Skip to main content

An Analytic Tableaux Model for Deductive Mastermind Empirically Tested with a Massively Used Online Learning System

Abstract

The paper is concerned with the psychological relevance of a logical model for deductive reasoning. We propose a new way to analyze logical reasoning in a deductive version of the Mastermind game implemented within a popular Dutch online educational learning system (Math Garden). Our main goal is to derive predictions about the difficulty of Deductive Mastermind tasks. By means of a logical analysis we derive the number of steps needed for solving these tasks (a proxy for working memory load). Our model is based on the analytic tableaux method, known from proof theory. We associate the difficulty of Deductive Mastermind game-items with the size of the corresponding logical trees obtained by the tableaux method. We derive empirical hypotheses from this model. A large group of students (over 37 thousand children, 5–12 years of age) played the Deductive Mastermind game, which gave empirical difficulty ratings of all 321 game-items. The results show that our logical approach predicts these item ratings well, which supports the psychological relevance of our model.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    The exact way in which the rating works is described in Klinkenberg et al. (2011).

  2. 2.

    We do not need the rule for negation because in our formulae only propositional atoms are negated.

  3. 3.

    The recursive algorithm predicts difficulty of an item that corresponds to the minimal tableau build according to the following rules: each line is read from left to right and feedbacks are analyzed in the order \(oo, rr, gr\), and \(or\). The abstract complexity measure then corresponds to the number of nodes in such a tableau.

  4. 4.

    In general, the tableau-generating algorithm could be halted either after computing the full tree or immediately after finding a consistent solution. In the first case all conjectures are evaluated and hence \(ooFB, rrFB\), and \(grFB\) feedbacks would be the best predictors. In the second case only the non-redundant conjectures are evaluated, whose number can be less than the total number of conjectures. The second case would allow solving an item with many conjectures much faster, resulting in a lower item rating. In this case \(oo, rr, gr\), and \(or\) would be better predictors.

  5. 5.

    Note that the DMM-items are difficult if: 1) a line with \(or\) feedback needs to be analyzed in order to find the solution; or 2) a line with \(gr\) feedback needs to be analyzed and one color that is in the solution was not included in any line of the DMM-item. We will show that none of those cases is possible within 2-pin DMM-items of 2 colors. First let us consider 1: In the 2-pin DMM-items there are two possibilities, a line consists of either (a) two pins of the same color, or (b) two pins of different colors. If (a) is the case the \(or\) feedback implies that one of the pins is of the correct color but in a wrong position, which does not make sense, because the other pin is of the same color and in the only remaining position. If (b) is the case the \(or\) implies means that one pin is not in the solution, which implies that the two pins have to be of the same color (since there are only two colors). But then it means that one of the pins in the line was in fact of the correct color and position to start with, which was not reflected by an adequate \(g\) feedback. This renders such a case impossible. Let us now consider 2: Here, a line must consist of two flowers of the same color (otherwise there would be no color that is not included in any of the lines, because there are only 2 colors). But then, the \(gr\) feedback does not give a unique solution. The latter is only possible if another line introduces the missing color. In conclusion, the properties of 2-pin DMM-items of only 2 colors make it impossible for any of them to fall into the “difficult” category.

References

  1. Barton, E., Berwick, R., & Ristad, E. (1987). Computational complexity and natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berwick, R., & Weinberg, A. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beth, E. W. (1955). Semantic entailment and formal derivability. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeling Letterkunde, 18(13), 309–342.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cherniak, C. (1986). Minimal rationality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chvatal, V. (1983). Mastermind. Combinatorica, 3, 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Elo, A. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present. Arco.

  7. Ghosh, S., & Meijering, B. (2011). On combining cognitive and formal modeling: A case study involving strategic reasoning. In J. Van Eijck, & R. Verbrugge (Eds.) Proceedings of the workshop on reasoning about other minds: Logical and cognitive perspectives (RAOM-2011), Groningen, The Netherlands, July 11th, 2011, CEUR-WS.org. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 751 (pp. 79–92).

