Opacity, obscurity, and the geometry of question-asking

Asking questions is a pervasive human activity, but little is understood about what makes them difficult to answer. An analysis of a pair of large databases, New York Times crosswords and questions from the quiz-show Jeopardy, establishes two orthogonal dimensions of question difficulty: obscurity (the rarity of the answer) and opacity (the indirectness of question cues, operationalized with word2vec). The importance of opacity, and the role of synergistic information in resolving it, suggests that accounts of difficulty in terms of prior expectations captures only a part of the question-asking process. A further regression analysis shows the presence of additional dimensions to question-asking: question complexity, the answer's local network density, cue intersection, and the presence of signal words. Our work shows how question-askers can help their interlocutors by using contextual cues, or, conversely, how a particular kind of unfamiliarity with the domain in question can make it harder for individuals to learn from others. Taken together, these results suggest how Bayesian models of question difficulty can be supplemented by process models and accounts of the heuristics individuals use to navigate conceptual spaces.

[1]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Lalana Kagal,et al.  Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning , 2018, 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA).

[3]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Coping with Syntactic Ambiguity or How to Put the Block in the Box on the Table , 1982, CL.

[4]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Empirical Evidence for Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Memory Search , 2014, CogSci.

[5]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Why do you ask? Good questions provoke informative answers , 2015, CogSci.

[6]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  Question Asking as Program Generation , 2017, NIPS.

[7]  Patrick Pantel,et al.  From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Jonathan D. Nelson,et al.  Children’s sequential information search is sensitive to environmental probabilities , 2014, Cognition.

[9]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  Asking and evaluating natural language questions , 2016, CogSci.

[10]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Optimal foraging in semantic memory. , 2012, Psychological review.

[11]  André L. Souza,et al.  The use of questions as problem-solving strategies during early childhood. , 2013, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[12]  A W Ellis,et al.  Contrasting effects of age of acquisition and word frequency on auditory and visual lexical decision , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[13]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  Neighborhood Density and Frequency Across Languages and Modalities , 1993 .

[14]  G. T. Jones ‘Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!’ Adventures of a Curious Character , 1985 .

[15]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  A probabilistic approach to solving crossword puzzles , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Simon DeDeo,et al.  "Wrong side of the tracks": Big Data and Protected Categories , 2014, ArXiv.

[17]  Alexander Cohen,et al.  Searching large hypothesis spaces by asking questions , 2016, CogSci.

[18]  T. Lombrozo,et al.  Children adapt their questions to achieve efficient search , 2015, Cognition.

[19]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Children search for information as efficiently as adults, but seek additional confirmatory evidence , 2015, CogSci.

[20]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[21]  M. Vitevitch The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Search Lessons Learned from Crossword Puzzles , 1990, AAAI.

[23]  Jonathan D. Nelson,et al.  Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Katherine A. Preston The Speed of Word Perception and Its Relation to Reading Ability , 1935 .

[25]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  Foraging in Semantic Fields: How We Search Through Memory , 2015, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[26]  N. Chater,et al.  Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  Brendan T. Johns,et al.  The influence of contextual diversity on word learning , 2015, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[28]  Jonathan D. Nelson Finding useful questions: on Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact, and information gain. , 2005, Psychological review.

[29]  Joelle Pineau,et al.  Building End-To-End Dialogue Systems Using Generative Hierarchical Neural Network Models , 2015, AAAI.

[30]  A. Graesser,et al.  Question Asking During Tutoring , 1994 .

[31]  T. Bormann,et al.  The influence of word frequency on semantic word substitutions in aphasic naming , 2008 .

[32]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[33]  Björn-Olav Dozo,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books , 2010 .

[34]  Georgiana Dinu,et al.  Don’t count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting vs. context-predicting semantic vectors , 2014, ACL.

[35]  Lawrence J. Mazlack Computer Construction of Crossword Puzzles Using Precedence Relationships , 1976, Artif. Intell..