Generic properties of a computational task predict human effort and performance

Abstract It has been shown that computational hardness of cognitive tasks affects people’s effort and ability to solve problems reliably. However, prior empirical studies lack generality. They quantify computational hardness of tasks based on particular algorithms or for specific problems. Here, we propose a set of measures of computational hardness of individual instances of a task in a way that is independent of any algorithm or computational model and can be generalized to other problems. Specifically, we introduce two measures, typical-case complexity (TCC), a measure of average hardness of a random ensemble of instances, and instance complexity (IC), an instance-specific metric. Both measures are related to structural properties of instances. We then test the effect of those measures on human behavior by asking participants to solve instances of two variants of the 0-1 knapsack problem, a canonical and ubiquitous NP-hard problem. We find that participants spent more time on instances with higher TCC and IC, but that decision quality was lower in those instances. We propose that the study of mathematical properties of tasks related to computational hardness can contribute to the development of computationally plausible accounts of human decision-making, just like stochastic properties have proven to be critical to our understanding of human decisions in probabilistic tasks.

[1]  Ed Blakey Computational Complexity in Non-Turing Models of Computation: The What, the Why and the How , 2011, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Ulrike Stege,et al.  Human Performance on Hard Non-Euclidean Graph Problems: Vertex Cover , 2012, J. Probl. Solving.

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[4]  Luca Trevisan,et al.  Average-Case Complexity , 2006, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Falk Lieder,et al.  Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources , 2019, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[6]  Alice Y. Chiang,et al.  Working-memory capacity protects model-based learning from stress , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  H. Simon,et al.  Invariants of human behavior. , 1990, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The TSP Phase Transition , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[9]  F. Manes,et al.  “Ecological” and Highly Demanding Executive Tasks Detect Real-Life Deficits in High-Functioning Adult ADHD Patients , 2013, Journal of attention disorders.

[10]  Amin Coja-Oghlan,et al.  On the solution‐space geometry of random constraint satisfaction problems , 2011, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[11]  T. Griffiths,et al.  Strategy Selection as Rational Metareasoning , 2017, Psychological review.

[12]  Peter Bossaerts,et al.  Risk, Unexpected Uncertainty, and Estimation Uncertainty: Bayesian Learning in Unstable Settings , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[13]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[14]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  The Problems with Problem Solving: Reflections on the Rise, Current Status, and Possible Future of a Cognitive Research Paradigm , 2012, J. Probl. Solving.

[15]  Douglas Vickers,et al.  Human Performance on Visually Presented Traveling Salesperson Problems with Varying Numbers of Nodes , 2006, J. Probl. Solving.

[16]  P. Todd,et al.  Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World , 2012 .

[17]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[18]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach , 2009 .

[19]  Lenka Zdeborová,et al.  Constraint satisfaction problems with isolated solutions are hard , 2008, ArXiv.

[20]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  The Nature of Computation , 2011 .

[22]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[23]  Christopher Cherniak,et al.  Computational Complexity and the Universal Acceptance of Logic , 1984 .

[24]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[25]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[26]  John K. Tsotsos Analyzing vision at the complexity level , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  Peter Bossaerts,et al.  Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents Versus Markets , 2009, Science.

[28]  A. Pouget,et al.  The Cost of Accumulating Evidence in Perceptual Decision Making , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Peter Bossaerts,et al.  Computational Complexity and Human Decision-Making , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Guilhem Semerjian,et al.  Typology of phase transitions in Bayesian inference problems , 2018, Physical review. E.

[31]  B. Schmeichel,et al.  Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Falk Lieder,et al.  The Structure of Goal Systems Predicts Human Performance , 2017, CogSci.

[33]  P. Dayan,et al.  Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans , 2006, Nature.

[34]  Marcello Frixione,et al.  Tractable Competence , 2001, Minds and Machines.

[35]  Bart Selman,et al.  Critical Behavior in the Computational Cost of Satisfiability Testing , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[36]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Algorithm selection by rational metareasoning as a model of human strategy selection , 2014, NIPS.

[37]  H. Levesque Logic and the complexity of reasoning , 1988 .

[38]  Guilhem Semerjian,et al.  Biased landscapes for random constraint satisfaction problems , 2018, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment.

[39]  Timothy D. Hanks,et al.  Perceptual Decision Making in Rodents, Monkeys, and Humans , 2017, Neuron.

[40]  Pavel Pudlk Logical Foundations of Mathematics and Computational Complexity: A Gentle Introduction , 2013 .

[41]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[42]  Bruno B. Averbeck,et al.  Theory of Choice in Bandit, Information Sampling and Foraging Tasks , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[43]  Federico Ricci-Tersenghi,et al.  Being Glassy Without Being Hard to Solve , 2010, Science.

[44]  Peter C. Cheeseman,et al.  Where the Really Hard Problems Are , 1991, IJCAI.

[45]  Tommy Gärling,et al.  Heuristic rules for sequential spatial decisions , 1992 .

[46]  James N. MacGregor,et al.  Human Performance on the Traveling Salesman and Related Problems: A Review , 2011, J. Probl. Solving.

[47]  Maria Otworowska,et al.  Naturalism, tractability and the adaptive toolbox , 2019, Synthese.

[48]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[49]  Pavel Pudlák Mathematician’s World , 2013 .

[50]  Sartaj Sahni,et al.  Approximate Algorithms for the 0/1 Knapsack Problem , 1975, JACM.

[51]  B. Newell,et al.  Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone "takes-the-best" , 2003 .

[52]  Marie-Pascale Noël,et al.  The detrimental effect of interference in multiplication facts storing: typical development and individual differences. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[53]  Ivan Bratko,et al.  Search-Based Estimation of Problem Difficulty for Humans , 2013, AIED.

[54]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[55]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  Marinella Cappelletti,et al.  Spared numerical abilities in a case of semantic dementia , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[57]  Andrea Montanari,et al.  Gibbs states and the set of solutions of random constraint satisfaction problems , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[58]  Christopher Y. Olivola,et al.  The Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and Valued , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[59]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  MiniZinc: Towards a Standard CP Modelling Language , 2007, CP.

[60]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Tasks for aligning human and machine planning , 2019, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[61]  Santosh S. Vempala,et al.  The complexity of human computation via a concrete model with an application to passwords , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  Rémi Monasson,et al.  Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’ , 1999, Nature.

[63]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The Constrainedness of Search , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[64]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[65]  H. Simon,et al.  Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[66]  Giorgio Parisi,et al.  The backtracking survey propagation algorithm for solving random K-SAT problems , 2015, Nature Communications.

[67]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. , 1945 .

[68]  Víctor Parada,et al.  People Efficiently Explore the Solution Space of the Computationally Intractable Traveling Salesman Problem to Find Near-Optimal Tours , 2010, PloS one.

[69]  Assaf Naor,et al.  Rigorous location of phase transitions in hard optimization problems , 2005, Nature.

[70]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[71]  Mark H. Ashcraft,et al.  A network approach to mental multiplication. , 1982 .

[72]  I. V. van Rooij,et al.  The tractable cognition thesis. , 2008, Cognitive science.

[73]  M. Hammer,et al.  Corrigendum: Geographic population structure analysis of worldwide human populations infers their biogeographical origins , 2016, Nature Communications.

[74]  Peter Bossaerts,et al.  How Humans Solve Complex Problems: The Case of the Knapsack Problem , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[75]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Rational metareasoning and the plasticity of cognitive control , 2018, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[76]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  Computational Complexity and Statistical Physics , 2006, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity.