Translation of Cognitive Models from ACT-R to Constraint Handling Rules

  • Daniel GallEmail author
  • Thom Frühwirth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9718)


Cognitive architectures are used to abstract and simplify the process of computational cognitive modeling. The popular cognitive architecture ACT-R has a well-defined psychological theory, but lacks a formalization of its computational system. This inhibits computational analysis of cognitive models, e.g. confluence or complexity analysis. In this paper we present a source to source transformation of ACT-R models to Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) programs enabling the use of analysis tools for CHR to analyze computational cognitive models. This translation is the first that matches the current abstract operational semantics of ACT-R.


Computational cognitive modeling ACT-R Operational semantics Source to source transformation Constraint Handling Rules 


  1. 1.
    Abdennadher, S., Frühwirth, T.: Operational equivalence of CHR programs and constraints. In: Jaffar, J. (ed.) CP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1713, pp. 43–57. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdennadher, S., Frühwirth, T., Meuss, H.: On confluence of constraint handling rules. In: Freuder, E.C. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming CP96. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1118, pp. 1–15. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albrecht, R., Gießwein, M., Westphal, B.: Towards formally founded ACT-R simulation and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference of the German Cognitive Science Society (Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft), vol. 15 (Suppl. 1), Cognitive Processing, pp. 27–28. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albrecht, R., Westphal, B.: F-ACT-R: defining the ACT-R architectural space. In: Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference of the German Cognitive Science Society (Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft), vol. 15 (Suppl. 1), Cognitive Processing, pp. 79–81. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., Qin, Y.: An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol. Rev. 111(4), 1036–1060 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betz, H., Raiser, F., Frühwirth, T.: A complete and terminating execution model for constraint handling rules. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 10, 597–610 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bothell, D.: ACT-R 6.0 Reference Manual - Working Draft. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duck, G.J., Stuckey, P.J., Sulzmann, M.: Observable confluence for constraint handling rules. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frühwirth, T.: As time goes by: automatic complexity analysis of simplification rules. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D., Williams, M.A. (eds.) KR 2002: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 547–557, April 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frühwirth, T.: Constraint Handling Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frühwirth, T.: Constraint handling rules - what else? In: Bassiliades, N., Gottlob, G., Sadri, F., Paschke, A., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2015. LNCS, vol. 9202, pp. 13–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gall, D., Frühwirth, T.: Exchanging conflict resolution in an adaptable implementation of ACT-R. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 14, 525–538 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gall, D., Frühwirth, T.: A formal semantics for the cognitive architecture ACT-R. In: Proietti, M., Seki, H. (eds.) LOPSTR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8981, pp. 74–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gall, D., Frühwirth, T.: A refined operational semantics for ACT-R: investigating the relations between different ACT-R formalizations. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP 2015, pp. 114–124. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langbein, J., Raiser, F., Frühwirth, T.: A state equivalence and confluence checker for CHR. In: Van Weert, P., De Koninck, L. (eds.) CHR 2010. K.U.Leuven, Department of Computer Science, Technical report CW 588, July 2010Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raiser, F., Frühwirth, T.: Analysing graph transformation systems through constraint handling rules. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 11(1), 65–109 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Rooij, I., Wright, C.D., Wareham, T.: Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations. Synthese 187(2), 471–487 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salvucci, D.: ACT-R: The Java Simulation & Development Environment.
  19. 19.
    Stewart, T.C., West, R.L.: Deconstructing and reconstructing ACT-R: exploring the architectural space. Cogn. Syst. Res. 8(3), 227–236 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun, R.: Introduction to computational cognitive modeling. In: Sun, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology, pp. 3–19. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taatgen, N.A., Lebiere, C., Anderson, J.: Modeling paradigms in ACT-R. In: Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation, pp. 29–52. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Software Engineering and Compiler ConstructionUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations