paper, we combine insights from AI and cognitive science to identify key commonalities and differences across three dimensions: notions of, methods for, and evaluation of generalisation. We map the different conceptualisations of generalisation in AI and cognitive science along these three dimensions and consider their role for alignment in human-AI teaming. This results in interdisciplinary challenges across AI and cognitive science that must be tackled to provide a foundation for effective and cognitively supported alignment in human-AI teaming scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Healthy Distrust in AI systems

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors propose 'healthy distrust' as a justified, careful stance toward AI usage practices, arguing that distrust can coexist with trust and is key to respecting human autonomy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

180 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    From attri- bution maps to human-understandable explanations through concept relevance propagation

    Reduan Achtibat, Maximilian Dreyer, Ilona Eisenbraun, Sebastian Bosse, Thomas Wiegand, Wojciech Samek, and Sebastian Lapuschkin. From attri- bution maps to human-understandable explanations through concept relevance propagation. Nature Machine Intelligence , 5(9):1006–1019, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Controlling Multiple Errors Simultaneously with a PAC-Bayes Bound

    Reuben Adams, John Shawe-Taylor, and Benjamin Guedj. Controlling multiple errors simultaneously with a pac-bayes bound. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05560, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    D.W. Aha. Lazy Learning. Springer Netherlands, 2013. ISBN 9789401720533. URL https://books.google.de/books?id=b1CqCAAAQBAJ

    2013

  4. [4]

    A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augment- ing human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence

    Zeynep Akata et al. A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augment- ing human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(8):18–28, 2020. 21

    2020

  5. [5]

    Measuring compositionality in representation learning

    Jacob Andreas. Measuring compositionality in representation learning. ArXiv, abs/1902.07181, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 67749672

    arXiv 1902

  6. [6]

    Towards artificial argumentation

    Katie Atkinson, Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin, Anthony Hunter, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, Guillermo Simari, Matthias Thimm, and Serena Villata. Towards artificial argumentation. AI magazine , 38(3):25–36, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Mechanistic models versus machine learning, a fight worth fighting for the biological community? Biol Lett, 14(5), May 2018

    Ruth E Baker, Jose-Maria Pe˜ na, Jayaratnam Jayamohan, and Antoine J´ erusalem. Mechanistic models versus machine learning, a fight worth fighting for the biological community? Biol Lett, 14(5), May 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    The eu ai act and the wager on trustworthy ai

    Alejandro Bellog ´ ın, Oliver Grau, Stefan Larsson, Gerhard Schimpf, Biswa Sen- gupta, and G¨ urkan Solmaz. The eu ai act and the wager on trustworthy ai. Commun. ACM , 67(12):58–65, November 2024. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3665322. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3665322

    doi:10.1145/3665322 2024

Show all 180 references
  1. [9]

    Advancements in generative ai: A com- prehensive review of gans, gpt, autoencoders, diffusion model, and transformers

    Staphord Bengesi, Hoda El-Sayed, Md Kamruzzaman Sarker, Yao Houkpati, John Irungu, and Timothy Oladunni. Advancements in generative ai: A com- prehensive review of gans, gpt, autoencoders, diffusion model, and transformers. IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Managing extreme ai risks amid rapid progress

    Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Trevor Darrell, Yuval Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev- Shwartz, Gillian Hadfield, Jeff Clune, Tegan Maharaj, Frank Hutter, Atılım G¨ une¸ s Baydin, Sheila McIlraith, Qiqi Gao, Ashwin Acharya,...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    International ai safety report

    Yoshua Bengio, S¨ oren Mindermann, Daniel Privitera, Tamay Besiroglu, Rishi Bommasani, Stephen Casper, Yejin Choi, Philip Fox, Ben Garfinkel, Danielle Goldfarb, et al. International ai safety report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17805, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Berthet, M

    M. Berthet, M. Surbeck, and S. W. Townsend. Extensive compositionality in the vocal system of bonobos. Science, 388(6742):104–108, 2025. doi: 10.1126/science. adv1170. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adv1170

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    Optimal classification trees

    Dimitris Bertsimas and Jack Dunn. Optimal classification trees. Machine Learning, 106:1039–1082, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    The Shallow and the Deep: A biased introduction to neural net- works and old school machine learning

    Michael Biehl. The Shallow and the Deep: A biased introduction to neural net- works and old school machine learning . University of Groningen Press, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.21827/648c59c1a467e. 22

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Prototype selection for interpretable classification

    Jacob Bien and Robert Tibshirani. Prototype selection for interpretable classification. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 5(4):2403–2424, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

    Rishi Bommasani et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

  9. [17]

    Boult, Steve Cruz, Akshay R

    Terrance E. Boult, Steve Cruz, Akshay R. Dhamija, Manuel Gunther, James Henrydoss, and Walter J. Scheirer. Learning and the Unknown : Surveying Steps Toward Open World Recognition. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Stability and generalization

    Olivier Bousquet and Andr´ e Elisseeff. Stability and generalization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 2:499–526, 2002. URL http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/jmlr/ jmlr2.html#BousquetE02

    2002

  11. [19]

