@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/act-r-model-builder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+---
+name: "act-r-model-builder"
+description: "Guides ACT-R cognitive model construction: chunk types, production rules, subsymbolic parameters, and model validation"
+domain: "computational-cognitive-modeling"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Anderson, 2007"
+ - "Anderson & Lebiere, 1998"
+ - "Anderson & Schooler, 1991"
+ - "Bothell, 2023"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# ACT-R Model Builder
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert knowledge for constructing computational cognitive models within the ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought -- Rational) architecture. It provides guidance on chunk type definition, production rule authoring, subsymbolic parameter selection with empirically validated defaults, model fitting workflows, and validation procedures. A general-purpose programmer would not know the architecture constraints, parameter defaults, or model validation standards without specialized cognitive modeling training.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Designing a new ACT-R model for a cognitive task (memory retrieval, decision-making, skill acquisition)
+- Setting subsymbolic parameters and understanding their theoretical justification
+- Structuring chunk types and production rules for a specific experimental paradigm
+- Fitting an ACT-R model to behavioral data (RT, accuracy)
+- Validating a model via parameter recovery, cross-validation, or qualitative predictions
+- Choosing between ACT-R 7.x (Lisp) and pyactr (Python) for implementation
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** -- What specific question is this analysis/paradigm addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** -- Why is this approach appropriate? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** -- What results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** -- What does this method assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## ACT-R Architecture Overview
+
+ACT-R is a hybrid cognitive architecture with symbolic and subsymbolic components (Anderson, 2007; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998).
+
+### Core Modules and Buffers
+
+| Module | Buffer | Function | Source |
+|--------|--------|----------|--------|
+| Declarative memory | retrieval | Stores and retrieves chunks (facts) | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 2 |
+| Procedural memory | (none; fires productions) | Stores production rules (skills) | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 3 |
+| Goal | goal | Tracks current task state | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 4 |
+| Imaginal | imaginal | Holds intermediate problem representations | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 4 |
+| Visual | visual, visual-location | Attends to and encodes visual objects | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6 |
+| Motor | manual | Executes motor responses (keypresses) | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6 |
+| Temporal | temporal | Tracks time intervals | Taatgen et al., 2007 |
+
+### Processing Cycle
+
+1. Buffers hold one chunk each (the "bottleneck" assumption; Anderson, 2007, Ch. 1)
+2. Productions match against buffer contents (pattern matching)
+3. Conflict resolution selects one production per cycle (~**50 ms** per production firing; Anderson, 2007)
+4. Selected production modifies buffers or makes requests to modules
+5. Modules process requests asynchronously
+
+## Building the Symbolic Model
+
+### Step 1: Define Chunk Types
+
+Chunk types define the structure of declarative knowledge:
+
+```
+;; ACT-R 7.x Lisp syntax
+(chunk-type addition-problem arg1 arg2 answer)
+(chunk-type counting-fact number next)
+```
+
+**Decision rules for chunk type design:**
+
+1. Each chunk type represents one category of knowledge (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 2)
+2. Slots should correspond to meaningful features of the domain
+3. Use inheritance when chunk types share structure (e.g., a "problem" parent type)
+4. Keep chunks small -- typically **3-6 slots** per chunk type (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998)
+
+### Step 2: Write Production Rules
+
+Productions follow an IF-THEN structure:
+
+```
+(p retrieve-answer
+ =goal>
+ isa addition-problem
+ arg1 =num1
+ arg2 =num2
+ answer nil
+ ?retrieval>
+ state free
+==>
+ +retrieval>
+ isa addition-fact
+ addend1 =num1
+ addend2 =num2
+ =goal>
+)
+```
+
+**Production rule guidelines:**
+
+| Guideline | Rationale | Source |
+|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| One request per production | Module bottleneck constraint | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 3 |
+| Test buffer state before requesting | Prevents jamming the module | Bothell, 2023, ACT-R reference manual |
+| Use `=goal>` to maintain goal buffer | Prevents goal harvesting | Bothell, 2023 |
+| Minimize productions per task step | Simpler models are preferred (parsimony) | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 1 |
+
+### Step 3: Structure the Goal Stack
+
+```
+Is the task sequential with clear phases?
