The Role of the Goal in Solving Hard Computational Problems: Do People Really Optimize?

The role that the mental, or internal, representation plays when people are solving hard computational problems has largely been overlooked to date, despite the reality that this internal representation drives problem solving. In this work we investigate how performance on versions of two hard computational problems differs based on what internal representations can be generated. Our findings suggest that problem solving performance depends not only on the objective difficulty of the problem, and of course the particular problem instance at hand, but also on how feasible it is to encode the goal of the given problem. A further implication of these findings is that previous human performance studies using NP-hard problems may have, surprisingly, underestimated human performance on instances of problems of this class. We suggest ways to meaningfully frame human performance results on instances of computationally hard problems in terms of these problems’ computational complexity, and present a novel framework for interpreting results on problems of this type. The framework takes into account the limitations of the human cognitive system, in particular as it applies to the generation of internal representations of problems of this class. Correspondence: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah Carruthers, University of Victoria, via email to scarruth@uvic.ca

[1]  John Millar Carroll,et al.  Presentation and Representation in Design Problem Solving. , 1980 .

[2]  P M Todd,et al.  Précis of Simple heuristics that make us smart , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  Susanne Tak,et al.  Some Tours are More Equal than Others: The Convex-Hull Model Revisited with Lessons for Testing Models of the Traveling Salesperson Problem , 2008, J. Probl. Solving.

[4]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Mind as Computer , 2002 .

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

[6]  T. Ormerod,et al.  A model of human performance on the traveling salesperson problem , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Kate J. Garland,et al.  Solving the Tower of Hanoi: does mode of presentation matter? , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Zygmunt Pizlo,et al.  Non-Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem , 2008 .

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

[10]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Global vs. local information processing in visual/spatial problem solving: The case of traveling salesman problem , 2007, Cognitive Systems Research.

[11]  Francisco Escolano,et al.  Graph-Based Representations in Pattern Recognition and Computational Intelligence , 2009, IWANN.

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

[13]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[14]  T. Ormerod,et al.  Human performance on the traveling salesman problem , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  G. Pólya,et al.  How to Solve It. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. , 1945 .

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

[17]  A. Simon Simulating Human Performance on the Traveling Salesman Problem , 2003 .

[18]  John P. Frisby,et al.  Seeing : the computational approach to biological vision , 2010 .

[19]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Clustering, Randomness, and Regularity: Spatial Distributions and Human Performance on the Traveling Salesperson Problem and Minimum Spanning Tree Problem , 2012, J. Probl. Solving.

[20]  D. Vickers,et al.  Human performance on visually presented Traveling Salesman problems , 2001, Psychological research.

[21]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The adaptive toolbox. , 2001 .

[22]  A Baddeley,et al.  Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning andmotivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). , 1974 .

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

[24]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Perceptual or analytical processing? : evidence from children's and adult's performance on the Euclidean Traveling Salesperson problem , 2008 .

[25]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[26]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations , 2012, Synthese.

[27]  T. Ormerod,et al.  Global perceptual processing in problem solving: The case of the traveling salesperson , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  R. Nickerson,et al.  Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. , 2000, Psychological methods.

[29]  Thomas C. Ormerod,et al.  A Comparison of Heuristic and Human Performance on Open Versions of the Traveling Salesperson Problem , 2006, J. Probl. Solving.

[30]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Baysefactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs , 2018 .

[31]  T. Ormerod,et al.  Convex hull or crossing avoidance? Solution heuristics in the traveling salesperson problem , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs , 2012 .

[33]  A. Joshi,et al.  The traveling salesman problem: A hierarchical model , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[34]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[35]  M. Levine,et al.  Effects of Goal Specificity on Means-Ends Analysis and Learning. , 1982 .

[36]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Intractability and approximation of optimization theories of cognition , 2012 .

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

[38]  Yll Haxhimusa,et al.  Traveling Salesman Problem: A Foveating Pyramid Model , 2006, J. Probl. Solving.

[39]  Marek Karpinski,et al.  New Inapproximability Bounds for TSP , 2013, ISAAC.