Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Generation and Evaluation in the Human Invention Process through the Lens of Game Design

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read People invent games by mentally simulating how fun they would be, not just by recombining what they have seen.

desk verdict Genuinely useful dataset and pipeline, but the headline MaxEnt model comparison is circular—human games are in the normalization set and θ is fit and tested on the same data—so the central quantitative claim does not hold as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10914 v2 pith:VTRNAREC submitted 2025-08-01 cs.HC

Katherine M. Collins , Graham Todd , Cedegao E. Zhang , Adrian Weller , Julian Togelius , Junyi Chu , Lionel Wong , Thomas L. Griffiths
show 1 more author
Joshua B. Tenenbaum
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords gamedesigncreativityinnovationboardgamesmodel-basedsimulationmaximumentropymodelingIntuitiveGamermodelLudax
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what cognitive mechanisms let ordinary people invent new rules and problems, using board games as its testbed. It argues that invention has two parts: a proposal stage, in which people draw on games they have recently seen, and an evaluation stage, in which they mentally simulate play to judge whether the new game would be fun. Analyzing over 450 human-created games, the authors find that a model combining proposal probability with a simulated-funness score explains the games people made better than proposal alone (fitted weight $\theta=5.7$; $\chi^2=214.6$, $p<0.0001$). If right, everyday creativity is not just combinatorial memory; it also involves running an internal model of the thing being invented.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MaxEnt generative model over Ludax programs, a domain-specific language that expresses two-player, perfect-information grid games as simulable environments. Games are formalized from natural language by a code language model; $P_{\text{base}}$ is the average token log probability of a game's Ludax program conditioned on the context games; and $U_{\text{sim}}$ is the funness estimate obtained by simulating play with the Intuitive Gamer model, a fast, goal-directed heuristic model of novice play, and combining readouts of balance, challenge, and length. The single weight $\theta$ controls how much simulated funness shapes generation, and its fitted value of 5.7 carries the argument. The normalization over the intractable space of games is approximated by sampling 1000 Ludax games plus the 121 original games.

