Crossword expertise as recognitional decision making: .Crossword expertise as recognitional decision

download Crossword expertise as recognitional decision making: .Crossword expertise as recognitional decision

of 15

  • date post

    20-Aug-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    223
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Crossword expertise as recognitional decision making: .Crossword expertise as recognitional decision

  • ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLEpublished: 11 September 2014doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01018

    Crossword expertise as recognitional decision making: anartificial intelligence approachKejkaew Thanasuan and Shane T. Mueller*

    Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA

    Edited by:Eddy J. Davelaar, Birkbeck College,UK

    Reviewed by:Adam Sanborn, University ofWarwick, UKRaymond Stephen Nickerson, TuftsUniversity, USA (retired)

    *Correspondence:Shane T. Mueller, Department ofCognitive and Learning Sciences,Michigan Technological University,1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton,MI 49931, USAe-mail: shanem@mtu.edu

    The skills required to solve crossword puzzles involve two important aspects of lexicalmemory: semantic information in the form of clues that indicate the meaning of theanswer, and orthographic patterns that constrain the possibilities but may also providehints to possible answers. Mueller and Thanasuan (2013) proposed a model accountingfor the simple memory access processes involved in solving individual crossword clues,but expert solvers also bring additional skills and strategies to bear on solving completepuzzles. In this paper, we developed an computational model of crossword solving thatincorporates strategic and other factors, and is capable of solving crossword puzzlesin a human-like fashion, in order to understand the complete set of skills needed tosolve a crossword puzzle. We compare our models to human expert and novice solversto investigate how different strategic and structural factors in crossword play impactoverall performance. Results reveal that expert crossword solving relies heavily on fluentsemantic memory search and retrieval, which appear to allow experts to take betteradvantage of orthographic-route solutions, and experts employ strategies that enablethem to use orthographic information. Furthermore, other processes central to traditionalAI models (error correction and backtracking) appear to be of less importance for humanplayers.

    Keywords: crossword puzzles, recognitional decision making, AI, expertise, lexical memory search

    1. INTRODUCTIONCrossword puzzles were first introduced in 1913, and havebecome both a popular pastime, mental training aid, and adomain of study for psychological researchers (e.g., Nickerson,2011), who have long acknowledged the role of memory accessin puzzle solving. Previously, Mueller and Thanasuan (2014) weproposed a model of the basic memory search processes involvedin solving individual crossword clues, and suggest that the jointaccess and constraint provided by cues in crossword puzzles makeit similar to expert decision making in many domains.

    For many of the same reasons that make them engagingpuzzles for humans, crossword puzzles also pose an interestingproblem for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, as solving themrequires using many of the fundamental aspects of modern AI:search, heuristics, constraint satisfaction, knowledge representa-tion, optimization, and data mining. Because crossword solvingrequires searching simultaneously within two distinct spaces (i.e.,semantic and orthographic), and easily permits backtracking andrecursion, it is also a useful problem for learning and teachingAI (e.g., Ginsberg et al., 1990; Harris et al., 1993; Shazeer et al.,1999; Littman et al., 2002). Dr. Fill (Ginsberg, 2011) is currentlythe best-known and most advanced AI crossword solver, and ittypically performs perfectly on nearly all straight puzzles, onlymaking mistakes on puzzles with complex or unusual themes orletter arrangements (Lohr, 2012). For example, when competingat the 2012 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (ACPT), Dr.Fill failed on a puzzle in which many of the answers were required

    to be filled in backward, a twist that also challenged many humansolvers. Dr. Fill finished the 2012 ACPT 141st of approximately600 contestants and improved to 92nd place in 2013, and 67thplace in 2014. The improvement over time is related not onlyto broader knowledge corpora being used, but also the incorpo-ration of more rules for handling tricky puzzle themes, whichoften include puns, rebuses (i.e., letter substitutions), and otherwordplay devices.

    Although Dr. Fill illustrates that AI can be competitive withthe best human players, AI systems typically use very non-humanstrategies to accomplish this. In arriving at a final answer, theymay end up solving a puzzle dozens or hundreds of times, select-ing the solution that best fits many constraints. In contrast,human solvers use a different combination of skills, includingdecision making, pattern recognition (Grady, 2010), lexical mem-ory access (Nickerson, 1977) and motor skills such as typing ormoving in a grid. Speed-solvers develop these skills to challengethemselves, to enable solving more puzzles per day (often fiveor six), and to compete in competitions. They tend not to usebacktracking or error correction extensively (at least to the extentthat computerized systems do), and they are minimally impactedby difficulty (see Mueller and Thanasuan, 2013). Moreover, theystill outperform AI solutions on puzzles that are moderatelychallenging.

    Although AI crossword solvers can complete many puzzlesalmost perfectly, these systems tend not to be based on humanstrategies or known human memory structure. In this paper, we

    www.frontiersin.org September 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 1018 | 1

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/editorialboardhttp://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/editorialboardhttp://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/editorialboardhttp://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/abouthttp://www.frontiersin.org/Psychologyhttp://www.frontiersin.org/journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01018/abstracthttp://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/173456http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/47546mailto:shanem@mtu.eduhttp://www.frontiersin.orghttp://www.frontiersin.org/Cognitive_Science/archive

  • Thanasuan and Mueller Crossword expertise as recognitional decision making

    adopt a Biologically-Inspired Artificial Intelligence approach (seeSamsonovich and Mueller, 2008) to understand human expertcrossword play, derived from assumptions about the lexical accessroutes and solution strategies of expert crossword players. We willuse this model to understand the relative contributions of differ-ent types of knowledge and strategies to crossword play, in aneffort to understand some of the cognitive skills that are highlydeveloped in superior crossword players.

    2. AN RECOGNITION-PRIMED AI MODEL OF CROSSWORDPLAY

    In many domains, expert decisions appear to be described bythe Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model (Klein, 1993).Although many decision theories focus on making choicesbetween clearly-defined options that often embody trade-offs,RPD argues that what makes experts good at what they do isin their ability to quickly generate and evaluate a single work-able candidate solution from their vast knowledge and experience(rather than weighing and comparing options). For example,Klein et al. (1986) applied the model to a fireground inci-dents and found that, rather than selecting between coursesof action, fireground commanders typically selected the firstoption that came to mind and adapted it to fit the currentsituation (akin to the take the first strategy hypothesized byJohnson and Raab, 2003). This maps onto the phenomenologyof crossword playrarely are players choosing between optionsto determine which is best1 . Instead, solvers either know theanswer, or do not. In contrast to the types of situations to whichRPD has typically been applied, crossword play does not per-mit approximate solutions, and so the decision problem is onewhere a player must determine whether or not they know theexact answer, and if they do not know the answer, they mustdecide how to continue search (i.e., either via continued memorysearch, generating more candidates through associative mem-ory, or by trying to obtain more letter hints by solving otherclues).

    Mueller and Thanasuan (2013) described and devel-oped a crossword solving model by modifying the BayesianRecognitional Decision Model (BRDM; Mueller, 2009), aBayesian implementation of the RPD model. The model imple-ments a decision process via memory retrieval, and the basicmechanisms originate from models of recognition memory(Raaijmakers and Shiffrin, 1981), although the basic notionof experience-based and case-based decision making has beenexplored in a number of computational models (Doughertyet al., 1999; Warwick et al., 2001; Sokolowski, 2003; Ji et al.,2007; Thomas et al., 2008). The basic procedure applies twoindependent routes to solve a crossword clue:

    A semantic route: the model takes clue-word associations ascues to search for possible answers and checks them with

    1To be fair, there are classes of clues that are deliberately ambiguous so thatthe solver is likely to know that one of a small number of responses is correct,but not which one. For example, Morning hour - - - A M is likely to beONEAM, TWOAM, SIXAM or TENAM; Late Month - - - - M B E R couldbe NOVEMBER or DECEMBER, etc.

    an orthographic cue for feasibility. An example of clue-wordassociations is shown in Figure 1.

    An orthographic route: the model uses letter combinations andletter-word associations to generate candidate answers. Theexample is shown in Figure 1. These candidates are checked forsemantic similarity and pattern matches.

    Both routes adopt the same basic retrieval mechanism based onprevious models of recognitional decision making. This mecha-nism was explored in its simplest form in Mueller and Thanasuan(2014) as a model of word-stem completion, and more fully inMueller and Thanasuan (2013) for both orthographic and seman-tic routes. We will first describe the basic memory retrieval mech-anisms. The form we use simplifies the Bayesian calculation