» Articles » PMID: 38968113

A Mathematical Theory of Relational Generalization in Transitive Inference

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Jul 5
PMID 38968113
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Humans and animals routinely infer relations between different items or events and generalize these relations to novel combinations of items. This allows them to respond appropriately to radically novel circumstances and is fundamental to advanced cognition. However, how learning systems (including the brain) can implement the necessary inductive biases has been unclear. We investigated transitive inference (TI), a classic relational task paradigm in which subjects must learn a relation ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]) and generalize it to new combinations of items ([Formula: see text]). Through mathematical analysis, we found that a broad range of biologically relevant learning models (e.g. gradient flow or ridge regression) perform TI successfully and recapitulate signature behavioral patterns long observed in living subjects. First, we found that models with item-wise additive representations automatically encode transitive relations. Second, for more general representations, a single scalar "conjunctivity factor" determines model behavior on TI and, further, the principle of norm minimization (a standard statistical inductive bias) enables models with fixed, partly conjunctive representations to generalize transitively. Finally, neural networks in the "rich regime," which enables representation learning and improves generalization on many tasks, unexpectedly show poor generalization and anomalous behavior on TI. We find that such networks implement a form of norm minimization (over hidden weights) that yields a local encoding mechanism lacking transitivity. Our findings show how minimal statistical learning principles give rise to a classical relational inductive bias (transitivity), explain empirically observed behaviors, and establish a formal approach to understanding the neural basis of relational abstraction.

Citing Articles

Neural mechanisms of relational learning and fast knowledge reassembly in plastic neural networks.

Miconi T, Kay K Nat Neurosci. 2025; 28(2):406-414.

PMID: 39814949 DOI: 10.1038/s41593-024-01852-8.


Effects of posttransfer feedback informativeness in a transitive inference task.

Joy Y, Kao T, Jensen G Mem Cognit. 2024; .

PMID: 39477864 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01654-0.


A geometrical solution underlies general neural principle for serial ordering.

Di Antonio G, Raglio S, Mattia M Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):8238.

PMID: 39300106 PMC: 11413371. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-52240-6.


A mathematical theory of relational generalization in transitive inference.

Lippl S, Kay K, Jensen G, Ferrera V, Abbott L Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(28):e2314511121.

PMID: 38968113 PMC: 11252811. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2314511121.


Emergent neural dynamics and geometry for generalization in a transitive inference task.

Kay K, Biderman N, Khajeh R, Beiran M, Cueva C, Shohamy D PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(4):e1011954.

PMID: 38662797 PMC: 11125559. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011954.

References
1.
McClelland J, McNaughton B, OReilly R . Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychol Rev. 1995; 102(3):419-457. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419. View

2.
Hinton E, Dymond S, von Hecker U, Evans C . Neural correlates of relational reasoning and the symbolic distance effect: involvement of parietal cortex. Neuroscience. 2010; 168(1):138-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.03.052. View

3.
Lake B, Ullman T, Tenenbaum J, Gershman S . Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav Brain Sci. 2016; 40:e253. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X16001837. View

4.
Summerfield C, Luyckx F, Sheahan H . Structure learning and the posterior parietal cortex. Prog Neurobiol. 2019; 184:101717. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.101717. View

5.
Vasconcelos M . Transitive inference in non-human animals: an empirical and theoretical analysis. Behav Processes. 2008; 78(3):313-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.02.017. View