What would settle it

Score $U_{\text{sim}}$'s predicted funness against actual human funness ratings for a held-out set of shape-completion and multi-condition games; if the correlation collapses for games outside the original class, the positive $\theta$ becomes an artifact of an invalid metric. Alternatively, run the invention task under time pressure or a concurrent memory load: if the simulated-funness advantage and large positive $\theta$ disappear while recombination stays constant, the evaluation-stage claim is supported; if games remain just as fun, the account fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that people's invented games are best described by a two-stage generative process: first propose a game by sampling from a distribution conditioned on the games one has seen, then evaluate the proposal by simulating novice play and keeping games that are predicted to be fun. Concretely, the authors define a MaxEnt scoring function $f(g_i;\theta) = \log P_{\text{base}}(g_i) + \theta \cdot U_{\text{sim}}(g_i)$, where $P_{\text{base}}$ comes from token probabilities of a language model conditioned on the seen context games and $U_{\text{sim}}$ is a funness score derived from Intuitive Gamer model simulations (balance, challenge, and length readouts). Fitting $\theta$ on the human data gives $\hat{\theta}=5.7$, and the two-stage model fits significantly better than the proposal-only model ($\theta=0$), reported as $\chi^2=214.6$, $p<0.0001$. The paper also reports that human-created games score higher in simulated funness than either the 121 context games or randomly sampled Ludax games, even though they are no more likely under the proposal distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Intuitive Gamer funness score, which was fit to ratings of the original 121 games, remains a valid measure of fun for the wider class of games people invented, including shape-completion goals and logical combinations of conditions; the supplement concedes this may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If people evaluate proposed games by internal simulation, then invention in other rule-based systems, such as laws, protocols, and organizational rules, may likewise depend on the inventor's ability to simulate outcomes rather than merely recombining known templates.
  • The fitted $\theta>0$ implies that everyday inventors preferentially produce games that are fun under novice-style play, which predicts that freshly invented games should be judged more fun than the seed games; the paper's follow-up rating study reports exactly this pattern (median funness 59.8 versus 42).
  • Because the model works over formalized Ludax programs, the same pipeline can operate at scale on natural language descriptions, allowing open-ended creative datasets to be analyzed computationally instead of requiring hand-coded rule spaces.
  • The paper's descriptive finding that longer creation time is associated with games that leave the restricted grammar suggests the two-stage account predicts that more deliberation leads to more novel proposals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the two-stage account predicts an intervention the authors do not run — taxing working memory or time during invention should lower the simulated funness of produced games without lowering how much they recombine seen examples.
  • Editorial inference: the fitted weight $\theta$ can be read as a price of funness in generation; comparing $\theta$ across different invention domains would test how domain-general this evaluation mechanism is.
  • Editorial inference: the presence-only design cannot distinguish blocked simulation from a quick 'sounds fun' linguistic heuristic; a no-simulation control condition would tell them apart.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how novice participants invent new grid-based board games after seeing a small set of examples. The authors propose a two-stage cognitive model in which a proposal distribution (approximated by token log-probabilities of formalized game descriptions under a language model) is combined with a model-based evaluation score (U_sim, derived from simulated play under the Intuitive Gamer model). Using a MaxEnt model with a single weight θ, they report that the two-stage model explains the human-created games substantially better than the proposal-only model (χ²=214.6, p<0.0001, θ̂=5.7), and they present descriptive results about context effects and novelty. The manuscript also includes a follow-up human rating study of the created games and a second round of game generation.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim were sound, the paper would offer a valuable computational toolkit for studying open-ended human innovation: it combines large language models for formalization, a domain-specific language for board games, and a cognitively validated model of novice play. The descriptive analyses of context-dependence and novelty are interesting, and the follow-up human ratings provide a useful external check. However, the headline model-comparison result is compromised by two load-bearing methodological issues: the MaxEnt normalization set includes the very games being explained, and the weight θ is fit and significance-tested on the same data. These issues undermine the abstract's central assertion that generated games are best described by a model incorporating population-level model-based estimates of game quality. The problems are fixable through reanalysis, and the paper's own supplementary material already flags the related generalization concern about U_sim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Model-based likelihood analysis / Implementation details] The normalization set Z(θ) includes the human-created games being modeled. The Implementation details state: 'We include the original 121 games and the subset of people's games that are expressible in Ludax as part of the normalization to cover an approximate space of games.' Including the target games in the background distribution violates the presence-only MaxEnt assumption (Phillips et al., 2006) and inflates the likelihood of the human data, because high-U_sim human games contribute to both numerator and denominator. This is directly load-bearing for the reported χ²=214.6, p<0.0001 advantage of the two-stage model. The analysis should be rerun with a background set that excludes all human-created games, or with a properly held-out partition.
  2. [Game evaluation using Intuitive Gamer model simulations (U_sim) / Supplement: Games Expressible in the Restricted…] The Intuitive Gamer funness coefficients were fit to the original 121 games, and the Supplement concedes that the model 'does not as well-generalize to games that are more distant from the base set of games.' Because many human-created games involve shape completion or logical composition (e.g., plus-sign, L-shape, 2x2-square goals) outside the validated class, U_sim is an unvalidated predictor for exactly the games that most need evaluation. The paper should validate U_sim on the human-created games using the follow-up human funness ratings (from the 'Human evaluation of the games people made' section) or explicitly restrict the central claim to games within the validated class.
  3. [Results (Figure 5C)] The model comparison sweeps θ over the same human data used to compute the likelihood and reports χ²=214.6, p<0.0001 for the best-fitting θ. This is not a valid significance test because θ is fit on the same data; the test does not account for the number of θ values examined or for the model selection. A proper evaluation requires cross-validation or an information criterion that penalizes the fitted parameter (e.g., AIC/BIC), or a likelihood-ratio test with the correct degrees of freedom under a null that includes the selection procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Implementation details] The phrase 'We include the original original 121 games' contains a duplicated word; please remove the repetition.
  2. [Results] The text refers to 'Table 4' when presenting examples of games with varying base likelihood, but the actual table appears in the Supplement; please label it consistently (e.g., Supplement Table 4) and adjust all cross-references.
  3. [Abstract / Invented games dataset] The abstract says 'over 450 human created games' while the dataset section reports N=484; please align these numbers for consistency.
  4. [Model-based likelihood analysis] The choice of L1 regularization coefficient λ=0.1 is not justified; the paper sweeps θ but not λ, and the sensitivity of the results to λ is not reported. Please add a brief sensitivity analysis or citation for the chosen value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central model comparison is a standard likelihood fit over a fixed proposal density and a fixed, externally validated utility, and the normalization concern is a quadrature approximation rather than a self-definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is supported by a likelihood comparison in which the proposal density P_base is a fixed LLM-scored distribution over Ludax programs and U_sim is a fixed simulation-based utility imported from Collins et al. (2026), an externally validated empirical model of funness ratings; only the scalar weight θ is fitted, by maximizing the same aggregate likelihood used for the model comparison. This is a normal in-sample likelihood fit, not a prediction forced by construction. The reader's concern about including human-created games in the normalization set is not a circular step: the normalization Z(θ) is a Monte Carlo quadrature approximation to the sum over the full space G of possible games, and the observed games are by definition elements of G, so their presence in the quadrature set does not make the likelihood equal to an input or force θ>0. In fact, since human-created games are reported to have high U_sim, their inclusion in the denominator raises Z(θ>0) relative to Z(0), making the reported χ² improvement conservative rather than manufactured. The Intuitive Gamer coefficients are taken from prior work by overlapping authors, but that prior work is an independently published empirical validation on 121 games, not a self-citing uniqueness theorem, and the current paper additionally provides human funness ratings of a subset of the human-created games, giving external support for the claim that the created games are rated more fun. The acknowledged limitations—that U_sim may not generalize to games far from the base set and that the likelihood comparison is in-sample—are statistical and empirical caveats, not circular derivations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The principal free parameters are θ and λ (fit/selected in this paper), the IGM funness coefficients (fit in prior work but load-bearing), and the random-DSL sampling probabilities (hand-set to match the original data and determine the normalization). The axioms capture the modeling assumptions about the LM proposal proxy, the simulator's generalization, the adequacy of the background set, the i.i.d. sampling, and the translation fidelity. No new entities are introduced: U_sim, Ludax, and the Intuitive Gamer model are all imported from prior publications.

