Given the massive integration of AI technologies into our daily lives, AI-related concepts are being used to metaphorically compare AI systems with human behaviour and/or cognitive abilities like language acquisition. Rightfully, the epistemic success of these metaphorical comparisons should be debated. Against the backdrop of the conflicting positions of the 'computational' and 'meat' chauvinisms, we ask: can the conceptual constellation of the computational and AI be applied to the human domain and what does it mean to do so? What is one doing when the conceptual constellations of AI in particular are used in this fashion? Rooted in a Wittgensteinian view of concepts and language-use, we consider two possible answers and pit them against each other: either these examples are conceptual metaphors, or they are attempts at conceptual engineering. We argue that they are conceptual metaphors, but that (1) this position is unaware of its own epistemological contingency, and (2) it risks committing the ''map-territory fallacy''. Down at the conceptual foundations of computation, (3) it most importantly is a misleading 'double metaphor' because of the metaphorical connection between human psychology and computation. In response to the shortcomings of this projected conceptual organisation of AI onto the human domain, we argue that there is a semantic catch. The perspective of the conceptual metaphors shows avenues for forms of conceptual engineering. If this methodology's criteria are met, the fallacies and epistemic shortcomings related to the conceptual metaphor view can be bypassed. At its best, the cross-pollution of the human and AI conceptual domains is one that prompts us to reflect anew on how the boundaries of our current concepts serve us and how they could be approved.

Few-shot class-incremental Learning (FSCIL) enables models to learn new classes from limited data while retaining performance on previously learned classes. Traditional FSCIL methods often require fine-tuning parameters with limited new class data and suffer from a separation between learning new classes and utilizing old knowledge. Inspired by the analogical learning mechanisms of the human brain, we propose a novel analogical generative method. Our approach includes the Brain-Inspired Analogical Generator (BiAG), which derives new class weights from existing classes without parameter fine-tuning during incremental stages. BiAG consists of three components: Weight Self-Attention Module (WSA), Weight & Prototype Analogical Attention Module (WPAA), and Semantic Conversion Module (SCM). SCM uses Neural Collapse theory for semantic conversion, WSA supplements new class weights, and WPAA computes analogies to generate new class weights. Experiments on miniImageNet, CUB-200, and CIFAR-100 datasets demonstrate that our method achieves higher final and average accuracy compared to SOTA methods.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information. Despite their exceptional performance on visual understanding benchmarks, measuring their ability to reason abstractly across multiple images remains a significant challenge. To address this, we introduce VOILA, a large-scale, open-ended, dynamic benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning. VOILA employs an analogical mapping approach in the visual domain, requiring models to generate an image that completes an analogy between two given image pairs, reference and application, without relying on predefined choices. Our experiments demonstrate that the analogical reasoning tasks in VOILA present a challenge to MLLMs. Through multi-step analysis, we reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning. Notably, we observe that performance improves when following a multi-step strategy of least-to-most prompting. Comprehensive evaluations on open-source models and GPT-4o show that on text-based answers, the best accuracy for challenging scenarios is 13% (LLaMa 3.2) and even for simpler tasks is only 29% (GPT-4o), while human performance is significantly higher at 70% across both difficulty levels.

We propose an approach to analogical inference that marries the neuro-symbolic computational power of complex-sampled hyperdimensional computing (HDC) with Conceptual Spaces Theory (CST), a promising theory of semantic meaning. CST sketches, at an abstract level, approaches to analogical inference that go beyond the standard predicate-based structure mapping theories. But it does not describe how such an approach can be operationalized. We propose a concrete HDC-based architecture that computes several types of analogy classified by CST. We present preliminary proof-of-concept experimental results within a toy domain and describe how it can perform category-based and property-based analogical reasoning.

Analogical reasoning, particularly in multimodal contexts, is the foundation of human perception and creativity. Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) has recently sparked considerable discussion due to its emergent capabilities. In this paper, we delve into the multimodal analogical reasoning capability of MLLM. Specifically, we explore two facets: \textit{MLLM as an explainer} and \textit{MLLM as a predictor}. In \textit{MLLM as an explainer}, we primarily focus on whether MLLM can deeply comprehend multimodal analogical reasoning problems. We propose a unified prompt template and a method for harnessing the comprehension capabilities of MLLM to augment existing models. In \textit{MLLM as a predictor}, we aim to determine whether MLLM can directly solve multimodal analogical reasoning problems. The experiments show that our approach outperforms existing methods on popular datasets, providing preliminary evidence for the analogical reasoning capability of MLLM.

