This article describes the structure-mapping engine (SME) and its relation to psychological theory and research. SME was created in 1986 as a simulation of structure-mapping theory (SMT) and is still in use, both on its own and as part of larger scale simulations such as CogSketch and Companion that capture analogy’s roles in other cognitive processing. Over the 4 decades since artificial intelligence (AI) first appeared, there has been continual interaction between AI research and human research. We begin by briefly reviewing SMT and the basic construction of SME. After comparing SME with other simulations, we then describe some specific contributions of SME to our understanding of human analogical processing. We close by proposing that these psychological models can become a new technology for AI.
BowdleB.GentnerD. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 244–286.
2.
BuckleyS. (1979). Sun up to sun down. McGraw-Hill.
3.
ChristieS.GentnerD. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 356–373.
4.
ClementC.GentnerD. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15, 89–132.
5.
DoumasL. A. A.HummelJ. E.SandhoferC. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1–43.
6.
DunbarK. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 391–434.
7.
ForbusK.UsherJ.LovettA.LockwoodK.WetzelJ. (2011). CogSketch: Sketch understanding for cognitive science research and for education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(4), 648–666.
8.
ForbusK. D.ChenK.XuW.UsherM. (2025). Hybrid primal sketch: Combining analogy, qualitative representations, and computer vision for scene understanding. Cognitive Systems Research, 93, Article 101390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2025.101390
9.
ForbusK. D.FergusonR. W.LovettA.GentnerD. (2017). Extending SME to handle large-scale cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 41, 1152–1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12377
10.
ForbusK. D.GarnierB.TikoffB.MarkoW.UsherM.MclureM. (2020). Sketch worksheets in STEM classrooms: Two deployments. AI Magazine, 41(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v41i1.5189
11.
ForbusK. D.GentnerD.LawK. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141–205.
12.
ForbusK. D.HinrichsT. (2017). Analogy and qualitative representations in the Companion cognitive architecture. AI Magazine, 38(4), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i4.2743
13.
ForbusK. D.LiangC.RabkinaI. (2017). Representation and computation in cognitive models. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 694–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12277
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
16.
GentnerD. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775.
17.
GentnerD.RattermannM. J.ForbusK. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrieval from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524–575.
18.
GoldstoneR. L. (1994). Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(1), 3–28.
19.
HaryuE.ImaiM.OkadaH. (2011) Object similarity bootstraps young children to action-based verb extensions. Child Development, 82(2), 674–686.
20.
HummelJ. E.HolyoakK. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110(3), 220–264.
21.
KandaswamyS.ForbusK. (2012). Modeling learning of relational abstractions via structural alignment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 545–550.
22.
KatzE. D. (2015). Justice Ginsburg’s umbrella. In BagenstosS. R.KatzE. D. (Eds.), A nation of widening opportunities? The Civil Rights Act at fifty. Michigan Publishing.
23.
KeaneM. T. G. (1990). Incremental analogizing: Theory and model. In GilhoolyK. J.KeaneM. T. G.LogieR. H.ErdosG. (Eds.), Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thought (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
24.
KotovskyL.GentnerD. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797–2822.
25.
KrawczykD.HolyoakK.HummelJ. (2004). Structural constraints and object similarity in analogical mapping and inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 85–104.
26.
KuehneS. E.GentnerD.ForbusK. D. (2000). Modeling infant learning via symbolic structural alignment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 22, 286–291.
27.
LiangC.ParitoshP.RajendranV.ForbusK. D. (2016). Learning paraphrase identification with structural alignment. In BrewkaG. (Ed.), IJCAI'16: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 2859–2865). AAAI Press.
28.
LovettA.ForbusK. D. (2017). Modeling visual problem solving as analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 124(1), 60–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000039
NakosC.ForbusK. D. (2023). Using large language models in the companion cognitive architecture: A case study and future prospects. Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, 2(1), 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaaiss.v2i1.27700
31.
NewellA. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press.
32.
TrenchM.MinervinoR. A. (2015). The role of surface similarity in analogical retrieval: Bridging the gap between the naturalistic and the experimental traditions. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 1292–1319.
33.
van RooijI.EvansP.MullerM.GedgeJ.WarehamT. (2008). Identifying sources of intractability in cognitive models: An illustration using analogical structure mapping. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 30, 915–920.
34.
WilsonJ.ChenK.CrouseM. C.NakosC.RibeiroD.RabkinaI.ForbusK. D. (2019, August2–5). Analogical question answering in a multimodal information kiosk [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, Cambridge, MA, United States.