free parameters (4)
  • θ (MaxEnt weight on U_sim) = 5.7
    Core weight in f(g;θ)=log P_base(g)+θ·U_sim(g); chosen by sweeping over {0,0.1,...,19.9,20} on the human data, so its value is data-dependent and central to the claim.
  • λ (L1 regularization coefficient) = 0.1
    Added to the MaxEnt objective; chosen by the authors and affects the fitted θ and the reported likelihood comparison.
  • Intuitive Gamer funness coefficients = averaged coefficients from Collins et al. (2026)
    Used to compute U_sim from balance, challenge, and length readouts; these were fit to human funness ratings of the original 121 games and are reused without re-fitting, so the central claim inherits them.
  • Random-game DSL sampling probabilities = board size uniform 1-12; each rule deviation sampled with probability 1/10
    Hand-set to roughly match the presence of mechanics in the original dataset; determines the composition of the normalization set Z and therefore the likelihood comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The finite normalization set (1000 random DSL games + 121 original games + Ludax-expressible human games) approximates the full space of possible games G.
    The MaxEnt partition function Z sums over this set; if it is not representative, the likelihood comparison between θ=0 and θ=5.7 is not meaningful. Location: Implementation details.
  • ad hoc to paper LLaMA 3.1 8B token log probabilities of Ludax programs approximate the human proposal distribution P_propose conditioned on context.
    The paper substitutes a Code-LM's average token log probability for the unknown human proposal probability, with a specific prompt and temperature 0.5; no validation against human proposal judgments is provided. Location: Implementation details and Supplement.
  • domain assumption The Intuitive Gamer model, validated on line-completion games, generalizes to arbitrary shape-completion goals and logical compositions of multiple conditions.
    The paper expands the modeled class beyond the original validation set; the supplement concedes the model may not generalize to games distant from the original 121. Location: Game evaluation section and Supplement.
  • domain assumption Human-created games are independent and identically distributed samples from the MaxEnt distribution over games.
    The log-likelihood objective assumes i.i.d. draws from P(g|θ), but participants deliberately crafted one game under a funness instruction, likely violating i.i.d. sampling. Location: Model-based likelihood analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper LLaMA 3.3 70B translations preserve the semantics of participants' natural language game descriptions.
    The formalization step converts freeform text to Ludax with k=3 samples; 32 of 326 annotated games fail to compile and 29 are flagged ambiguous, so translation noise propagates into P_propose and U_sim. Location: Supplement.
  • standard math Presence-only MaxEnt with L1 regularization is an appropriate framework for the observed game data.
    The paper imports MaxEnt from ecological modeling; the validity of the likelihood ratio test depends on the i.i.d. and background assumptions. Location: Model-based likelihood analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation and Evaluation in the Human Invention Process through the Lens of Game Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTRNAREC

@misc{pith2026250810914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation and Evaluation in the Human Invention Process through the Lens of Game Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTRNAREC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10914}
}
read the original abstract

The human ability to learn rules and solve problems has been a central concern of cognitive science research since the field's earliest days. But we do not just follow rules and solve problems given to us by others: we modify those rules, create new problems, and set new goals and tasks for ourselves and others. Arguably, even more than rule following and problem solving, human intelligence is about creatively breaking and stretching the rules, changing the game, and inventing new problems worth thinking about. Creating a good rule or a good problem depends not just on the ideas one can think up but on how one evaluates such proposals. Here, we study invention through the lens of game design. We focus particularly on the early stages of novice, "everyday" game creation, where the stakes are low. We draw on a dataset of over 450 human created games, created by participants who saw an initial seed set of two-player grid-based strategy games. We consider two different cognitive mechanisms that may be at work during the early processes of intuitive game invention: an associative proposal based on previous games one has seen and compute-bounded model-based evaluation that an everyday game creator may use to refine their initial draft proposals. In our preliminary work, we conduct a model-based analysis of how people invented new games based on prior experience and find that generated games are best described by a model which incorporates model-based estimates of game quality at a population level. Our work points to how human invention is based not only on what people propose, but how they evaluate and offers a computational toolkit to scale empirical studies of model-based simulation in open-ended human innovation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...

  2. [2]

    , Austerweil, J L

    abbott2015random APACrefauthors Abbott, J T. , Austerweil, J L. \ Griffiths, T L. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Random walks on semantic networks can resemble optimal foraging Random walks on semantic networks can resemble optimal foraging . Psychological Review 122 3

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    , Gans, J S

    agrawal2021enabling APACrefauthors Agrawal, A. , Gans, J S. \ Stern, S. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Enabling entrepreneurial choice Enabling entrepreneurial choice . Management Science 67 9 5510--5524

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    , Br\" a ndle, F

    allen2023using APACrefauthors Allen, K. , Br\" a ndle, F. , Botvinick, M. , Fan, J E. , Gershman, S J. , Gopnik, A. Schulz, E. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Using Games to Understand the Mind Using games to understand the mind . PsyArXiv . Accepted to Nature Human Behavior

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    , Alaniz, S

    binz2025should APACrefauthors Binz, M. , Alaniz, S. , Roskies, A. , Aczel, B. , Bergstrom, C T. , Allen, C. others APACrefauthors \ 2025 . How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 12...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    \ Griffiths, T L

    bonawitz2010deconfounding APACrefauthors Bonawitz, E B. \ Griffiths, T L. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Deconfounding hypothesis generation and evaluation in Bayesian models Deconfounding hypothesis generation and evaluation in bayesian models . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive...

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    , Abbott, J

    bourgin2014empirical APACrefauthors Bourgin, D. , Abbott, J. , Griffiths, T. , Smith, K. \ Vul, E. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . Empirical evidence for markov chain monte carlo in memory search Empirical evidence for markov chain monte carlo in memory search . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Proceedings of the annual meeting o...

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    \ Maire, F

    browne2010evolutionary APACrefauthors Browne, C. \ Maire, F. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Evolutionary game design Evolutionary game design . IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 2 1 1--16

    work page 2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    APACrefauthors \ 1960

    campbell1960blind APACrefauthors Campbell, D T. APACrefauthors \ 1960 . Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological rev...