They appear extensively across all domains of natural language, from the most sophisticated poetry to seemingly dry academic prose. A significant body of research in the cognitive science of language argues for the existence of conceptual metaphors, the systematic structuring of one domain of experience in the language of another. Conceptual metaphors are not simply rhetorical flourishes but are crucial evidence of the role of analogical reasoning in human cognition. In this paper, we ask whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can accurately identify and explain the presence of such conceptual metaphors in natural language data. Using a novel prompting technique based on metaphor annotation guidelines, we demonstrate that LLMs are a promising tool for large-scale computational research on conceptual metaphors. Further, we show that LLMs are able to apply procedural guidelines designed for human annotators, displaying a surprising depth of linguistic knowledge.

Humans regularly engage in analogical thinking, relating personal experiences to current situations (X is analogous to Y because of Z). Analogical thinking allows humans to solve problems in creative ways, grasp difficult concepts, and articulate ideas more effectively. Can language models (LMs) do the same? To answer this question, we propose AnaloBench, a benchmark to determine analogical reasoning ability in LMs. Our benchmarking approach focuses on aspects of this ability that are common among humans: (i) recalling related experiences from a large amount of information, and (ii) applying analogical reasoning to complex and lengthy scenarios. We test a broad collection of proprietary models (e.g., GPT family, Claude V2) and open source models such as LLaMA2. As in prior results, scaling up LMs results in some performance boosts. Surprisingly, scale offers minimal gains when, (i) analogies involve lengthy scenarios, or (ii) recalling relevant scenarios from a large pool of information, a process analogous to finding a needle in a haystack. We hope these observations encourage further research in this field.

This paper demonstrates that model-based reinforcement learning (model-based RL) is a suitable approach for the task of analogical reasoning. We hypothesize that model-based RL can solve analogical reasoning tasks more efficiently through the creation of internal models. To test this, we compared DreamerV3, a model-based RL method, with Proximal Policy Optimization, a model-free RL method, on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) tasks. Our results indicate that model-based RL not only outperforms model-free RL in learning and generalizing from single tasks but also shows significant advantages in reasoning across similar tasks.

This paper investigates visual analogical reasoning in large multimodal models (LMMs) compared to human adults and children. A "visual analogy" is an abstract rule inferred from one image and applied to another. While benchmarks exist for testing visual reasoning in LMMs, they require advanced skills and omit basic visual analogies that even young children can make. Inspired by developmental psychology, we propose a new benchmark of 1,400 visual transformations of everyday objects to test LMMs on visual analogical reasoning and compare them to children and adults. We structure the evaluation into three stages: identifying what changed (e.g., color, number, etc.), how it changed (e.g., added one object), and applying the rule to new scenarios. Our findings show that while models like GPT-4V, LLaVA-1.5, and MANTIS identify the "what" effectively, they struggle with quantifying the "how" and extrapolating this rule to new objects. In contrast, children and adults exhibit much stronger analogical reasoning at all three stages. Additionally, the strongest tested model, GPT-4V, performs better in tasks involving simple visual attributes like color and size, correlating with quicker human adult response times. Conversely, more complex tasks such as number, rotation, and reflection, which necessitate extensive cognitive processing and understanding of the 3D physical world, present more significant challenges. Altogether, these findings highlight the limitations of training models on data that primarily consists of 2D images and text.

As an embodied and spatial medium, virtual reality is proving an attractive proposition for robot teleoperation in hazardous environments. This paper examines a nuclear decommissioning scenario in which a simulated team of semi-autonomous robots are used to characterise a chamber within a virtual nuclear facility. This study examines the potential utility and impact of sonification as a means of communicating salient operator data in such an environment. However, the question of what sound should be used and how it can be applied in different applications is far from resolved. This paper explores and compares two sonification design approaches. The first is inspired by the theory of cognitive metaphor to create sonifications that align with socially acquired contextual and ecological understanding of the application domain. The second adopts a computationalist approach using auditory mappings that are commonplace in the literature. The results suggest that the computationalist approach outperforms the cognitive metaphor approach in terms of predictability and mental workload. However, qualitative data analysis demonstrates that the cognitive metaphor approach resulted in sounds that were more intuitive, and were better implemented for spatialisation of data sources and data legibility when there was more than one sound source.