Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analogical reasoning is a core facet of higher cognition in humans. Creating analogies as we navigate the environment helps us learn. Analogies involve reframing novel encounters using knowledge of familiar, relationally similar contexts stored in memory. When an analogy links a novel encounter with a familiar context, it can aid in problem solving. Reasoning by analogy is a complex process that is mediated by multiple brain regions and mechanisms. Several advanced computational architectures have been developed to simulate how these brain processes give rise to analogical reasoning, like the "learning with inferences and schema abstraction" architecture and the Companion architecture. To obtain this power to simulate human reasoning, theses architectures assume that various computational "subprocesses" comprise analogical reasoning, such as analogical access, mapping, inference, and schema induction, consistent with the structure-mapping framework proposed decades ago. However, little is known about how these subprocesses relate to actual brain processes. While some work in neuroscience has linked analogical reasoning to regions of brain prefrontal cortex, more research is needed to investigate the wide array of specific neural hypotheses generated by the computational architectures. In the current article, we review the association between historically important computational architectures of analogy and empirical studies in neuroscience. In particular, we focus on evidence for a frontoparietal brain network underlying analogical reasoning and the degree to which brain mechanisms mirror the computational subprocesses. We also offer a general vantage on the current- and future-states of neuroscience research in this domain and provide some recommendations for future neuroimaging studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".