    1960

  2. [10]

    \ Simon, H A

    chase1973mind APACrefauthors Chase, W G. \ Simon, H A. APACrefauthors \ 1973 . The mind's eye in chess The mind's eye in chess . Visual information processing Visual information processing \ ( \ 215--281). Elsevier

    1973

  3. [11]

    \ Schulz, L E

    chu2020play APACrefauthors Chu, J. \ Schulz, L E. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Play, curiosity, and cognition Play, curiosity, and cognition . Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 2 1 317--343

    2020

  4. [12]

    APACrefauthors \ 1907

    cleveland1907psychology APACrefauthors Cleveland, A A. APACrefauthors \ 1907 . The psychology of chess and of learning to play it The psychology of chess and of learning to play it . The American Journal of Psychology 18 3 269--308

    1907

  5. [13]

    , Zhang, C E

    collins2025intuitivegamer APACrefauthors Collins, K M. , Zhang, C E. , Wong, L. , Barba, M. , Todd, G. , Weller, A. Tenenbaum, J B. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . People use fast, flat goal-directed simulation to reason about novel problems. People use fast, flat goal-directed simula...

    2025

  6. [14]

    \ Colton, S

    cook2011multi APACrefauthors Cook, M. \ Colton, S. APACrefauthors \ 2011 . Multi-faceted evolution of simple arcade games Multi-faceted evolution of simple arcade games . 2011 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG'11) 2011 ieee conference on computationa...

    2011

  7. [15]

    \ Siegler, R S

    crowley1993flexible APACrefauthors Crowley, K. \ Siegler, R S. APACrefauthors \ 1993 . Flexible strategy use in young children's tic-tac-toe Flexible strategy use in young children's tic-tac-toe . Cognitive Science 17 4 531--561

    1993

  8. [16]

    APACrefauthors \ 2023

    daston2023rules APACrefauthors Daston, L. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Rules: A Short History of What We Live By Rules: A short history of what we live by \ ( 13). Princeton University Press

    2023

  9. [17]

    , Gureckis, T M

    davidson2022creativity APACrefauthors Davidson, G. , Gureckis, T M. \ Lake, B. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Creativity, Compositionality, and Common Sense in Human Goal Generation Creativity, compositionality, and common sense in human goal generation . Proceedings of the Annual Me...

    2022

  10. [18]

    , Todd, G

    davidson2024goals APACrefauthors Davidson, G. , Todd, G. , Togelius, J. , Gureckis, T M. \ Lake, B M. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Goals as Reward-Producing Programs Goals as reward-producing programs . arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13242

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    , Jauhri, A

    dubey2024llama APACrefauthors Dubey, A. , Jauhri, A. , Pandey, A. , Kadian, A. , Al-Dahle, A. , Letman, A. others APACrefauthors \ 2024 . The llama 3 herd of models The llama 3 herd of models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    , Agrawal, P

    dubey2018investigating APACrefauthors Dubey, R. , Agrawal, P. , Pathak, D. , Griffiths, T L. \ Efros, A A. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Investigating human priors for playing video games Investigating human priors for playing video games . arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10217

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    APACrefauthors \ 1975

    fodor1975the APACrefauthors Fodor, J A. APACrefauthors \ 1975 . The Language of Thought The language of thought . Harvard University Press

    1975

  14. [22]

    , Retschitzki, J

    gobet2004moves APACrefauthors Gobet, F. , Retschitzki, J. \ de Voogt, A. APACrefauthors \ 2004 . Moves in mind: The psychology of board games Moves in mind: The psychology of board games . Psychology Press

    2004

  15. [23]

    , Sanborn, S

    ho2018human APACrefauthors Ho, M K. , Sanborn, S. , Callaway, F. , Bourgin, D. \ Griffiths, T. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Human priors in hierarchical program induction Human priors in hierarchical program induction . 2018 Conference on Computational Cognitive Neuroscience

    2018

  16. [24]

    APACrefauthors \ 1957

    jaynes1957information APACrefauthors Jaynes, E T. APACrefauthors \ 1957 . Information theory and statistical mechanics Information theory and statistical mechanics . Physical review 106 4 620

    1957

  17. [25]

    , Green, M C

    khalifa2017general APACrefauthors Khalifa, A. , Green, M C. , Perez-Liebana, D. \ Togelius, J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . General video game rule generation General video game rule generation . 2017 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) 2017 ieee conferenc...