    The new dream team? a review of human-ai collaboration research from a human teamwork perspective

    Marvin Braun, Maike Greve, and Ulrich Gnewuch. The new dream team? a review of human-ai collaboration research from a human teamwork perspective. 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2020. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546

    2020

  13. [21]

    Goodnow, and George A

    Jerome Bruner, Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and George A. Austin. A Study of Thinking. Wiley, New York, 1956

    1956

  14. [22]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experi- ments with gpt-4

    S´ ebastien Bubeck et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experi- ments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    AI alignment and human reward

    Patrick Butlin. AI alignment and human reward. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 437–445, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Studies in reflecting abstraction

    Robert L Campell and Jean Piaget. Studies in reflecting abstraction. Psychology Press, London, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Knowledge graph embedding: A survey from the perspective of representation spaces

    Jiahang Cao, Jinyuan Fang, Zaiqiao Meng, and Shangsong Liang. Knowledge graph embedding: A survey from the perspective of representation spaces. ACM Comput. Surv. , 56(6), mar 2024. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3643806. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3643806

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Ai alignment with changing and influenceable reward functions

    Micah Carroll, Davis Foote, Anand Siththaranjan, Stuart Russell, and Anca Dragan. Ai alignment with changing and influenceable reward functions. In Pro- ceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , ICML’24. JMLR.org, 2024. 23

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mitigating forgetting in online continual learning via instance-aware parameter- ization

    Hung-Jen Chen, An-Chieh Cheng, Da-Cheng Juan, Wei Wei, and Min Sun. Mitigating forgetting in online continual learning via instance-aware parameter- ization. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2020

  20. [28]

    On the measure of intelligence

    Fran¸ cois Chollet. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Group equivariant convolutional networks

    Taco Cohen and Max Welling. Group equivariant convolutional networks. In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger, editors, Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 48 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2990–2999, New Yo...

    2016

  22. [30]

    The emergence of abstract ideas: Evidence from networks and babies

    Eliana Colunga and Linda B Smith. The emergence of abstract ideas: Evidence from networks and babies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , 358(1435):1205–1214, 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    Don’t drift away: Advances and applications of streaming and continual learn- ing

    Andrea Cossu, Davide Bacciu, Alessio Bernardo, Emanuele Della Valle, Alexan- der Gepperth, Federico Giannini, Barbara Hammer, and Giacomo Ziffer. Don’t drift away: Advances and applications of streaming and continual learn- ing. ESANN 2025 proceesdings , 2025. URL https://api....

    2025

  24. [32]

    Nearest neighbor pattern classification

    Thomas Cover and Peter Hart. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on information theory , 13(1):21–27, 1967

    1967

  25. [33]

    Geometrical and statistical properties of systems of lin- ear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition

    Thomas M Cover. Geometrical and statistical properties of systems of lin- ear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition. IEEE transactions on electronic computers, (3):326–334, 1965

    1965

  26. [34]

    Vasserman, Md

    Abhilekha Dalal, Rushrukh Rayan, Adrita Barua, Eugene Y. Vasserman, Md. Kamruzzaman Sarker, and Pascal Hitzler. On the value of labeled data and symbolic methods for hidden neuron activation analysis. In Tarek R. Besold, Artur d’Avila Garcez, Ernesto Jim´ enez-Ruiz, Roberto Co...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Benchmarks for automated commonsense reasoning: A survey

    Ernest Davis. Benchmarks for automated commonsense reasoning: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys , 56(4):1–41, 2023. 24

    2023

  28. [36]

    Design patterns for llm-based neuro-symbolic systems

    Maaike de Boer, Quirine Smit, Michael van Bekkum, Andr´ e Meyer-Vitali, and Thomas Schmid. Design patterns for llm-based neuro-symbolic systems. Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence (to appear) , 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Probabilistic inductive logic programming

    Luc De Raedt and Kristian Kersting. Probabilistic inductive logic programming. In Probabilistic inductive logic programming: theory and applications, pages 1–27. Springer, New York, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    An introduction to machine learning: a perspective from sta- tistical physics

    Aur´ elien Decelle. An introduction to machine learning: a perspective from sta- tistical physics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , page 128154, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Stereotyping and attitudinal effects under time pressure

    Anton J Dijker and Willem Koomen. Stereotyping and attitudinal effects under time pressure. European Journal of Social Psychology , 26(1):61–74, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H

    Mark Dingemanse, Dami´ an E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen, and Padraic Monaghan. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 19(10):603–615, Oct 2015. ISSN 1364-6613. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013. URL https://doi.org...

