2,004 research outputs found

    A literature review of expert problem solving using analogy

    Get PDF
    We consider software project cost estimation from a problem solving perspective. Taking a cognitive psychological approach, we argue that the algorithmic basis for CBR tools is not representative of human problem solving and this mismatch could account for inconsistent results. We describe the fundamentals of problem solving, focusing on experts solving ill-defined problems. This is supplemented by a systematic literature review of empirical studies of expert problem solving of non-trivial problems. We identified twelve studies. These studies suggest that analogical reasoning plays an important role in problem solving, but that CBR tools do not model this in a biologically plausible way. For example, the ability to induce structure and therefore find deeper analogies is widely seen as the hallmark of an expert. However, CBR tools fail to provide support for this type of reasoning for prediction. We conclude this mismatch between experts’ cognitive processes and software tools contributes to the erratic performance of analogy-based prediction

    Motion as manipulation: Implementation of motion and force analogies by event-file binding and action planning\ud

    Get PDF
    Tool improvisation analogies are a special case of motion and force analogies that appear to be implemented pre-conceptually, in many species, by event-file binding and action planning. A detailed reconstruction of the analogical reasoning steps involved in Rutherford's and Bohr's development of the first quantized-orbit model of atomic structure is used to show that human motion and force analogies generally can be implemented by the event-file binding and action planning mechanism. Predictions that distinguish this model from competing concept-level models of analogy are discussed, available data pertaining to them are reviewed, and further experimental tests are proposed

    Fluid Transformers and Creative Analogies: Exploring Large Language Models' Capacity for Augmenting Cross-Domain Analogical Creativity

    Full text link
    Cross-domain analogical reasoning is a core creative ability that can be challenging for humans. Recent work has shown some proofs-of concept of Large language Models' (LLMs) ability to generate cross-domain analogies. However, the reliability and potential usefulness of this capacity for augmenting human creative work has received little systematic exploration. In this paper, we systematically explore LLMs capacity to augment cross-domain analogical reasoning. Across three studies, we found: 1) LLM-generated cross-domain analogies were frequently judged as helpful in the context of a problem reformulation task (median 4 out of 5 helpfulness rating), and frequently (~80% of cases) led to observable changes in problem formulations, and 2) there was an upper bound of 25% of outputs bring rated as potentially harmful, with a majority due to potentially upsetting content, rather than biased or toxic content. These results demonstrate the potential utility -- and risks -- of LLMs for augmenting cross-domain analogical creativity

    Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning

    Get PDF
    El original está disponible en www.journals.cambridge.orgCase-based reasoning (CBR) is an approach to problem solving that emphasizes the role of prior experience during future problem solving (i.e., new problems are solved by reusing and if necessary adapting the solutions to similar problems that were solved in the past). It has enjoyed considerable success in a wide variety of problem solving tasks and domains. Following a brief overview of the traditional problem-solving cycle in CBR, we examine the cognitive science foundations of CBR and its relationship to analogical reasoning. We then review a representative selection of CBR research in the past few decades on aspects of retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention.Peer reviewe

    Discursive design thinking: the role of explicit knowledge in creative architectural design reasoning

    Get PDF
    The main hypothesis investigated in this paper is based upon the suggestion that the discursive reasoning in architecture supported by an explicit knowledge of spatial configurations can enhance both design productivity and the intelligibility of design solutions. The study consists of an examination of an architect’s performance while solving intuitively a well-defined problem followed by an analysis of the spatial structure of their design solutions. One group of architects will attempt to solve the design problem logically, rationalizing their design decisions by implementing their explicit knowledge of spatial configurations. The other group will use an implicit form of such knowledge arising from their architectural education to reason about their design acts. An integrated model of protocol analysis combining linkography and macroscopic coding is used to analyze the design processes. The resulting design outcomes will be evaluated quantitatively in terms of their spatial configurations. The analysis appears to show that an explicit knowledge of the rules of spatial configurations, as possessed by the first group of architects can partially enhance their function-driven judgment producing permeable and well-structured spaces. These findings are particularly significant as they imply that an explicit rather than an implicit knowledge of the fundamental rules that make a layout possible can lead to a considerable improvement in both the design process and product. This suggests that by externalizing th
    • …
    corecore