    2017

  18. [26]

    APACrefauthors \ 1976

    kirton1976adaptors APACrefauthors Kirton, M. APACrefauthors \ 1976 . Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of applied psychology 61 5 622

    1976

  19. [27]

    , Ullman, T D

    lake2017building APACrefauthors Lake, B M. , Ullman, T D. , Tenenbaum, J B. \ Gershman, S J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Building machines that learn and think like people Building machines that learn and think like people . Behavioral and brain sciences 40

    2017

  20. [28]

    \ Griffiths, T L

    lieder2020resource APACrefauthors Lieder, F. \ Griffiths, T L. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use o...

    2020

  21. [29]

    , Yao, S

    mccoy2024embers APACrefauthors McCoy, R T. , Yao, S. , Friedman, D. , Hardy, M D. \ Griffiths, T L. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Embers of autoregression show how large language models are shaped by the problem they are trained to solve Embers of autoregression show how large langu...

    2024

  22. [30]

    APACrefauthors \ 2010

    mokyr2010enlightened APACrefauthors Mokyr, J. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . The Enlightened economy an economic history of Britain 1700-1850 The enlightened economy an economic history of britain 1700-1850 . Yale University Press

    2010

  23. [31]

    , Shaw, J C

    newell1958chess APACrefauthors Newell, A. , Shaw, J C. \ Simon, H A. APACrefauthors \ 1958 . Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity . IBM Journal of Research and Development 2 4 320--335

    1958

  24. [32]

    \ Schitter, C

    palan2018prolific APACrefauthors Palan, S. \ Schitter, C. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Prolific.ac--- A subject pool for online experiments Prolific.ac--- A subject pool for online experiments . Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17 22--27

    2018

  25. [33]

    APACrefauthors \ 1992

    pell1992metagame APACrefauthors Pell, B. APACrefauthors \ 1992 . METAGAME: A new challenge for games and learning Metagame: A new challenge for games and learning

    1992

  26. [34]

    , Anderson, R P

    phillips2006maximum APACrefauthors Phillips, S J. , Anderson, R P. \ Schapire, R E. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions . Ecological modelling 190 3-4 231--259

    2006

  27. [35]

    , Soemers, D J

    piette2020ludii APACrefauthors Piette, E. , Soemers, D J. , Stephenson, M. , Sironi, C F. , Winands, M H. \ Browne, C. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Ludii--the ludemic general game system Ludii--the ludemic general game system . ECAI 2020 Ecai 2020 \ ( \ 411--418). IOS Press

    2020

  28. [36]

    APACrefauthors \ 2008

    rakoczy2008taking APACrefauthors Rakoczy, H. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . Taking fiction seriously: young children understand the normative structure of joint pretence games. Taking fiction seriously: young children understand the normative structure of joint pretence games. Develo...

    2008

  29. [37]

    , Warneken, F

    rakoczy2008sources APACrefauthors Rakoczy, H. , Warneken, F. \ Tomasello, M. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . The sources of normativity: young children's awareness of the normative structure of games. The sources of normativity: young children's awareness of the normative structure of...

    2008

  30. [38]

    , Jagadish, A K

    rmus2025towards APACrefauthors Rmus, M. , Jagadish, A K. , Mathony, M. , Ludwig, T. \ Schulz, E. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Towards automation of cognitive modeling using large language models Towards automation of cognitive modeling using large language models . arXiv e-prints a...

    2025

  31. [39]

    playing for fun

    rule2023fun APACrefauthors Rule, J. , Goddu, M. , Chu, J. , Pinter, V. , Reagan, E R. , Bonawitz, E. others APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Fun isn’t easy: Children choose more difficult options when “playing for fun” vs.“trying to win” Fun isn’t easy: Children choose more difficult o...

    2023

  32. [40]

    , Acosta-Kane, D

    russek2022time APACrefauthors Russek, E. , Acosta-Kane, D. , van Opheusden, B. , Mattar, M G. \ Griffiths, T. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Time spent thinking in online chess reflects the value of computation Time spent thinking in online chess reflects the value of computation

    2022

  33. [41]

    APACrefauthors \ 2012

    schulz2012finding APACrefauthors Schulz, L. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Finding New Facts; Thinking New Thoughts Finding new facts; thinking new thoughts . F. Xu\ T. Kushnir\ ( ), Rational Constructivism in Cognitive Development Rational constructivism in cognitive development \ (...