+ |
+ +-- YES --> Use a single goal chunk with a "step" slot
+ | that tracks the current phase
+ |
+ +-- NO --> Does the task require subgoaling?
+ |
+ +-- YES --> Use goal push/pop (stack)
+ |
+ +-- NO --> Use the imaginal buffer for
+ intermediate representations
+```
+
+## Subsymbolic Parameters
+
+These parameters govern memory activation, retrieval, and production selection. See `references/parameter-table.yaml` for the complete table.
+
+### Core Declarative Memory Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Symbol | Default | Typical Range | Source |
+|-----------|--------|---------|---------------|--------|
+| Base-level learning decay | d | **0.5** | 0.1 -- 1.0 | Anderson & Schooler, 1991; Anderson, 2007 |
+| Activation noise | s | **0.4** | 0.1 -- 0.8 | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Latency factor | F | **1.0** | 0.2 -- 5.0 | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Latency exponent | f | **1.0** | Fixed in most models | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Retrieval threshold | tau | **-infinity** (default) | Set empirically; often **0.0** to **-2.0** | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Maximum associative strength | S (mas) | **context-dependent** | 1.0 -- 5.0 | Anderson & Reder, 1999 |
+| Mismatch penalty | P | **application-dependent** | 0.5 -- 2.0 | Anderson, 2007 |
+
+### Production Utility Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Symbol | Default | Typical Range | Source |
+|-----------|--------|---------|---------------|--------|
+| Utility noise | sigma | **0.0** (deterministic) | 0.1 -- 2.0 when enabled | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Utility learning rate | alpha | **0.2** | 0.01 -- 1.0 | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Initial utility | U0 | **0.0** | Set per production | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Production compilation | enabled/disabled | Disabled by default | -- | Taatgen & Anderson, 2002 |
+
+### Timing Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Value | Source |
+|-----------|-------|--------|
+| Production cycle time | **50 ms** | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Visual encoding time | **85 ms** | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6 |
+| Motor initiation time | **50 ms** | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6 |
+| Motor execution time | **100 ms** (Fitts' law applies) | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6 |
+| Imaginal delay | **200 ms** | Anderson, 2007, Ch. 4 |
+
+### Activation Equation
+
+Total activation of chunk i:
+
+**A_i = B_i + sum_j(W_j * S_ji) + PM_i + noise**
+
+Where:
+- B_i = base-level activation (log of weighted recency; decay d; Anderson & Schooler, 1991)
+- W_j * S_ji = spreading activation from source j (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 5)
+- PM_i = partial matching component (Anderson, 2007)
+- noise = logistic noise with scale s (Anderson, 2007)
+
+Retrieval time: **RT = F * e^(-f * A_i)** (Anderson, 2007)
+
+## Model Fitting Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Identify Free Parameters
+
+```
+How many free parameters?
+ |
+ +-- <= 3 --> Standard practice; proceed
+ |
+ +-- 4-6 --> Acceptable if justified by model complexity
+ |
+ +-- > 6 --> Warning: overfitting risk. Consider fixing some
+ to default values (Anderson, 2007)
+```
+
+**Rule of thumb**: The number of free parameters should be substantially less than the number of independent data points being fit (Roberts & Pashler, 2000).
+
+### Step 2: Choose Fitting Method
+
+| Method | When to Use | Source |
+|--------|-------------|--------|
+| Grid search | Few parameters (1-3), bounded space | Standard practice |
+| Simplex (Nelder-Mead) | Moderate parameters, smooth landscape | Anderson, 2007 |
+| Differential evolution | Many parameters, multimodal landscape | Storn & Price, 1997 |
+| Bayesian optimization | Expensive evaluations, informed priors | Palestro et al., 2018 |
+
+### Step 3: Fit to Multiple Dependent Variables
+
+ACT-R models should simultaneously account for:
+- **Response times** (correct trials, mean or quantiles)
+- **Accuracy** (proportion correct by condition)
+- **Qualitative patterns** (error types, learning curves)
+
+Use weighted sum of squared deviations or log-likelihood across measures (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 4).
+
+### Step 4: Parameter Recovery
+
+Before trusting fitted parameter values, conduct a parameter recovery study. See the `parameter-recovery-checker` skill.
+
+## Common Model Patterns
+
+See `references/model-patterns.md` for detailed implementations of:
+
+1. **Memory retrieval** -- Paired associates, fan effect (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 5)
+2. **Skill acquisition** -- Production compilation, power law of practice (Taatgen & Anderson, 2002)
+3. **Decision-making** -- Instance-based learning, utility-based selection (Gonzalez et al., 2003)
+4. **Problem solving** -- Means-ends analysis, goal stacking (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 8)
+
+## Model Validation Checklist
+
+| Validation Step | Method | Minimum Standard |
+|----------------|--------|-----------------|
+| Parameter recovery | Simulate and refit | r > **0.9** between true and recovered (Heathcote et al., 2015) |
+| Cross-validation | Fit half, predict half | Prediction RMSE within **2x** of fitting RMSE |
+| Qualitative predictions | Novel conditions | Model predicts ordinal pattern correctly |
+| Model comparison | AIC/BIC or Bayes factor | Compare against plausible alternatives (Burnham & Anderson, 2002) |
+| Sensitivity analysis | Vary fixed parameters | Conclusions robust to +/-**20%** variation |
+
+## Software and Implementation
+
+| Platform | Language | URL | Notes |
+|----------|----------|-----|-------|
+| ACT-R 7.x | Common Lisp | act-r.psy.cmu.edu | Reference implementation (Bothell, 2023) |
+| pyactr | Python | github.com/jakdot/pyactr | Python interface, good for batch simulations (Dotlacil, 2018) |
+| jACT-R | Java | jactr.org | Java implementation |
+
+**Recommendation**: Use ACT-R 7.x for model development and validation. Use pyactr when integrating with Python data analysis pipelines or running large parameter sweeps (Dotlacil, 2018).
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Too many free parameters**: Fitting more than **5-6** free parameters without strong justification risks overfitting (Roberts & Pashler, 2000). Fix well-established parameters (d = **0.5**, production cycle = **50 ms**) to defaults.
+2. **Ignoring parameter correlations**: Parameters like s (noise) and tau (threshold) trade off. Run parameter recovery to verify identifiability.
+3. **Fitting only means**: ACT-R makes distributional predictions. Fitting only mean RT discards information. Use quantile-based fitting where possible (Heathcote et al., 2015).
+4. **Incorrect timing alignment**: ACT-R's predicted RT includes perceptual and motor times. Account for these when comparing to behavioral RT.
+5. **Overly complex models**: Prefer models with fewer productions and chunk types that still capture the qualitative pattern. Complexity should be motivated by the data (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 1).
+6. **Neglecting model comparison**: Always compare your ACT-R model against at least one alternative (simpler ACT-R variant or a different architecture) using formal model comparison (Burnham & Anderson, 2002).
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on best practices from Anderson (2007) and Heathcote et al. (2015):
+
+- [ ] Architecture version (e.g., ACT-R 7.27)
+- [ ] All chunk types and their slots
+- [ ] Number of production rules
+- [ ] All parameter values: fixed (with default source) and free (with fitted values and confidence intervals)
+- [ ] Fitting method and objective function
+- [ ] Data fitted: number of conditions, number of data points, dependent variables
+- [ ] Goodness of fit: R-squared, RMSE, or log-likelihood per dependent variable
+- [ ] Parameter recovery results (r, bias, RMSE for each free parameter)
+- [ ] Model comparison results (AIC/BIC/Bayes factor vs. alternatives)
+- [ ] Qualitative predictions and whether they matched data
+
+## References
+
+- Anderson, J. R. (2007). *How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?* Oxford University Press.
+- Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). *The Atomic Components of Thought.* Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
+- Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 128(2), 186-197.
+- Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. *Psychological Science*, 2(6), 396-408.
+- Bothell, D. (2023). *ACT-R 7.27 Reference Manual.* Carnegie Mellon University.
+- Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). *Model Selection and Multimodel Inference* (2nd ed.). Springer.
+- Dotlacil, J. (2018). Building an ACT-R reader for eye-tracking corpus data. *Topics in Cognitive Science*, 10(1), 144-160.
+- Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. (2003). Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. *Cognitive Science*, 27(4), 591-635.
+- Heathcote, A., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling. In B. U. Forstmann & E.-J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), *An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience*. Springer.
+- Palestro, J. J., Sederberg, P. B., Osth, A. F., Van Zandt, T., & Turner, B. M. (2018). Likelihood-free methods for cognitive science. Springer.
+- Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. *Psychological Review*, 107(2), 358-367.
+- Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Differential evolution. *Journal of Global Optimization*, 11(4), 341-359.
+- Taatgen, N. A., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Why do children learn to say "Broke"? A model of learning the past tense without feedback. *Cognition*, 86(2), 123-155.
+- Taatgen, N. A., van Rijn, H., & Anderson, J. R. (2007). An integrated theory of prospective time interval estimation. *Psychological Review*, 114(3), 577-598.
+
+See `references/` for detailed parameter tables and common model patterns.

package/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/act-r-model-builder/references/model-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# Common ACT-R Model Patterns
+
+This reference describes standard model patterns used across ACT-R cognitive models. Each pattern includes the key architectural features, representative chunk types, production structure, and critical parameters.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Memory Retrieval Models
+
+### Canonical Example: Paired Associates Task
+
+The participant learns associations (e.g., "2 -- BEAR") and must recall the paired word when cued with the number (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 5).
+
+### Architecture
+
+- **Declarative memory**: Stores paired-associate chunks
+- **Goal buffer**: Tracks trial state (encoding, retrieval, response)
+- **Visual module**: Reads stimulus from screen
+- **Motor module**: Types response
+
+### Key Chunk Types
+
+```lisp
+(chunk-type pair probe answer)
+(chunk-type goal step probe answer)
+```
+
+### Production Skeleton
+
+1. `read-probe` -- Attend to and encode the visual probe
+2. `retrieve-answer` -- Request retrieval of the paired associate
+3. `respond` -- Output the retrieved answer via motor module
+4. `fail` -- Handle retrieval failure
+
+### Critical Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Role | Typical Value |
+|-----------|------|---------------|
+| d (decay) | Controls forgetting of pairs | **0.5** (Anderson & Schooler, 1991) |
+| s (noise) | Variability in retrieval success | **0.2 -- 0.5** (Anderson, 2007) |
+| tau (threshold) | Retrieval failure threshold | **-0.5 to 0.5** (set empirically) |
+| S (mas) | Fan effect strength | **1.5 -- 3.0** (Anderson & Reder, 1999) |
+
+### Behavioral Predictions
+
+- **Power law of forgetting**: Accuracy decreases as a power function of lag (Anderson & Schooler, 1991)
+- **Fan effect**: RT increases logarithmically with number of associations (Anderson & Reder, 1999)
+- **Spacing effect**: Distributed practice produces slower forgetting (Pavlik & Anderson, 2005)
+
+---
+
+## 2. Skill Acquisition Models
+
+### Canonical Example: Power Law of Practice
+
+Models the transition from slow, deliberate processing to fast, automatic performance (Taatgen & Anderson, 2002; Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981).