  8. Ghosh, S., Meijering, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2010). Logic meets cognition: Empirical reasoning in games. In O. Boissier, A. E. Fallah-Seghrouchni, S. Hassas & N. Maudet (Eds.) Proceedings of the multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations federated workshops (MALLOW 2010), Lyon, France, August 30–September 2, 2010, CEUR-WS.org, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol, 627 (pp. 15–34).

  9. Gierasimczuk, N., & Szymanik, J. (2009). Branching quantification v. two-way quantification. Journal of Semantics, 26(4), 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenwell, D. L. (1999–2000). Mastermind. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 30, 191–192.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Irving, R. W. (1978–79). Towards an optimum Mastermind strategy. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 11, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jansen, B., & Van der Maas, H. (1997). A statistical test of the rule assessment methodology by latent class analysis. Developmental Review, 17, 321–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers in Education, 57, 1813–1824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Knuth, D. E. (1977). The computer as master mind. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 9(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kooi, B. (2005). Yet another Mastermind strategy. ICGA Journal, 28(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Koyama, M., & Lai, T. (1993). An optimal Mastermind strategy. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 25, 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maris, G., & Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2012). Speed-accuracy response models: Scoring rules based on response time and accuracy. Psychometrika, 77(4), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meijering, B., van Rijn, H., Taatgen, N. A., & Verbrugge, R. (2012). What eye movements can tell about theory of mind in a strategic game. PLoS One, 7(9), e45961

  19. Pelánek, R. (2011). Difficulty rating of Sudoku puzzles by a computational model. In R. C. Murray & P. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference, May 18–20, 2011. Palm Beach, Florida, USA: AAAI Press.

  20. Ristad, E. (1993). The language complexity game. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schmittmann, V. D., Van der Maas, H. L. J., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2012). Distinct discrimination learning strategies and their relation with spatial memory and attentional control in 4- to 14-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 644–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smullyan, R. (1968). First-order logic. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Stuckman, J., & Zhang, G. (2006). Mastermind is NP-complete. INFOCOMP Journal of Computer Science, 5, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Szymanik, J. (2009). Quantifiers in time and space. Computational complexity of generalized quantifiers in natural language. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

  25. Szymanik, J. (2010). Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(3), 215–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Szymanik, J., & Zajenkowski, M. (2010). Comprehension of simple quantifiers. Empirical evaluation of a computational model. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Benthem, J. (1974). Semantic tableaus. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 22, 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Van Bers, B. M. C. W., Visser, I., Van Schijndel, T. J. P., Mandell, D. J., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2011). The dynamics of development on the dimensional change card sorting task. Developmental Science, 14(5), 960–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van der Maas, H., & Molenaar, P. (1992). Stagewise cognitive development: An application of catastrophe theory. Psychological Review, 99(3), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van der Maas, H., Klinkenberg, S., & Straatemeier, M. (2010). Rekentuin.nl: Combinatie van oefenen en toetsen. Examens, 4, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32, 939–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Rooij, I., Kwisthout, J., Blokpoel, M., Szymanik, J., Wareham, T., & Toni, I. (2011). Intentional communication: Computationally easy or difficult? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Verbrugge, R., & Mol, L. (2008). Learning to apply theory of mind. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 17(4), 489–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zajenkowski, M., Styła, R., & Szymanik, J. (2011). A computational approach to quantifiers as an explanation for some language impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(6), 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Gierasimczuk.

Additional information

The research of Nina Gierasimczuk is funded by the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement no 283963.

The research of Maartje Raijmakers was part of the research project Curious Minds (TalentenKracht, Platform Beta Techniek).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gierasimczuk, N., van der Maas, H.L.J. & Raijmakers, M.E.J. An Analytic Tableaux Model for Deductive Mastermind Empirically Tested with a Massively Used Online Learning System. J of Log Lang and Inf 22, 297–314 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-013-9177-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deductive Mastermind
  • Mastermind game
  • Deductive reasoning
  • Analytic tableaux
  • Math Garden (Rekentuin)
  • Educational tools