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Documenting large webtext corpora: A case study on the colossal clean crawled corpus

    Jesse Dodge, Maarten Sap, Ana Marasovi´ c, William Agnew, Gabriel Ilharco, Dirk Groeneveld, Margaret Mitchell, and Matt Gardner. Documenting large webtext corpora: A case study on the colossal clean crawled corpus. In Marie- Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Sc...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Rashomon sets for prototypical-part networks: Editing interpretable models in real-time

    Jon Donnelly, Zhicheng Guo, Alina Jade Barnett, Hayden McTavish, Chao- fan Chen, and Cynthia Rudin. Rashomon sets for prototypical-part networks: Editing interpretable models in real-time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01087 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A checklist to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing

    Tim Draws, Alisa Rieger, Oana Inel, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Nava Tintarev. A checklist to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on human computation and crowdsourcing , volume 9, pages 48–59, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks

    Jiafei Duan, Samson Yu, Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, and Cheston Tan. A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence , 6(2):230–244, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Engel and C

    A. Engel and C. van den Broeck. The Statistical Mechanics of Learning . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001. 25

    2001

  38. [46]

    The structure- mapping engine: Algorithm and examples

    Brian Falkenhainer, Kenneth D Forbus, and Dedre Gentner. The structure- mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial intelligence , 41(1):1–63, 1989

    1989

  39. [47]

    Genai against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models.Journal of Computational Social Science, pages 1–21, 2024

    Emilio Ferrara. Genai against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models.Journal of Computational Social Science, pages 1–21, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    When a relation tells more than a concept: Exploring and evaluating classifier decisions with corex

    Bettina Finzel, Patrick Hilme, Johannes Rabold, and Ute Schmid. When a relation tells more than a concept: Exploring and evaluating classifier decisions with corex. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01661 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Connectionism and cognitive architec- ture: A critical analysis

    Jerry A Fodor and Zenon W Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architec- ture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1-2):3–71, 1988

    1988

  42. [50]

    The subtlety of sameness: A theory and computer model of analogy-making

    Robert Matthew French. The subtlety of sameness: A theory and computer model of analogy-making . MIT press, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    Prototype augmented hypernetworks for continual learning, 2025

    Neil De La Fuente, Maria Pilligua, Daniel Vidal, Albin Soutiff, Cecilia Curreli, Daniel Cremers, and Andrey Barsky. Prototype augmented hypernetworks for continual learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07450

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Few-shot learning for medical text: A review of advances, trends, and opportunities

    Yao Ge, Yuting Guo, Sudeshna Das, Mohammed Ali Al-Garadi, and Abeed Sarker. Few-shot learning for medical text: A review of advances, trends, and opportunities. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 144:104458, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy

    Dedre Gentner. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2):155–170, 1983

    1983

  47. [55]

    Computational models of analogy

    Dedre Gentner and Kenneth D Forbus. Computational models of analogy. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: cognitive science, 2(3):266–276, 2011

    2011

  48. [56]

    Structure mapping in analogy and similarity

    Dedre Gentner and Arthur B Markman. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52(1):45, 1997

    1997

  49. [57]

    Theories of abstraction

    Fausto Giunchiglia, Adolfo Villafiorita, and Toby Walsh. Theories of abstraction. AI Commun. , 10(3,4):167–176, December 1997. ISSN 0921-7126

    1997

  50. [58]

    Language identification in the limit

    E Mark Gold. Language identification in the limit. Information and Con- trol, 10(5):447–474, 1967. ISSN 0019-9958. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0019-9958(67)91165-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0019995867911655. 26

    1967

  51. [60]

    A formal theory of commonsense psychology: How people think people think

    Andrew S Gordon and Jerry R Hobbs. A formal theory of commonsense psychology: How people think people think . Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  52. [61]

    Towards an ai co-scientist

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Felix Weissenberger, Keran Rong, Ryutaro Tanno, et al. Towards an ai co-scientist. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Grohs and G

    P. Grohs and G. Kutyniok, editors. Mathematical Aspects of Deep Learning . Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  54. [63]

    Legalbench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring legal reasoning in large language models

    Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel Ho, Christopher R´ e, Adam Chilton, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel Rockmore, Diego Zam- brano, et al. Legalbench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring legal reasoning in large language models. Advances in Ne...

    2023

  55. [64]

    Inductive programming meets the real world

    Sumit Gulwani, Jos´ e Hern´ andez-Orallo, Emanuel Kitzelmann, Stephen H Mug- gleton, Ute Schmid, and Benjamin Zorn. Inductive programming meets the real world. Communications of the ACM , 58(11):90–99, 2015

    2015

  56. [65]

    Learning with Recurrent Neural Networks

    Barbara Hammer. Learning with Recurrent Neural Networks . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000. ISBN 185233343X

    2000

  57. [66]

    S. Harnad. To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In H. Cohen and C. Lefebvre, editors, Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science (2nd edition), pages 21–54. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2017

    2017

  58. [67]

    Brown, Aditi Raghunathan, and Anca Dragan

    Jerry Zhi-Yang He, Zackory Erickson, Daniel S. Brown, Aditi Raghunathan, and Anca Dragan. Learning representations that enable generalization in assis- tive tasks. In 6th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2022. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=b88HF4vd ej

    2022

  59. [68]

    Benchmarking neural network robust- ness to common corruptions and perturbations

    Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking neural network robust- ness to common corruptions and perturbations. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  60. [69]

    Kamruzzaman Sarker, and Aaron Eberhart, editors

    Pascal Hitzler, Md. Kamruzzaman Sarker, and Aaron Eberhart, editors. Com- pendium of Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence , volume 369 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications . IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2023. ISBN 27 978-1-64368-406-2. doi: 10.3233/F AIA369

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    Toward human-level concept learning: Pattern benchmarking for AI algorithms

    Andreas Holzinger, Anna Saranti, Alessa Angerschmid, Bettina Finzel, Ute Schmid, and Heimo Mueller. Toward human-level concept learning: Pattern benchmarking for AI algorithms. Patterns, 4:100788, 2023

    2023

  62. [71]

    Dirk Hovy and Shannon L. Spruit. The social impact of natural language processing. In Katrin Erk and Noah A. Smith, editors, Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , pages 591–598, Berlin, Germany, Augus...