+
+### Architecture
+
+- **Declarative memory**: Stores facts needed for initial performance
+- **Procedural memory**: Productions that initially retrieve facts, then compile into direct rules
+- **Production compilation**: Enabled (:epl t)
+
+### Mechanism
+
+1. **Interpretive phase**: Productions retrieve declarative knowledge to guide behavior
+2. **Compilation**: Two sequential productions merge into one (Taatgen & Anderson, 2002)
+3. **Tuning**: Compiled productions gain utility through reward learning
+
+### Critical Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Role | Typical Value |
+|-----------|------|---------------|
+| Production compilation | Must be enabled | :epl t (Taatgen & Anderson, 2002) |
+| alpha (learning rate) | Speed of utility learning | **0.2** (Anderson, 2007) |
+| Reward value | Goal reward for successful completion | **Task-dependent** |
+
+### Behavioral Predictions
+
+- **Power law of practice**: RT = a * N^(-b), where N is practice trials (Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981)
+- **Qualitative shift**: Errors change from declarative-based to procedural-based with practice
+
+---
+
+## 3. Decision-Making Models
+
+### Canonical Example: Instance-Based Learning
+
+Models decisions based on accumulated experience with outcomes (Gonzalez et al., 2003).
+
+### Architecture
+
+- **Declarative memory**: Stores instances (situation-decision-outcome triples)
+- **Blending**: Uses blended retrieval to aggregate over multiple instances (:blt t)
+- **Utility learning**: Optional, for strategy selection
+
+### Key Chunk Types
+
+```lisp
+(chunk-type instance
+ situation ;; features of the current context
+ decision ;; action taken
+ outcome ;; result observed (e.g., reward value)
+)
+```
+
+### Mechanism (Gonzalez et al., 2003)
+
+1. Encode current situation
+2. Retrieve (or blend) instances matching current situation
+3. Evaluate expected outcomes for each possible decision
+4. Select decision with highest expected value
+5. Execute decision, observe outcome, store new instance
+
+### Critical Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Role | Typical Value |
+|-----------|------|---------------|
+| d (decay) | Recency weighting of instances | **0.5** (Anderson & Schooler, 1991) |
+| s (noise) | Exploration vs. exploitation | **0.25 -- 1.0** (Gonzalez et al., 2003) |
+| Blending | Aggregate over instances | :blt t (Lebiere, 1999) |
+
+### Behavioral Predictions
+
+- **Recency effect**: Recent outcomes influence decisions more than distant ones
+- **Frequency effect**: More frequently experienced outcomes have higher base-level activation
+- **Risk sensitivity**: Noise parameter s controls risk-seeking vs. risk-averse behavior
+
+---
+
+## 4. Problem Solving Models
+
+### Canonical Example: Tower of Hanoi
+
+Models multi-step problem solving with goal decomposition (Anderson, 2007, Ch. 8).
+
+### Architecture
+
+- **Goal buffer**: Tracks current goal and subgoals (stack-based)
+- **Imaginal buffer**: Holds intermediate problem state representation
+- **Declarative memory**: Stores known move patterns and strategies
+
+### Production Structure
+
+1. `set-goal` -- Identify the top-level goal
+2. `decompose-problem` -- Push subgoal onto goal stack
+3. `execute-move` -- Perform a primitive action
+4. `pop-subgoal` -- Return to parent goal after completing subgoal
+5. `check-done` -- Verify goal is achieved
+
+### Critical Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Role | Typical Value |
+|-----------|------|---------------|
+| Goal activation (G) | Strength of goal-directed retrieval | **1.0 -- 3.0** (Anderson, 2007) |
+| Imaginal delay | Time for problem state updates | **200 ms** (Anderson, 2007) |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Cognitive Control / Conflict Models
+
+### Canonical Example: Stroop Task
+
+Models the conflict between automatic word reading and controlled color naming.
