Recent approaches to human concept learning have successfully combined thepower of symbolic, infinitely productive rule systems and statistical learningto explain our ability to learn new concepts from just a few examples. The aimof most of these studies is to reveal the underlying language structuring theserepresentations and providing a general substrate for thought. However,describing a model of thought that is fixed once trained is against theextensive literature that shows how experience shapes concept learning. Here,we ask about the plasticity of these symbolic descriptive languages. We performa concept learning experiment that demonstrates that humans can change veryrapidly the repertoire of symbols they use to identify concepts, by compilingexpressions which are frequently used into new symbols of the language. Thepattern of concept learning times is accurately described by a Bayesian agentthat rationally updates the probability of compiling a new expression accordingto how useful it has been to compress concepts so far. By portraying theLanguage of Thought as a flexible system of rules, we also highlight thedifficulties to pin it down empirically.
Quick Read (beta)
Analysis of \filename.aux, according to rules of Physical Review: All bibitems must occur in the bibliography in order of their first citation in the file, and all bibitems must be cited in the paper.
Bibitems that were not explicitly cited:
Citations not defined in bibliography:
0=The order of the bibitems is OK.
There \@ifnum0¡Θwas an errorwere 0 errors in the order of your bibitems. \@[email protected]\@[email protected]\[email protected]\[email protected]\[email protected](This is in addition to the problems noted above.) Please check the following table to see what the problems were. Status in boldface signifies that a correction is needed.
NOTE: This table is a complete listing of all your citations, in order of their first occurrence: your bibitems should be in the order shown in the first column of this table.
Citation key Status