Explaining intuitive difficulty judgments by modeling physical effort and risk

The ability to estimate task difficulty is critical for many real-world decisions such as setting appropriate goals for ourselves or appreciating others' accomplishments. Here we give a computational account of how humans judge the difficulty of a range of physical construction tasks (e.g., moving 10 loose blocks from their initial configuration to their target configuration, such as a vertical tower) by quantifying two key factors that influence construction difficulty: physical effort and physical risk. Physical effort captures the minimal work needed to transport all objects to their final positions, and is computed using a hybrid task-and-motion planner. Physical risk corresponds to stability of the structure, and is computed using noisy physics simulations to capture the costs for precision (e.g., attention, coordination, fine motor movements) required for success. We show that the full effort-risk model captures human estimates of difficulty and construction time better than either component alone.

[1]  Grace Bennett-Pierre,et al.  Reverse-engineering the process: Adults' and preschoolers' ability to infer the difficulty of novel tasks , 2017, CogSci.

[2]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Mental labour , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[3]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Ability and Task Difficulty in Cognitive Psychology , 1981 .

[4]  L. Schulz,et al.  16-Month-Olds Rationally Infer Causes of Failed Actions , 2011, Science.

[5]  Julian Jara-Ettinger,et al.  Sensitivity to the Sampling Process Emerges From the Principle of Efficiency. , 2018, Cognitive science.

[6]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Constraints and Development in Children's Block Construction , 2018, CogSci.

[7]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Julian Jara-Ettinger,et al.  Children consider others' expected costs and rewards when deciding what to teach , 2016, CogSci.

[9]  Emanuel Todorov,et al.  Goal Directed Dynamics , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[10]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Logic-Geometric Programming: An Optimization-Based Approach to Combined Task and Motion Planning , 2015, IJCAI.

[11]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Characterizing spatial construction processes: Toward computational tools to understand cognition , 2017, CogSci.

[12]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Physical problem solving: Joint planning with symbolic, geometric, and dynamic constraints , 2017, CogSci.

[13]  Grace Bennett-Pierre,et al.  Preschoolers consider expected task difficulty to decide what to do and whom to help , 2018, CogSci.

[14]  L. Schulz,et al.  Four- and 5-Year-Olds Infer Differences in Relative Ability and Appropriately Allocate Roles to Achieve Cooperative, Competitive, and Prosocial Goals , 2018, Open Mind.

[15]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  The Naïve Utility Calculus: Computational Principles Underlying Commonsense Psychology (Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, 589–604; July 19, 2016) , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Faulty Towers: A hypothetical simulation model of physical support , 2017, CogSci.

[17]  H. Kuhn The Hungarian method for the assignment problem , 1955 .

[18]  Julia A. Leonard,et al.  Infants make more attempts to achieve a goal when they see adults persist , 2017, Science.