+
+### Architecture
+
+- **Visual module**: Encodes both color and word features
+- **Procedural memory**: Competing productions for word-reading vs. color-naming
+- **Utility-based selection**: Higher utility for task-relevant production
+
+### Mechanism
+
+1. Encode stimulus (color and word simultaneously)
+2. Two productions compete: read-word (high utility from practice) vs. name-color (task-instructed)
+3. Conflict resolved by utility + noise
+4. Incongruent trials: competing retrieval or motor responses add time
+
+### Critical Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Role | Typical Value |
+|-----------|------|---------------|
+| Utility of word-reading | Reflects automaticity | Higher initial utility |
+| Utility of color-naming | Reflects task instruction | Set by experimenter |
+| sigma (utility noise) | Conflict resolution stochasticity | **0.5 -- 1.5** (Anderson, 2007) |
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Anderson, J. R. (2007). *How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?* Oxford University Press.
+- Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. *JEP: General*, 128(2), 186-197.
+- Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. *Psychological Science*, 2(6), 396-408.
+- Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. (2003). Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. *Cognitive Science*, 27(4), 591-635.
+- Lebiere, C. (1999). The dynamics of cognition: An ACT-R model of cognitive arithmetic. *Kognitionswissenschaft*, 8(1), 5-19.
+- Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), *Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition*. Erlbaum.
+- Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory. *Cognitive Science*, 29(4), 559-586.
+- Taatgen, N. A., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Why do children learn to say "Broke"? *Cognition*, 86(2), 123-155.

package/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/act-r-model-builder/references/parameter-table.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# ACT-R Subsymbolic Parameter Reference Table
+# Each parameter includes its symbol, default value, typical range, and citation.
+
+declarative_memory:
+ base_level_decay:
+ symbol: "d"
+ default: 0.5
+ range: [0.1, 1.0]
+ description: >
+ Controls the rate at which base-level activation decays over time.
+ Higher values produce faster forgetting. The default of 0.5 was
+ derived from the environmental statistics of memory access patterns.
+ citation: "Anderson & Schooler, 1991; Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Typically fixed at 0.5 in most ACT-R models. Only free this
+ parameter if the model specifically addresses forgetting dynamics.
+
+ activation_noise:
+ symbol: "s"
+ default: 0.4
+ range: [0.1, 0.8]
+ description: >
+ Scale parameter of the logistic noise added to chunk activations.
+ Determines the stochasticity of memory retrieval. Higher values
+ make retrieval more variable and error-prone.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Common free parameter. Values below 0.2 produce near-deterministic
+ retrieval. Values above 0.6 produce highly stochastic behavior.
+
+ latency_factor:
+ symbol: "F"
+ default: 1.0
+ range: [0.2, 5.0]
+ description: >
+ Scales the retrieval time equation RT = F * exp(-f * A_i).
+ Higher values slow all retrievals proportionally.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Common free parameter used to scale model time to match
+ observed reaction times.
+
+ latency_exponent:
+ symbol: "f"
+ default: 1.0
+ range: "Usually fixed at 1.0"
+ description: >
+ Exponent in the retrieval time equation. Rarely varied.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+
+ retrieval_threshold:
+ symbol: "tau"
+ default: "-infinity"
+ range: [-2.0, 2.0]
+ description: >
+ Minimum activation required for successful retrieval.
+ Chunks below this threshold result in retrieval failure.
+ Default of -infinity means all chunks can be retrieved.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Set empirically when modeling retrieval failures or errors.
+ Common values range from 0.0 to -2.0 for typical tasks.
+
+ maximum_associative_strength:
+ symbol: "S (mas)"
+ default: "context-dependent"
+ range: [1.0, 5.0]
+ description: >
+ Maximum strength of associative links for spreading activation.
+ Total spreading activation from a source is S divided by the
+ fan (number of associations).
+ citation: "Anderson & Reder, 1999; Anderson, 2007, Ch. 5"
+ notes: >
+ Critical for fan-effect models. Value depends on the task
+ and the number of associations in the model.