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    Mitigating catastrophic forgetting in large language models with self-synthesized rehearsal

    Jianheng Huang, Leyang Cui, Ante Wang, Chengyi Yang, Xinting Liao, Linfeng Song, Junfeng Yao, and Jinsong Su. Mitigating catastrophic forgetting in large language models with self-synthesized rehearsal. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Mar- tins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors, Proceedings o...

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    Experiments in Induction

    Earl B Hunt, Janet Marin, and Philip J Stone. Experiments in Induction . Academic Press, New York, 1966

    1966

  65. [74]

    Human-Centric AI with Common Sense

    Filip Ilievski. Human-Centric AI with Common Sense . Springer, 2025

    2025

  66. [75]

    Aligning generalisation between humans and machines

    Filip Ilievski, Barbara Hammer, Frank van Harmelen, Benjamin Paassen, Sascha Saralajew, Ute Schmid, Michael Biehl, Marianna Bolognesi, Xin Luna Dong, Kiril Gashteovski, et al. Aligning generalisation between humans and machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15626 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Semantics and cognition , volume 8

    Ray S Jackendoff. Semantics and cognition , volume 8. MIT press, 1985

    1985

  68. [77]

    AI alignment: A comprehensive survey

    Jiaming Ji, Tianyi Qiu, Boyuan Chen, Borong Zhang, Hantao Lou, Kaile Wang, Yawen Duan, Zhonghao He, Jiayi Zhou, Zhaowei Zhang, et al. AI alignment: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19852 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. , 55(12), mar 2023. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3571730. URL https://doi.org...

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    Adversarial examples for evaluating reading com- prehension systems

    Robin Jia and Percy Liang. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading com- prehension systems. In Martha Palmer, Rebecca Hwa, and Sebastian Riedel, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2021–2031, Copenhagen, De...

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    BRAINTEASER: Lateral thinking puzzles for large language models

    Yifan Jiang, Filip Ilievski, Kaixin Ma, and Zhivar Sourati. BRAINTEASER: Lateral thinking puzzles for large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empir- ical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages ...

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    A comprehensive survey on deep learning multi-modal fusion: Methods, tech- nologies and applications

    Tianzhe Jiao, Chaopeng Guo, Xiaoyue Feng, Yuming Chen, and Jie Song. A comprehensive survey on deep learning multi-modal fusion: Methods, tech- nologies and applications. Computers, Materials and Continua , 80(1):1–35,

  73. [82]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  74. [83]

    Thinking, fast and slow

    Daniel Kahneman. Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan, New York, 2011

    2011

  75. [84]

    (how) do reasoning models reason? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 2025

    Subbarao Kambhampati, Kaya Stechly, and Karthik Valmeekam. (how) do reasoning models reason? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 2025

    2025

  76. [85]

    Reforms: Consensus-based recommendations for machine- learning-based science

    Sayash Kapoor et al. Reforms: Consensus-based recommendations for machine- learning-based science. Science Advances, 10(18):eadk3452, 2024

    2024

  77. [86]

    Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models

    Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=HklBjCEKvH

    2020

  78. [87]

    Inductive synthesis of functional pro- grams: An explanation based generalization approach

    Emanuel Kitzelmann and Ute Schmid. Inductive synthesis of functional pro- grams: An explanation based generalization approach. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 7: 429–454, dec 2006. ISSN 1532-4435

    2006

  79. [88]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  80. [89]

    Koller and N

    D. Koller and N. Friedman. Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Tech- niques. Adaptive computation and machine learning. MIT Press, 2009. ISBN 9780262013192. URL https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7dzpHCHzNQ4C

    2009

  81. [90]

    Metric learning: A survey

    Brian Kulis. Metric learning: A survey. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 5(4):287–364, 2013. ISSN 1935-8237. doi: 10.1561/2200000019. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000019. 29

    2013 doi

  82. [91]

    The boundaries of words and their meanings

    William Labov. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C.-J. N. Bailey and R. W. Shuy, editors, New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English , pages 67–90. Georgetown University Press, Washington, 1973

    1973

  83. [92]

    Decision-tree models of categorization response times, choice proportions, and typicality judgments

    Daniel Lafond, Yves Lacouture, and Andrew L Cohen. Decision-tree models of categorization response times, choice proportions, and typicality judgments. Psychological Review, 116(4):833, 2009

    2009

  84. [93]

    Lake and Marco Baroni

    Brenden M. Lake and Marco Baroni. Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network. Nature, 623(7985):115–121, Nov 2023. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06668-3. URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-023-06668-3

