Parameterized Complexity in Cognitive Modeling: Foundations, Applications and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cognitive science, natural cognitive processes are generally conceptualized as computational processes: they serve to transform sensory and mental inputs into mental and action outputs. At the highest level of abstraction, computational models of cognitive processes aim at specifying the computational problem computed by the process under study. Because computational problems are realistic cognitive models only insofar as they can plausibly be computed by the human brain given its limited resources for computation, computational tractability provides a useful constraint on cognitive models. In this paper, we consider the particular benefits of the parameterized complexity framework for identifying sources of intractability in cognitive models. We review existing applications of the parameterized framework to this end in the domains of perception, action and higher cognition. We further identify important opportunities and challenges for future research. These include the development of new methods for complexity analyses specifically tailored to the reverse engineering perspective underlying cognitive science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it