+
+ mismatch_penalty:
+ symbol: "P"
+ default: "application-dependent"
+ range: [0.5, 2.0]
+ description: >
+ Penalty applied per mismatching slot during partial matching.
+ Higher values make partial matches less likely to succeed.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Only relevant when partial matching is enabled (:mp t).
+ Must be tuned to the specific task.
+
+ goal_activation:
+ symbol: "G"
+ default: 1.0
+ range: [0.5, 5.0]
+ description: >
+ Activation spread from the goal buffer to declarative memory.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 5"
+
+spreading_activation:
+ weight_distribution:
+ description: >
+ Source activation W is divided equally among all sources
+ by default: W_j = G / n, where n is the number of chunks
+ in source buffers.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+
+ associative_strength:
+ equation: "S_ji = S - ln(fan_j)"
+ description: >
+ Associative strength from source j to chunk i decreases
+ logarithmically with the fan of source j.
+ citation: "Anderson & Reder, 1999"
+
+procedural_memory:
+ utility_noise:
+ symbol: "sigma (egs)"
+ default: 0.0
+ range: [0.1, 2.0]
+ description: >
+ Noise added to production utilities during conflict resolution.
+ When 0, the highest-utility production always fires (deterministic).
+ Non-zero values introduce stochastic production selection.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Enable for models of strategy selection, exploration, or
+ probability matching behavior.
+
+ utility_learning_rate:
+ symbol: "alpha"
+ default: 0.2
+ range: [0.01, 1.0]
+ description: >
+ Learning rate for updating production utilities via reward
+ propagation. Higher values produce faster learning but more
+ instability.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+ notes: >
+ Only relevant when utility learning is enabled (:ul t).
+
+ initial_utility:
+ symbol: "U0"
+ default: 0.0
+ range: "Task-dependent"
+ description: >
+ Starting utility for new productions. Can be set per production.
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+
+ production_compilation:
+ description: >
+ Mechanism by which two sequential productions are compiled
+ into a single production, modeling skill acquisition and the
+ transition from declarative to procedural knowledge.
+ citation: "Taatgen & Anderson, 2002"
+ notes: >
+ Enable with :epl t. Controls the power law of practice.
+
+timing:
+ production_cycle:
+ value_ms: 50
+ description: "Time for one production to fire"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007"
+
+ visual_encoding:
+ value_ms: 85
+ description: "Time to encode a visual object after attending to it"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6"
+
+ visual_attention_shift:
+ value_ms: 185
+ description: "Time for an attention shift to a new visual location"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6"
+
+ motor_initiation:
+ value_ms: 50
+ description: "Time to initiate a motor movement"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6"
+
+ motor_execution:
+ value_ms: 100
+ description: "Base time for motor execution (Fitts' law scaling applies)"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6"
+
+ imaginal_delay:
+ value_ms: 200
+ description: "Time for the imaginal module to create or modify a chunk"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 4"
+
+ audio_encoding:
+ value_ms: 285
+ description: "Time to encode an auditory event"
+ citation: "Anderson, 2007, Ch. 6"
+
+# Parameter selection heuristics
+guidelines:
+ commonly_fixed:
+ - "d = 0.5 (base-level decay; Anderson & Schooler, 1991)"
+ - "f = 1.0 (latency exponent)"
+ - "Production cycle = 50 ms"
+ - "Visual/motor timing parameters (unless modeling perceptual tasks)"
+ commonly_free:
+ - "s (activation noise) -- most commonly freed parameter"
+ - "F (latency factor) -- scales predicted RT to observed RT"
+ - "tau (retrieval threshold) -- when modeling errors"
+ - "S/mas (maximum associative strength) -- for spreading activation models"
+ max_recommended_free: 5
+ max_recommended_free_source: "Roberts & Pashler, 2000; general modeling best practice"