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    Human- level concept learning through probabilistic program induction

    Brenden M Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Human- level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350 (6266):1332–1338, 2015

    2015

  86. [95]

    The central role of learning in cognition

    Pat Langley and Herbert A Simon. The central role of learning in cognition. In Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition , pages 361–380. Psychology Press, 2013

    2013

  87. [96]

    Unmasking clever hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn

    Sebastian Lapuschkin, Stephan W¨ aldchen, Alexander Binder, Gr´ egoire Mon- tavon, Wojciech Samek, and Klaus-Robert M¨ uller. Unmasking clever hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nature Communications, 10, 2019

    2019

  88. [97]

    The dimensions of context-space, 1998

    Doug Lenat. The dimensions of context-space, 1998

    1998

  89. [98]

    Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure

    Douglas B Lenat. Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM , 38(11):33–38, 1995

    1995

  90. [99]

    Using counterfactual tasks to evaluate the generality of analogical reasoning in large language models

    Martha Lewis and Melanie Mitchell. Using counterfactual tasks to evaluate the generality of analogical reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08955, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Task contamination: Language models may not be few-shot anymore

    Changmao Li and Jeffrey Flanigan. Task contamination: Language models may not be few-shot anymore. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18471–18480, 2024

    2024

  92. [101]

    The value, benefits, and concerns of generative ai-powered assistance in writing

    Zhuoyan Li, Chen Liang, Jing Peng, and Ming Yin. The value, benefits, and concerns of generative ai-powered assistance in writing. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1–25, 2024

    2024

  93. [102]

    Muxin Liao, Shishun Tian, Yuhang Zhang, Guoguang Hua, Wenbin Zou, and Xia Li. Calibration-based multi-prototype contrastive learning for domain general- ization semantic segmentation in traffic scenes.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(12):20985–21001,...

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    Lin, Max Tegmark, and David Rolnick

    Henry W. Lin, Max Tegmark, and David Rolnick. Why does deep and cheap learning work so well? Journal of Statistical Physics , 168(6):1223–1247, Sep

  95. [104]

    Theory on forgetting and generalization of continual learning

    Sen Lin, Peizhong Ju, Yingbin Liang, and Ness Shroff. Theory on forgetting and generalization of continual learning. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , ICML’23. JMLR.org, 2023

    2023

  96. [105]

    Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey

    Jiashuo Liu, Zheyan Shen, Yue He, Xingxuan Zhang, Renzhe Xu, Han Yu, and Peng Cui. Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13624, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Knn classifier with self adjusting memory for heterogeneous concept drift

    Viktor Losing, Barbara Hammer, and Heiko Wersing. Knn classifier with self adjusting memory for heterogeneous concept drift. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pages 291–300, 2016. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2016.0040

    2016

  98. [107]

    Learning under concept drift: A review

    Jie Lu, Anjin Liu, Fan Dong, Feng Gu, Joao Gama, and Guangquan Zhang. Learning under concept drift: A review. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 31(12):2346–2363, 2018

    2018

  99. [108]

    An empirical study of catastrophic forgetting in large language models during continual fine-tuning, 2025

    Yun Luo, Zhen Yang, Fandong Meng, Yafu Li, Jie Zhou, and Yue Zhang. An empirical study of catastrophic forgetting in large language models during continual fine-tuning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08747

    2025 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Incremental learning with concept drift detection and prototype-based embed- dings for graph stream classification

    Kleanthis Malialis, Jin Li, Christos G Panayiotou, and Marios M Polycarpou. Incremental learning with concept drift detection and prototype-based embed- dings for graph stream classification. In 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pages 1–7. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  101. [110]

    A scalable approach to probabilistic neuro-symbolic verification

    Vasileios Manginas, Nikolaos Manginas, Edward Stevinson, Sherwin Varghese, Nikos Katzouris, Georgios Paliouras, and Alessio Lomuscio. A scalable approach to probabilistic neuro-symbolic verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03274 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Neural probabilistic logic programming in deepproblog

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumanˇ ci´ c, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Neural probabilistic logic programming in deepproblog. Artificial Intelligence, 298:103504, 2021. ISSN 0004-3702. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103504. URL https://www.s...

    2021

  103. [112]

    The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science

    Gary F Marcus. The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. MIT press, 2003. 31

    2003

  104. [114]

    Cognitive Psychology

    Douglas L Medin, Brian H Ross, and Arthur B Markman. Cognitive Psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 4th edition, 2005. ISBN 0471458201

    2005

  105. [115]

    Categorization of natural objects

    Carolyn B Mervis et al. Categorization of natural objects. Annual review of psychology, 32(1):89–115, 1981

    1981

  106. [116]

    Systemic oversimplification limits the potential for human-ai partnership

    Jason S Metcalfe, Brandon S Perelman, David L Boothe, and Kaleb Mcdowell. Systemic oversimplification limits the potential for human-ai partnership. IEEE Access, 9:70242–70260, 2021

    2021

  107. [117]

    Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences

    Tim Miller. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267:1–38, 2019

    2019

  108. [118]

    Model cards for model reporting

    Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasser- man, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 220–229, 2019

    2019

  109. [119]

    Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods

    Stephen Muggleton and Luc De Raedt. Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. The Journal of Logic Programming , 19:629–679, 1994

    1994

  110. [120]

    Few-shot learning with Siamese networks and label tuning

    Thomas M¨ uller, Guillermo P´ erez-Torr´ o, and Marc Franco-Salvador. Few-shot learning with Siamese networks and label tuning. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational L...

