Abstract
Other things being equal, people prefer simpler explanations to more complex ones. However, complex explanations often provide better fits to the observed data, and goodness-of-fit must therefore be traded off against simplicity to arrive at the most likely explanation. In three experiments, we examine how people negotiate this trade- off. As a case study, we investigate laypeople’s intuitions about curve-fitting in visually presented graphs, a domain with established quantitative criteria for trading off simplicity and goodness-of-fit. We examine whether people are well-calibrated to normative criteria, or whether they instead have an underfitting or overfitting bias (Experiment 1), we test people’s intuitions in cases where simplicity and goodness-of-fit are no longer inversely correlated (Experiment 2), and we directly measure judgments concerning the complexity and goodness-of-fit in a set of curves (Experiment 3). To explain these findings, we posit a new heuristic: That the complexity of an explanation is used to estimate its goodness-of-fit to the data.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society |
Subtitle of host publication | Cognitive Science Meets Artificial Intelligence: Human and Artificial Agents in Interactive Contexts |
Place of Publication | Austin, Texas, USA |
Publisher | Cognitive Science Society |
Pages | 701-706 |
ISBN (Print) | 9781634391160 |
Publication status | Published - 2014 |
Event | 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: Cognitive Science Meets Artificial Intelligence: Human and Artificial Agents in Interactive Contexts - Quebec City, Canada Duration: 23 Jul 2014 → 26 Jul 2014 |
Conference
Conference | 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society |
---|---|
Abbreviated title | CogSci 2014 |
Country/Territory | Canada |
City | Quebec City |
Period | 23/07/14 → 26/07/14 |