The roles of the convex hull and number of intersections upon performance on visually presented traveling salesperson problems

The planar Euclidean version of the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) requires finding a tour of minimal length through a two-dimensional set of points. Despite the computational intractability of these problems, most empirical studies have found that humans are able to find good solutions. For this reason, understanding human performance on TSPs has the potential to offer insights into basic perceptual and cognitive decision making processes, as well as potentially informing theorizing in individual differences and intelligence. Through the convex hull hypothesis, previous researchers (MacGregor & Ormerod 1996; MacGregor, Ormerod, & Chronicle 1999; MacGregor, Ormerod, & Chronicle 2000; Ormerod & Chronicle 1999) have suggested people use a global-to-local solution process. We review the empirical evidence for and against this idea, before suggesting an alternative local-to-global solution process, based on the avoidance of intersections in constructing a tour. To compare these two competing approaches, we present the results of an experiment that measures the different effects the number of points on the convex hull and the number of potential intersections have on human performance. It is found that both have independent effects on the degree to which people deviate from the optimal solution, with performance worsening as more points are added to the convex hull and as fewer potential intersections are present. A measure of response uncertainty, capturing the degree to which different people produce the same types of solution, is found to be unaffected by the number of points on the convex hull but to increase as fewer potential intersections are present. A possible interpretation of these results in terms of a generative transformational theory of human visual perception is discussed. ∗Correspondence should be addressed to: Douglas Vickers, Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, AUSTRALIA. Telephone: +61 8 8303 5662, Facsimile: +61 8 8303 3770, E-mail: douglas.vickers@psychology.adelaide.edu.au

[1]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[2]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales , 1962 .

[3]  John S. J. Hsu,et al.  Bayesian Methods: An Analysis for Statisticians and Interdisciplinary Researchers , 1999 .

[4]  D. Vickers Toward a generative transformational approach to visual perception , 2001 .

[5]  Patrick D. Krolak,et al.  A man-machine approach toward solving the traveling salesman problem , 1970, CACM.

[6]  T. Sanocki Time course of object identification: evidence for a global-to-local contingency. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Claude Brezinski,et al.  Numerical recipes in Fortran (The art of scientific computing) : W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling and B.P. Flannery, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2nd ed., 1992. 963 pp., US$49.95, ISBN 0-521-43064-X.☆ , 1993 .

[8]  J. Hunter Needed: A Ban on the Significance Test , 1997 .

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

[10]  T. Ormerod,et al.  Evaluating the importance of the convex hull in solving the Euclidean version of the traveling salesperson problem: Reply to Lee and Vickers (2000) , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[12]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[13]  Richard Durbin,et al.  An analogue approach to the travelling salesman problem using an elastic net method , 1987, Nature.

[14]  Stephen Lane,et al.  A heuristic approach to the traveling salesman problem , 1987 .

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

[16]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  BAYES AND EMPIRICAL BAYES METHODS FOR DATA ANALYSIS , 1996, Stat. Comput..

[17]  David Lindley,et al.  Bayesian Statistics, a Review , 1987 .

[18]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[19]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  BAYES AND EMPIRICAL BAYES METHODS FOR DATA ANALYSIS , 1996, Stat. Comput..

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

[21]  V. K. Balakrishnan,et al.  Introductory discrete mathematics , 1991 .

[22]  D. Vickers Decision processes in visual perception , 1979 .

[23]  Hans Jürgen Prömel,et al.  The Steiner Tree Problem , 2002 .

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

[25]  R. Love,et al.  Geometric Approaches to Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem , 1977 .

[26]  N. Biggs THE TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization , 1986 .

[27]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[28]  P. A. Kolers Aspects of motion perception , 1972 .

[29]  Selmer M. Johnson,et al.  On a Linear-Programming, Combinatorial Approach to the Traveling-Salesman Problem , 1959 .

[30]  Louis V. Quintas,et al.  On Some Properties of Shortest Hamiltonian Circuits , 1965 .

[31]  Herbert S. Wilf,et al.  Algorithms and Complexity , 1994, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[32]  T. Sanocki,et al.  Effects of early common features on form perception , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  G. Reinelt The traveling salesman: computational solutions for TSP applications , 1994 .

[34]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Counting probability distributions: Differential geometry and model selection , 2000, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.