    2012

  34. [42]

    , Collins, K M

    sucholutsky2025using APACrefauthors Sucholutsky, I. , Collins, K M. , Jacoby, N. , Thompson, B D. \ Hawkins, R D. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Using LLMs to Advance the Cognitive Science of Collectives Using llms to advance the cognitive science of collectives . arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    , Bourgin, D D

    suchow2017evolution APACrefauthors Suchow, J W. , Bourgin, D D. \ Griffiths, T L. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Evolution in mind: Evolutionary dynamics, cognitive processes, and bayesian inference Evolution in mind: Evolutionary dynamics, cognitive processes, and bayesian inference...

    2017

  36. [44]

    APACrefauthors \ 1978

    Suits1978-SUITGG APACrefauthors Suits, B. APACrefauthors \ 1978 . The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia \ (T. Hurka, ). Peterborough, CA Broadview Press

    1978

  37. [45]

    , Padula, A G

    todd2025ludax APACrefauthors Todd, G. , Padula, A G. , Soemers, D J. \ Togelius, J. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Ludax: A GPU-Accelerated Domain Specific Language for Board Games Ludax: A gpu-accelerated domain specific language for board games . arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22609

    2025

  38. [46]

    , Padula, A G

    todd2024gavel APACrefauthors Todd, G. , Padula, A G. , Stephenson, M. , Piette, E. , Soemers, D J. \ Togelius, J. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . GAVEL: Generating Games via Evolution and Language Models Gavel: Generating games via evolution and language models . The Thirty-eighth Ann...

    2024

  39. [47]

    \ Schmidhuber, J

    togelius2008experiment APACrefauthors Togelius, J. \ Schmidhuber, J. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . An experiment in automatic game design An experiment in automatic game design . 2008 IEEE Symposium On Computational Intelligence and Games 2008 ieee symposium on computational intelli...

    2008

  40. [48]

    , Loula, J

    tsividis2021human APACrefauthors Tsividis, P A. , Loula, J. , Burga, J. , Foss, N. , Campero, A. , Pouncy, T. Tenenbaum, J B. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Human-level reinforcement learning through theory-based modeling, exploration, and planning Human-level reinforcement learning ...

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    , Siegel, M H

    ullman2016coalescing APACrefauthors Ullman, T D. , Siegel, M H. , Tenenbaum, J. \ Gershman, S. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Coalescing the Vapors of Human Experience into a Viable and Meaningful Comprehension. Coalescing the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful c...

    2016

  42. [50]

    , Kuperwajs, I

    van2023expertise APACrefauthors van Opheusden, B. , Kuperwajs, I. , Galbiati, G. , Bnaya, Z. , Li, Y. \ Ma, W J. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Expertise increases planning depth in human gameplay Expertise increases planning depth in human gameplay . Nature 1--6

    2023

  43. [51]

    , Collins, K M

    wong2025modeling APACrefauthors Wong, L. , Collins, K M. , Ying, L. , Zhang, C E. , Weller, A. , Gersternberg, T. others APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Modeling Open-World Cognition as On-Demand Synthesis of Probabilistic Models Modeling open-world cognition as on-demand synthesis of...

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    , Grand, G

    wong2023word APACrefauthors Wong, L. , Grand, G. , Lew, A K. , Goodman, N D. , Mansinghka, V K. , Andreas, J. \ Tenenbaum, J B. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . From Word Models to World Models: Translating from Natural Language to the Probabilistic Language of Thought From word models...

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    \ Paul, L

    yildirim2024task APACrefauthors Yildirim, I. \ Paul, L. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . From task structures to world models: what do LLMs know? From task structures to world models: what do llms know? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 28 5 404--415

    2024

  46. [54]

    , Strumsky, D

    youn2015invention APACrefauthors Youn, H. , Strumsky, D. , Bettencourt, L M. \ Lobo, J. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Invention as a combinatorial process: evidence from US patents Invention as a combinatorial process: evidence from us patents . Journal of the Royal Society interfac...

    2015

  47. [55]

    , Collins, K M

    zhang2024peopleusefastgoaldirected APACrefauthors Zhang, C E. , Collins, K M. , Wong, L. , Weller, A. \ Tenenbaum, J B. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel games People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel...

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    , V \'e lez, N

    zhao2024rational APACrefauthors Zhao, B. , V \'e lez, N. \ Griffiths, T. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . A rational model of innovation by recombination A rational model of innovation by recombination . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Proceedings of ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.