Abstract
Untrained adults appear to have access to cognitive processes that allow them to perform well in the Euclidean version of the traveling salesperson problem (E-TSP). They do so despite the famous computational intractability of the problem, which stems from its combinatorial complexity. A current hypothesis is that humans’ good performance is based on following a strategy of connecting boundary points in order (the convex hull hypothesis). Recently, an alternative has been proposed, that performance is governed by a strategy of avoiding crossings. We examined the crossing avoidance hypothesis from the perspectives of its capacity to explain existing data, its theoretical adequacy, and its ability to explain the results of three new experiments. In Experiment 1, effects on the solution quality of number of points versus number ofinterior points were compared. In Experiment 2, the distributions of observed paths were compared with those predicted from the two hypotheses. In Experiment 3, figural effects were varied to induce crossings. The results of the experiments were more consistent with the convex hull than with the crossing avoidance hypothesis. Despite its simplicity and intuitive appeal, crossing avoidance does not provide a complete alternative to the convex hull hypothesis. Further elucidation of human strategies and heuristics for optimization problems such as the E-TSP will aid our understanding of how cognitive processes have adapted to the demands of combinatorial difficulty.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R., &Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory.Psychological Science,2, 396–408.
Basso, D., Bisiacchi, P. S., Cotelli, M., &Farinello, C. (2001). Planning times during traveling salesman’s problem: Differences between closed head injury and normal subjects.Brain & Cognition,46, 38–42.
Brusco, M. J. (2001).Human performance on the Euclidean p-median problem. Unpublished manuscript. Florida State University, Department of Marketing.
Gigerenzer, G., &Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.Psychological Review,103, 650–669.
Golden, B. L., Bodin, L. D., Doyle, T., &Stewart, W., Jr. (1980). Approximate traveling salesman algorithms.Operations Research,28, 694–711.
Graham, S. M., Joshi, A., &Pizlo, Z. (2000). The traveling salesman problem: A hierarchical model.Memory & Cognition,28, 1191–1204.
Lee, M. D., &Vickers, D. (2000). The importance of the convex hull for human performance on the traveling salesman problem: A comment on MacGregor and Ormerod (1996).Perception & Psychophysics,62, 226–228.
MacGregor, J. N., &Ormerod, T. [C.] (1996). Human performance on the traveling salesman problem.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 527–539.
MacGregor, J. N., &Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Evaluating the importance of the convex hull in solving the Euclidean version of the traveling salesperson problem: Reply to Lee and Vickers (2000).Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1501–1503.
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (1999). Spatial and contextual factors in human performance on the travelling salesperson problem.Perception,28, 1417–1428.
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (2000). A model of human performance on the travelling salesperson problem.Memory & Cognition,28, 1183–1190.
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 176–201.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nosofsky, R.M. (1998). Optimal performance and exemplar models of classif ication. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 218–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oaksford, M., &Chater, N. (1994). A rational explanation of the selection task.Psychological Review,103, 381–391.
Oaksford, M., &Chater, N. (Eds.) (1998).Rational models of cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ormerod, T. C., &Chronicle, E. P. (1999). Global perceptual processing in problem solving: The case of the traveling salesperson.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1227–1238.
Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S., &Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 579–597.
Simon, H. A. (1947).Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.Cognitive Psychology,5, 207–232.
van Rooij, I., Stege, U., &Schactman, A. (2003). Convex hull and tour crossings in the Euclidean traveling salesperson problem: Implications for human performance studies.Memory & Cognition,31, 215–220.
Vickers, D., Butavicius, M., Lee, M., &Medvedev, A. (2001). Human performance on visually presented traveling salesman problems.Psychological Research,65, 34–45.
Vickers, D., Lee, M. D., Dry, M., &Hughes, P. (2003). The roles of the convex hull and the number of potential intersections in performance on visually presented traveling salesperson problems.Memory & Cognition,31, 1094–1104.
Vickers, D., Mayo, T., Heitman, M., Lee, M. D., &Hughes, P. (2004). Intelligence and individual differences in performance on three types of visually presented optimization problems.Personality & Individual Differences,36, 1059–1071.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacGregor, J.N., Chronicle, E.P. & Ormerod, T.C. Convex hull or crossing avoidance? Solution heuristics in the traveling salesperson problem. Memory & Cognition 32, 260–270 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196857
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196857