Human and Machine 'Quick Modeling'

We present here an interesting experiment in'quick modeling' by humans, performed independently on small samples, in several languages and two continents, over the last three years. Comparisons to decision tree procedures andneural net processing are given. From these, we conjecture that human reasoning is better represented by the latter, but substantially different fromboth. Implications for the'strong convergence hypothesis' between neuralnetworks and machine learning are discussed, now expanded to include human reasoning comparisons. 1 INTRODUCTION Until recently the fields of symbolic and connectionist learning evolved separately. Suddenly in the last two years a significant number of papers comparing the two methodologies have appeared. A beginning synthesis of these two fields was forged at the NIPS '90 Workshop #5 last year (Pratt and Norton, 1990), where one may find a good bibliography of the recent work of Atlas, Dietterich, Omohundro, Sanger, Shavlik, Tsoi, Utgoff and others. It was at that NIPS '90 Workshop that we learned of these studies, most of which concentrate on performance comparisons of decision tree algorithms (such as ID3, CART) and neural net algorithms (such as Perceptrons, Backpropagation). Independently threeyears ago we had looked at Quinlan's ID3 scheme (Quinlan, 1984) and intuitively and rather instantly not agreeing with the generalization he obtains by ID3 from a sample of 8 items generalized to 12 items, we subjected this example to a variety of human experiments. We report our findings, as compared to the performance of ID3 and also to various neural net computations.