    2022 doi

  111. [121]

    A wholistic view of continual learning with deep neural networks: Forgotten lessons and the bridge to active and open world learning

    Martin Mundt, Yongwon Hong, Iuliia Pliushch, and Visvanathan Ramesh. A wholistic view of continual learning with deep neural networks: Forgotten lessons and the bridge to active and open world learning. Neural Networks, 160:306–336, 2023

    2023

  112. [122]

    From anecdotal evidence to quantitative evaluation methods: A systematic review on evaluating explainable ai

    Meike Nauta, Jan Trienes, Shreyasi Pathak, Elisa Nguyen, Michelle Peters, Yas- min Schmitt, J¨ org Schl¨ otterer, Maurice van Keulen, and Christin Seifert. From anecdotal evidence to quantitative evaluation methods: A systematic review on evaluating explainable ai. ACM Comput....

    2023 doi

  113. [123]

    Bongard-logo: A new benchmark for human-level concept learning and reasoning

    Weili Nie, Zhiding Yu, Lei Mao, Ankit B Patel, Yuke Zhu, and Anima Anand- kumar. Bongard-logo: A new benchmark for human-level concept learning and reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16468–16480, 2020

    2020

  114. [124]

    Methods and tools for causal discovery and causal inference.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: data mining and knowledge discovery , 12(2):e1449, 2022

    Ana Rita Nogueira, Andrea Pugnana, Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi, and Jo˜ ao Gama. Methods and tools for causal discovery and causal inference.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: data mining and knowledge discovery , 12(2):e1449, 2022

    2022

  115. [125]

    Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classifica- tion, recognition, and typicality

    Robert M Nosofsky. Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classifica- tion, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 14(4):700, 1988

    1988

  116. [126]

    The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification

    Robert M Nosofsky. The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. Formal approaches in categorization, pages 18–39, 2011

    2011

  117. [127]

    Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami

    Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z. Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial set- tings. In 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) , pages 372–387, 2016. doi: 10.1109/EuroSP.2016.36

    2016 doi

  118. [128]

    K-nearest neighbor

    Leif E Peterson. K-nearest neighbor. Scholarpedia, 4(2):1883, 2009

    2009

  119. [129]

    Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Dataset Documentation for Responsible AI

    Mahima Pushkarna, Andrew Zaldivar, and Oddur Kjartansson. Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Dataset Documentation for Responsible AI. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1776–1826, 2022

    2022

  120. [130]

    Ross Quinlan

    J. Ross Quinlan. Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies , 27(3):221–234, 1987

    1987

  121. [131]

    What we mean when we say semantic: A consensus statement on the nomenclature of semantic memory.PsyArXiv preprint: https://osf

    Jamie Reilly et al. What we mean when we say semantic: A consensus statement on the nomenclature of semantic memory.PsyArXiv preprint: https://osf. io/pre prints/psyarxiv/xrnb2, 2003

    2003

  122. [132]

    Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories

    Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn B Mervis. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4):573–605, 1975

    1975

  123. [133]

    Eleanor H. Rosch. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology , 4(3):328–350,

  124. [134]

    Rumelhart, James L

    David E. Rumelhart, James L. McClelland, and PDP Research Group. Parallel distributed processing, volume 1: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Foundations. The MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 1986. 33

    1986

  125. [135]

    Double descent demystified: Identifying, interpreting & ablating the sources of a deep learning puzzle

    Rylan Schaeffer, Zachary Robertson, Akhilan Boopathy, Mikail Khona, Kateryna Pistunova, Jason William Rocks, Ila R Fiete, Andrey Gromov, and Sanmi Koyejo. Double descent demystified: Identifying, interpreting & ablating the sources of a deep learning puzzle. In The Third Blogp...

    2024

  126. [136]

    Inductive rule learning on the knowledge level

    Ute Schmid and Emanuel Kitzelmann. Inductive rule learning on the knowledge level. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(3-4):237–248, 2011

    2011

  127. [137]

    Adaptive relevance matrices in Learning Vector Quantization

    Petra Schneider, Michael Biehl, and Barbara Hammer. Adaptive relevance matrices in Learning Vector Quantization. Neural Comput., 21(12):3532–3561,

  128. [138]

    Toward causal representation learning

    Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf, Francesco Locatello, Stefan Bauer, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nal Kalchbrenner, Anirudh Goyal, and Yoshua Bengio. Toward causal representation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):612–634, 2021

    2021

  129. [139]

    Sun, and Swarat Chaudhuri

    Atharva Sehgal, Arya Grayeli, Jennifer J. Sun, and Swarat Chaudhuri. Neu- rosymbolic grounding for compositional world models. In The Twelfth Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://...

