有些旅行比其他旅行更平等:对凸赫尔模型的再考察及其对旅行推销员问题模型检验的教训

S. Tak, M. Plaisier, I.J.E.I. van Rooij
{"title":"有些旅行比其他旅行更平等:对凸赫尔模型的再考察及其对旅行推销员问题模型检验的教训","authors":"S. Tak, M. Plaisier, I.J.E.I. van Rooij","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To explain human performance on the Traveling Salesperson problem (TSP), MacGregor, Ormerod, and Chronicle (2000) proposed that humans construct solutions according to the steps described by their convex-hull algorithm. Focusing on tour length as the dependent variable, and using only random or semirandom point sets, the authors claimed empirical support for their model. In this paper we argue that the empirical tests performed by MacGregor et al. do not constitute support for the model, because they instantiate what Meehl (1997) coined \"weak tests\" (i.e., tests with a high probability of yielding confi rmation even if the model is false). To perform \"strong\" tests of the model, we implemented the algorithm in a computer program and compared its performance to that of humans on six point sets. The comparison reveals substantial and systematic differences in the shapes of the tours produced by the algorithm and human participants, for fi ve of the six point sets. The methodological lesson for testing TSP models is twofold: (1) Include qualitative measures (such as tour shape) as a dependent variable, and (2) use point sets for which the model makes “risky” predictions.","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Tours are More Equal than Others: The Convex-Hull Model Revisited with Lessons for Testing Models of the Traveling Salesperson Problem\",\"authors\":\"S. Tak, M. Plaisier, I.J.E.I. van Rooij\",\"doi\":\"10.7771/1932-6246.1028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To explain human performance on the Traveling Salesperson problem (TSP), MacGregor, Ormerod, and Chronicle (2000) proposed that humans construct solutions according to the steps described by their convex-hull algorithm. Focusing on tour length as the dependent variable, and using only random or semirandom point sets, the authors claimed empirical support for their model. In this paper we argue that the empirical tests performed by MacGregor et al. do not constitute support for the model, because they instantiate what Meehl (1997) coined \\\"weak tests\\\" (i.e., tests with a high probability of yielding confi rmation even if the model is false). To perform \\\"strong\\\" tests of the model, we implemented the algorithm in a computer program and compared its performance to that of humans on six point sets. The comparison reveals substantial and systematic differences in the shapes of the tours produced by the algorithm and human participants, for fi ve of the six point sets. The methodological lesson for testing TSP models is twofold: (1) Include qualitative measures (such as tour shape) as a dependent variable, and (2) use point sets for which the model makes “risky” predictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

为了解释人类在旅行销售人员问题(TSP)上的表现,MacGregor, Ormerod, and Chronicle(2000)提出,人类根据他们的凸壳算法描述的步骤构建解决方案。将行程长度作为因变量,并且只使用随机或半随机的点集,作者声称他们的模型得到了经验支持。在本文中,我们认为MacGregor等人进行的经验检验并不构成对模型的支持,因为他们实例化了Meehl(1997)所创造的“弱检验”(即即使模型是错误的,也有很高概率得到证实的检验)。为了对模型进行“强”测试,我们在计算机程序中实现了该算法,并将其在六个点集上的表现与人类的表现进行了比较。比较结果显示,对于6个点集中的5个点集,算法和人类参与者产生的路线形状存在实质性和系统性的差异。测试TSP模型的方法教训是双重的:(1)包括定性测量(如行程形状)作为因变量,(2)使用模型做出“风险”预测的点集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Some Tours are More Equal than Others: The Convex-Hull Model Revisited with Lessons for Testing Models of the Traveling Salesperson Problem
To explain human performance on the Traveling Salesperson problem (TSP), MacGregor, Ormerod, and Chronicle (2000) proposed that humans construct solutions according to the steps described by their convex-hull algorithm. Focusing on tour length as the dependent variable, and using only random or semirandom point sets, the authors claimed empirical support for their model. In this paper we argue that the empirical tests performed by MacGregor et al. do not constitute support for the model, because they instantiate what Meehl (1997) coined "weak tests" (i.e., tests with a high probability of yielding confi rmation even if the model is false). To perform "strong" tests of the model, we implemented the algorithm in a computer program and compared its performance to that of humans on six point sets. The comparison reveals substantial and systematic differences in the shapes of the tours produced by the algorithm and human participants, for fi ve of the six point sets. The methodological lesson for testing TSP models is twofold: (1) Include qualitative measures (such as tour shape) as a dependent variable, and (2) use point sets for which the model makes “risky” predictions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信