People ask questions in order to efficiently learn about the world. But do people ask good questions? In this work, we designed an intuitive, game-based task that allowed people to ask natural language questions to resolve their uncertainty. Question quality was measured through Bayesian ideal observer models that considered large spaces of possible game states. During free-form question generation, participants asked a creative variety of useful and goal-directed questions, yet they rarely asked the best questions as identified by the Bayesian ideal observers (Experiment 1). In subsequent experiments, participants strongly preferred the best questions when evaluating questions that they did not generate themselves (Experiments 2 and 3). On one hand, our results show that people can accurately evaluate question quality, even when the set of questions is diverse and an ideal observer analysis has large computational requirements. On the other hand, people have a limited ability to synthesize maximally informative questions from scratch, suggesting a bottleneck in the question asking process.

Previous work suggests that humans find it difficult to learn the structure of causal systems given observational data alone. We identify two conditions that enable successful structure learning from observational data: people succeed if the underlying causal system is deterministic, and if each pattern of observations has a single root cause. In four experiments, we show that either condition alone is sufficient to enable high levels of performance, but that performance is poor if neither condition applies. A fifth experiment suggests that neither determinism nor root sparsity takes priority over the other. Our data are broadly consistent with a Bayesian model that embodies a preference for structures that make the observed data not only possible but probable.

No abstract

People ask questions in order to efficiently learn about the world. But do people ask good questions? In this work, we designed an intuitive, game-based task that allowed people to ask natural language questions to resolve their uncertainty. Question quality was measured through Bayesian ideal-observer models that considered large spaces of possible game states. During free-form question generation, participants asked a creative variety of useful and goal-directed questions, yet they rarely asked the best questions as identified by the Bayesian ideal-observers (Experiment 1). In subsequent experiments, participants strongly preferred the best questions when evaluating questions that they did not generate themselves (Experiments 2 & 3). On the one hand, our results show that people can accurately evaluate question quality, even when the set of questions is diverse and an ideal-observer analysis has large computational requirements. On the other hand, people have a limited ability to synthesize maximally-informative questions from scratch, suggesting a bottleneck in the question asking process.

Psychological research on learning and memory has tended to emphasize small-scale laboratory studies. However, large datasets of people using educational software provide opportunities to explore these issues from a new perspective. In this paper we describe our approach to the Duolingo Second Language Acquisition Modeling (SLAM) competition which was run in early 2018. We used a well-known class of algorithms (gradient boosted decision trees), with features partially informed by theories from the psychological literature. After detailing our modeling approach and a number of supplementary simulations, we reflect on the degree to which psychological theory aided the model, and the potential for cognitive science and predictive modeling competitions to gain from each other.