    2024

  130. [140]

    H. S. Seung, H. Sompolinsky, and N. Tishby. Statistical mechanics of learning from examples. Phys. Rev. A, 45:6056–6091, Apr 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA. 45.6056. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.6056

    1992 doi

  131. [141]

    The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks

    Harshay Shah, Kaustav Tamuly, Aditi Raghunathan, Prateek Jain, and Praneeth Netrapalli. The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks. Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  132. [142]

    Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms

    Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Shai Ben-David. Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms . Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  133. [143]

    Roger N. Shepard. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820):1317–1323, 1987. doi: 10.1126/science.3629243. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.3629243

    1987 doi

  134. [144]

    Large language models lack understanding of character composition of words, 2024

    Andrew Shin and Kunitake Kaneko. Large language models lack understanding of character composition of words, 2024

    2024

  135. [145]

    Benchmarking neuro-symbolic description logic reasoners: Existing challenges and a way forward

    Gunjan Singh, Riccardo Tommasini, Sumit Bhatia, and Raghava Mutharaju. Benchmarking neuro-symbolic description logic reasoners: Existing challenges and a way forward. Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence (to appear) , 2025. 34

    2025

  136. [146]

    Simplicity and generalization: Short-cutting abstraction in children’s object categorizations

    Ji Y Son, Linda B Smith, and Robert L Goldstone. Simplicity and generalization: Short-cutting abstraction in children’s object categorizations. Cognition, 108(3): 626–638, 2008

    2008

  137. [147]

    Robust and explainable identification of logical fallacies in natural language arguments

    Zhivar Sourati, Vishnu Priya Prasanna Venkatesh, Darshan Deshpande, Himan- shu Rawlani, Filip Ilievski, Hˆ ong- ˆAn Sandlin, and Alain Mermoud. Robust and explainable identification of logical fallacies in natural language arguments. Knowledge-Based Systems, 266:110418, 2023

    2023

  138. [148]

    Arn: Analogical reasoning on narratives

    Zhivar Sourati, Filip Ilievski, Pia Sommerauer, and Yifan Jiang. Arn: Analogical reasoning on narratives. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:1063–1086, 2024

    2024

  139. [149]

    Supervised learning in the presence of concept drift: a modelling framework

    Michiel Straat, Fthi Abadi, Zhuoyun Kan, Christina G¨ opfert, Barbara Ham- mer, and Michael Biehl. Supervised learning in the presence of concept drift: a modelling framework. Neural Computing and Applications, 34(1):101–118, 2022

    2022

  140. [150]

    Tenenbaum and Thomas L

    Joshua B. Tenenbaum and Thomas L. Griffiths. Generalization, similarity, and bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 24(4):629–640, 2001. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01000061

    2001 doi

  141. [151]

    How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction

    Joshua B Tenenbaum, Charles Kemp, Thomas L Griffiths, and Noah D Good- man. How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331 (6022):1279–1285, 2011

    2011

  142. [152]

    On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity

    Nilesh Tripuraneni, Michael Jordan, and Chi Jin. On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:7852–7862, 2020

    2020

  143. [153]

    Tyukin, Alexander N

    Ivan Y. Tyukin, Alexander N. Gorban, Muhammad H. Alkhudaydi, and Qinghua Zhou. Demystification of few-shot and one-shot learning. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pages 1–7, 2021. doi: 10.1109/ IJCNN52387.2021.9534395

    2021

  144. [154]

    Memorisation in machine learning: A survey of results

    Dmitrii Usynin, Moritz Knolle, and Georgios Kaissis. Memorisation in machine learning: A survey of results. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    2024

  145. [155]

    When combi- nations of humans and ai are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, and Thomas Malone. When combi- nations of humans and ai are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour , pages 1–11, 2024

    2024

  146. [156]

    Modular design patterns for hybrid learning and rea- soning systems: a taxonomy, patterns and use cases

    Michael van Bekkum, Maaike de Boer, Frank van Harmelen, Andr´ e Meyer-Vitali, and Annette ten Teije. Modular design patterns for hybrid learning and rea- soning systems: a taxonomy, patterns and use cases. Applied Intelligence, 51(9): 6528–6546, 2021. 35

    2021

  147. [157]

    Vladimir N. Vapnik. The nature of statistical learning theory . Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1995. ISBN 0-387-94559-8

    1995

  148. [158]

    On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities

    Vladimir N Vapnik and A Ya Chervonenkis. On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. In Measures of complexity: festschrift for alexey chervonenkis , pages 11–30. Springer, 2015

    2015

  149. [159]

    A survey on human-ai teaming with large pre-trained models

    Vanshika Vats et al. A survey on human-ai teaming with large pre-trained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04931 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  150. [160]

    Continual learning: Applications and the road forward

    Eli Verwimp et al. Continual learning: Applications and the road forward. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2024. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=axBIMcGZn9

    2024

  151. [161]

    Beyond the information given: Causal models in learning and reasoning

    Michael R Waldmann, York Hagmayer, and Aaron P Blaisdell. Beyond the information given: Causal models in learning and reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6):307–311, 2006

