Jonathan Cohen

Sreejan Kumar, Ishita Dasgupta, Nathaniel D. Daw et al.

The ability to acquire abstract knowledge is a hallmark of human intelligence and is believed by many to be one of the core differences between humans and neural network models. Agents can be endowed with an inductive bias towards abstraction through meta-learning, where they are trained on a distribution of tasks that share some abstract structure that can be learned and applied. However, because neural networks are hard to interpret, it can be difficult to tell whether agents have learned the underlying abstraction, or alternatively statistical patterns that are characteristic of that abstraction. In this work, we compare the performance of humans and agents in a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm in which tasks are generated from abstract rules. We define a novel methodology for building "task metamers" that closely match the statistics of the abstract tasks but use a different underlying generative process, and evaluate performance on both abstract and metamer tasks. We find that humans perform better at abstract tasks than metamer tasks whereas common neural network architectures typically perform worse on the abstract tasks than the matched metamers. This work provides a foundation for characterizing differences between humans and machine learning that can be used in future work towards developing machines with more human-like behavior.

Shanka Subhra Mondal, Taylor Webb, Jonathan D. Cohen

A core component of human intelligence is the ability to identify abstract patterns inherent in complex, high-dimensional perceptual data, as exemplified by visual reasoning tasks such as Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM). Motivated by the goal of designing AI systems with this capacity, recent work has focused on evaluating whether neural networks can learn to solve RPM-like problems. Previous work has generally found that strong performance on these problems requires the incorporation of inductive biases that are specific to the RPM problem format, raising the question of whether such models might be more broadly useful. Here, we investigated the extent to which a general-purpose mechanism for processing visual scenes in terms of objects might help promote abstract visual reasoning. We found that a simple model, consisting only of an object-centric encoder and a transformer reasoning module, achieved state-of-the-art results on both of two challenging RPM-like benchmarks (PGM and I-RAVEN), as well as a novel benchmark with greater visual complexity (CLEVR-Matrices). These results suggest that an inductive bias for object-centric processing may be a key component of abstract visual reasoning, obviating the need for problem-specific inductive biases.

Awni Altabaa, Taylor Webb, Jonathan Cohen et al.

An extension of Transformers is proposed that enables explicit relational reasoning through a novel module called the Abstractor. At the core of the Abstractor is a variant of attention called relational cross-attention. The approach is motivated by an architectural inductive bias for relational learning that disentangles relational information from object-level features. This enables explicit relational reasoning, supporting abstraction and generalization from limited data. The Abstractor is first evaluated on simple discriminative relational tasks and compared to existing relational architectures. Next, the Abstractor is evaluated on purely relational sequence-to-sequence tasks, where dramatic improvements are seen in sample efficiency compared to standard Transformers. Finally, Abstractors are evaluated on a collection of tasks based on mathematical problem solving, where consistent improvements in performance and sample efficiency are observed.

Taylor W. Webb, Steven M. Frankland, Awni Altabaa et al.

A central challenge for cognitive science is to explain how abstract concepts are acquired from limited experience. This has often been framed in terms of a dichotomy between connectionist and symbolic cognitive models. Here, we highlight a recently emerging line of work that suggests a novel reconciliation of these approaches, by exploiting an inductive bias that we term the relational bottleneck. In that approach, neural networks are constrained via their architecture to focus on relations between perceptual inputs, rather than the attributes of individual inputs. We review a family of models that employ this approach to induce abstractions in a data-efficient manner, emphasizing their potential as candidate models for the acquisition of abstract concepts in the human mind and brain.

Ryan Pyle, Sebastian Musslick, Jonathan D. Cohen et al.

A key property of neural networks (both biological and artificial) is how they learn to represent and manipulate input information in order to solve a task. Different types of representations may be suited to different types of tasks, making identifying and understanding learned representations a critical part of understanding and designing useful networks. In this paper, we introduce a new pseudo-kernel based tool for analyzing and predicting learned representations, based only on the initial conditions of the network and the training curriculum. We validate the method on a simple test case, before demonstrating its use on a question about the effects of representational learning on sequential single versus concurrent multitask performance. We show that our method can be used to predict the effects of the scale of weight initialization and training curriculum on representational learning and downstream concurrent multitasking performance.

Simon Segert, Jonathan Cohen

The ability to learn and predict simple functions is a key aspect of human intelligence. Recent works have started to explore this ability using transformer architectures, however it remains unclear whether this is sufficient to recapitulate the extrapolation abilities of people in this domain. Here, we propose to address this gap by augmenting the transformer architecture with two simple inductive learning biases, that are directly adapted from recent models of abstract reasoning in cognitive science. The results we report demonstrate that these biases are helpful in the context of large neural network models, as well as shed light on the types of inductive learning biases that may contribute to human abilities in extrapolation.

Declan Campbell, Sunayana Rane, Tyler Giallanza et al.

Recent work has documented striking heterogeneity in the performance of state-of-the-art vision language models (VLMs), including both multimodal language models and text-to-image models. These models are able to describe and generate a diverse array of complex, naturalistic images, yet they exhibit surprising failures on basic multi-object reasoning tasks -- such as counting, localization, and simple forms of visual analogy -- that humans perform with near perfect accuracy. To better understand this puzzling pattern of successes and failures, we turn to theoretical accounts of the binding problem in cognitive science and neuroscience, a fundamental problem that arises when a shared set of representational resources must be used to represent distinct entities (e.g., to represent multiple objects in an image), necessitating the use of serial processing to avoid interference. We find that many of the puzzling failures of state-of-the-art VLMs can be explained as arising due to the binding problem, and that these failure modes are strikingly similar to the limitations exhibited by rapid, feedforward processing in the human brain.

Yukang Yang, Declan Campbell, Kaixuan Huang et al.

Many recent studies have found evidence for emergent reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), but debate persists concerning the robustness of these capabilities, and the extent to which they depend on structured reasoning mechanisms. To shed light on these issues, we study the internal mechanisms that support abstract reasoning in LLMs. We identify an emergent symbolic architecture that implements abstract reasoning via a series of three computations. In early layers, symbol abstraction heads convert input tokens to abstract variables based on the relations between those tokens. In intermediate layers, symbolic induction heads perform sequence induction over these abstract variables. Finally, in later layers, retrieval heads predict the next token by retrieving the value associated with the predicted abstract variable. These results point toward a resolution of the longstanding debate between symbolic and neural network approaches, suggesting that emergent reasoning in neural networks depends on the emergence of symbolic mechanisms.

Declan Campbell, Jonathan D. Cohen

The human cognitive system exhibits remarkable flexibility and generalization capabilities, partly due to its ability to form low-dimensional, compositional representations of the environment. In contrast, standard neural network architectures often struggle with abstract reasoning tasks, overfitting, and requiring extensive data for training. This paper investigates the impact of the relational bottleneck -- a mechanism that focuses processing on relations among inputs -- on the learning of factorized representations conducive to compositional coding and the attendant flexibility of processing. We demonstrate that such a bottleneck not only improves generalization and learning efficiency, but also aligns network performance with human-like behavioral biases. Networks trained with the relational bottleneck developed orthogonal representations of feature dimensions latent in the dataset, reflecting the factorized structure thought to underlie human cognitive flexibility. Moreover, the relational network mimics human biases towards regularity without pre-specified symbolic primitives, suggesting that the bottleneck fosters the emergence of abstract representations that confer flexibility akin to symbols.