Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Computational complexity analysis can help, but first we need a theory

  • Todd Wareham (a1), Iris van Rooij (a2) and Moritz Müller (a3)

Leech et al. present a connectionist algorithm as a model of (the development) of analogizing, but they do not specify the algorithm's associated computational-level theory, nor its computational complexity. We argue that doing so may be essential for connectionist cognitive models to have full explanatory power and transparency, as well as for assessing their scalability to real-world input domains.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Bruck & J. Goodman (1990) On the power of neural networks for solving hard problems. Journal of Complexity 6:129–35.

D. Gentner (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155–70.

C. Green (2001) Scientific models, connectionist networks, and cognitive science. Theory and Psychology 11:97117.

D. Marr (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.

I. van Rooij , S. Stege , & H. Kadlec (2005) Sources of complexity in subset choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49:160–87.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 51 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.