Building conceptual abstractions from sensory information and then reasoning about them is central to human intelligence. Abstract reasoning both relies on, and is facilitated by, our ability to make analogies about concepts from known domains to novel domains. Structure Mapping Theory of human analogical reasoning posits that analogical mappings rely on (higher-order) relations and not on the sensory content of the domain. This enables humans to reason systematically about novel domains, a problem with which machine learning (ML) models tend to struggle. We introduce a two-stage neural net framework, which we label Neural Structure Mapping (NSM), to learn visual analogies from Raven's Progressive Matrices, an abstract visual reasoning test of fluid intelligence. Our framework uses (1) a multi-task visual relationship encoder to extract constituent concepts from raw visual input in the source domain, and (2) a neural module net analogy inference engine to reason compositionally about the inferred relation in the target domain. Our NSM approach (a) isolates the relational structure from the source domain with high accuracy, and (b) successfully utilizes this structure for analogical reasoning in the target domain.

There has been a recent surge of interest in the question of whether and how deep learning algorithms might be capable of abstract reasoning, much of which has centered around datasets based on Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), a visual analogy problem set commonly employed to assess fluid intelligence. This has led to the development of algorithms that are capable of solving RPM-like problems directly from pixel-level inputs. However, these algorithms require extensive direct training on analogy problems, and typically generalize poorly to novel problem types. This is in stark contrast to human reasoners, who are capable of solving RPM and other analogy problems zero-shot — that is, with no direct training on those problems. Indeed, it’s this capacity for zero-shot reasoning about novel problem types, i.e. fluid intelligence, that RPM was originally designed to measure. I will present some results from our recent efforts to model this capacity for zero-shot reasoning, based on an extension of a recently proposed approach to analogical mapping we refer to as Probabilistic Analogical Mapping (PAM). Our RPM model uses deep learning to extract attributed graph representations from pixel-level inputs, and then performs alignment of objects between source and target analogs using gradient descent to optimize a graph-matching objective. This extended version of PAM features a number of new capabilities that underscore the flexibility of the overall approach, including 1) the capacity to discover solutions that emphasize either object similarity or relation similarity, based on the demands of a given problem, 2) the ability to extract a schema representing the overall abstract pattern that characterizes a problem, and 3) the ability to directly infer the answer to a problem, rather than relying on a set of possible answer choices. This work suggests that PAM is a promising framework for modeling human zero-shot reasoning.

In this talk, I will present some data showing that people’s similarity judgments among word pairs reflect distinctions between abstract semantic relations like contrast, cause-effect, or part-whole. Further, the extent that individual participants’ similarity judgments discriminate between abstract semantic relations was linearly associated with both fluid and crystallized verbal intelligence, albeit more strongly with fluid intelligence. Finally, I will compare three models according to their ability to predict these similarity judgments. All models take as input vector representations of individual word meanings, but they differ in their representation of relations: one model does not represent relations at all, a second model represents relations implicitly, and a third model represents relations explicitly. Across the three models, the third model served as the best predictor of human similarity judgments suggesting the importance of explicit relation representation to fully account for human semantic cognition.