    2006

  152. [162]

    Survey on factuality in large language models: Knowledge, retrieval and domain- specificity

    Cunxiang Wang, Xiaoze Liu, Yuanhao Yue, Xiangru Tang, Tianhang Zhang, Cheng Jiayang, Yunzhi Yao, Wenyang Gao, Xuming Hu, Zehan Qi, et al. Survey on factuality in large language models: Knowledge, retrieval and domain- specificity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07521 , 2023

    arXiv

  153. [163]

    From models to microtheories: Distilling a model’s topical knowledge for grounded question answering

    Nathaniel Weir, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Orion Weller, Oyvind Tafjord, Sam Hornstein, Alexander Sabol, Peter Jansen, Benjamin Van Durme, and Peter Clark. From models to microtheories: Distilling a model’s topical knowledge for grounded question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:241...

    2024 arXiv

  154. [164]

    Towards human-compatible xai: Explaining data differentials with concept induction over background knowledge

    Cara Leigh Widmer, Md Kamruzzaman Sarker, Srikanth Nadella, Joshua Fiechter, Ion Juvina, Brandon Minnery, Pascal Hitzler, Joshua Schwartz, and Michael Raymer. Towards human-compatible xai: Explaining data differentials with concept induction over background knowledge. Journal ...

    2023

  155. [165]

    Provable compositional generalization for object-centric learning

    Thadd¨ aus Wiedemer, Jack Brady, Alexander Panfilov, Attila Juhos, Matthias Bethge, and Wieland Brendel. Provable compositional generalization for object-centric learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/for...

    2024

  156. [166]

    Eva Wiese, Uwe Konderding, and Ute Schmid. Mapping and inference in analogi- cal problem solving—as much as needed or as much as possible? InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume 30, pages 927–932, 2008

    2008

  157. [167]

    Learning structural descriptions from examples

    Patrick H Winston. Learning structural descriptions from examples. Technical report, MIT, AI Technical Reports, 1970. 36

    1970

  158. [168]

    No free lunch theorems for optimization

    David H Wolpert and William G Macready. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 1(1):67–82, 1997

    1997

  159. [169]

    Generalized out-of- distribution detection: A survey

    Jingkang Yang, Kaiyang Zhou, Yixuan Li, and Ziwei Liu. Generalized out-of- distribution detection: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–28, 2024

    2024

  160. [170]

    Leandojo: Theorem proving with retrieval-augmented language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:21573–21612, 2023

    Kaiyu Yang, Aidan Swope, Alex Gu, Rahul Chalamala, Peiyang Song, Shixing Yu, Saad Godil, Ryan J Prenger, and Animashree Anandkumar. Leandojo: Theorem proving with retrieval-augmented language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:21573–21612, 2023

    2023

  161. [171]

    Fair machine guidance to enhance fair decision making in biased people

    Mingzhe Yang, Hiromi Arai, Naomi Yamashita, and Yukino Baba. Fair machine guidance to enhance fair decision making in biased people. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1–18, 2024

    2024

  162. [172]

    A survey on causal inference

    Liuyi Yao, Zhixuan Chu, Sheng Li, Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, and Aidong Zhang. A survey on causal inference. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data , 15(5), may 2021. ISSN 1556-4681. doi: 10.1145/3444944. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3444944

    2021 doi

  163. [173]

    Towards a theoretical framework of out-of-distribution generalization

    Haotian Ye, Chuanlong Xie, Tianle Cai, Ruichen Li, Zhenguo Li, and Liwei Wang. Towards a theoretical framework of out-of-distribution generalization. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, edi- tors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,...

    2021

  164. [174]

    A survey of multimodal learning: Meth- ods, applications, and future

    Yuan Yuan, Zhaojian Li, and Bin Zhao. A survey of multimodal learning: Meth- ods, applications, and future. ACM Comput. Surv. , 57(7), February 2025. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3713070. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3713070

    2025 doi

  165. [175]

    Can learning in the limit be done efficiently? In Ricard Gavald´ a, Klaus P

    Thomas Zeugmann. Can learning in the limit be done efficiently? In Ricard Gavald´ a, Klaus P. Jantke, and Eiji Takimoto, editors,Algorithmic Learning The- ory, pages 17–38, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-39624-6

    2003

  166. [176]

    A survey on multi-task learning

    Yu Zhang and Qiang Yang. A survey on multi-task learning. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 34(12):5586–5609, 2021

    2021

  167. [177]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(1):43–76, 2020. 37

    2020

  168. [1973]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0

    ISSN 0010-0285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028573900170

  169. [2009]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1162/neco

    doi: 10.1162/NECO.2009.11-08-908. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/neco. 2009.11-08-908

    2009 doi

  170. [2017]

    doi: 10.1007/s10955-017-1836-5

    ISSN 1572-9613. doi: 10.1007/s10955-017-1836-5. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10955-017-1836-5

    doi

  171. [2022]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

    arXiv

  172. [2024]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2024.053204

    ISSN 1546-2218. doi: https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2024.053204. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546221824005216

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.