<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Human Categorization Learning as Inspiration for Machine Learning Algorithms</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Christina Zeller</string-name>
          <email>Christina.Zeller@uni-bamberg.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ute Schmid</string-name>
          <email>Ute.Schmid@uni-bamberg.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Cognitive Systems Group, University of Bamberg An der Weberei 5</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>96045 Bamberg</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Empirical observations of humans learning to categorize inspired the development of early machine learning algorithms (cf. Unger &amp; Wysotzki, 1981). For example, Hunt, Marin, and Stone (1966) developed a decision-tree learning algorithm based on experiments by Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956). However, nowadays the focus of machine learning lies on e cient categorization and not on cognitive plausibility of the underlying learning algorithms. Recently Lafond, Lacouture, and Cohen (2009) modeled human categorization behavior with decision-trees, but they did not address the question of how these decision-trees are constructed from training trials. We analyzed their data and could show that a measure of incremental information gain can be an appropriate feature selection criterion (Zeller &amp; Schmid, accepted). Empirical data imply that humans use (meta-)strategies while learning to categorize (cf. Unger &amp; Wysotzki, 1981). Typically, humans focus rst on single features as categorization criteria and only later use conjunctions or disjunctions. As a next step, we plan to conduct case studies where participants, while learning correct categorization with a trial by trial feedback, shall explain their decisions. Based on the results, we intend to design experiments where the material is constructed in such a way that cues enhance or hinder speci c strategies. We hope that a deeper understanding of the human process of categorization learning can inspire cognitively plausible machine learning algorithms.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body />
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bruner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Goodnow</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Austin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1956</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A study of thinking: With an appendix on language by Roger W</article-title>
          . Brown. New York, NY: Wiley.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hunt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E. B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stone</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1966</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Experiments in induction</article-title>
          . New York, NY: Academic Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lafond</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lacouture</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cohen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Decision-tree models of categorization response times, choice proportions, and typicality judgments</article-title>
          .
          <source>Psychological Review</source>
          ,
          <volume>116</volume>
          , 833{
          <fpage>855</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Unger</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wysotzki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1981</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Lernfahige Klassi zierungssyssteme (Classi - cation Systems Being Able to Learn)</article-title>
          . Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zeller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmid</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (accepted).
          <article-title>Rule learning from incremental presentation of training examples: Reanalysis of a categorization experiment</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 13th Biannual Conference of the German Cognitive Science Society</source>
          (Bremen, Germany, Sept.
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>