Human performance on a deductive reasoning task in the description logic ALE Human performance on a deductive reasoning task in the description logic ALE 2023-292-1 https://doi.org/10.5878/5739-da47 Swedish National Data Service Svensk nationell datatjänst Landing page Human performance on a deductive reasoning task in the description logic ALE Human performance on a deductive reasoning task in the description logic ALE 2023-292-1 https://doi.org/10.5878/5739-da47 hdl.handle.net/2077/74797 oai:gup.ub.gu.se/331156 urn:nbn:de:0074-3548-5 Fokkens, Tjeerd Fokkens, Tjeerd Engström, Fredrik Engström, Fredrik KL2023-0010 KL2023-0010 Swedish National Data Service Svensk nationell datatjänst Landing page PSYCHOLOGY PSYKOLOGI The data was collected through the (online-distributed, currently unavailable) survey to test the accuracy of the cognitive model SHARP (for more info about this model, see: https://hdl.handle.net/2077/74797 ). The code for SHARP is available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13759504 SHARP was designed to simulate human performance on certain deduction tasks related to the description logic ALE. More specifically, SHARP models the task of checking whether a given ABox (in the logic ALE) is inconsistent. In the survey, participants were presented (among other things) ABoxes after which they were supposed to decide their inconsistency. The data consists of: - responses to questions about previous logic experience - responses to demographic questions - responses for each presented ABox (`Consistent', `Inconsistent' or `I don't know') - responses for questions where the participant was asked to rate the difficulty of the previous ABox on a five-point Likert scale - response times for all questions, in seconds - a number indicating the order in which the ABoxes were presented (this order was randomised and different for each participant) See list of variable codes and their explanation below, please note that the mathematical notation used there is only properly shown when using MathJax. The documentation file Data_Description-2.pdf has been rendered with the corresponding notation and may be used for reference. DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: [results-survey539252-16.csv] Number of variables: 108 Number of cases/rows: 84 Variable List: G01Q37: 'Do you know what a contradiction is?' G01Q36: 'Do you have experience with description logic?'' G01Q39: 'Have you seen this notation before? \( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap B) \\} \) (If the expression does not show properly, please consider using a different browser)' G02Q38: 'What is your gender?' G02Q39: 'What is your age?' G02Q40: 'What is your nationality?' G01Q00: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} A,\ b \{\,:\,\} \neg A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg B \\} \)' G01Q01: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \forall s.(\neg A \sqcap B),\ (b,a) \{\,:\,\} r,\ c \{\,:\,\} (\neg B \sqcap C),\ b \{\,:\,\} \forall r. \exists s.(A \sqcap B),\ a \{\,:\,\} (B \sqcap \neg C),\ (b,c) \{\,:\,\} s \\} \)' G02Q27: 'How difficult was it to decide whether the last ABox was inconsistent? 1 is very easy. 5 is very difficult.' G02Q18: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap (B \sqcap (C \sqcap (D \sqcap \neg A)))) \\} \)' G04Q56: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q18 G02Q12: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (B \sqcap (C \sqcap (\neg A \sqcap A))) \\} \)' G04Q57: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q12 G02Q19: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap B),\ a \{\,:\,\} (B \sqcap C),\ a \{\,:\,\} (C \sqcap D),\ a\{\,:\,\} (D \sqcap \neg A) \\} \)' G04Q58: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q19 G02Q17: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} ((\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \forall r. ((\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \forall r. (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B))) \\} \)' G04Q59: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q17 G02Q22: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \exists r. \exists s. \neg A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \forall r. \forall s. A,\ b \{\,:\,\} \exists s. \neg B \\} \)' G04Q60: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q22 G02Q23: 'How difficult was it to decide whether the last ABox was inconsistent? 1 is very easy. 5 is very difficult.' G02Q07: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap B),\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg B \\} \)' G04Q61: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q07 G02Q14: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (\exists r. (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \exists r. B) \\} \)' G04Q62: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q14 G02Q03: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} A,\ a \{\,:\,\} B,\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg A \\} \)' G04Q63: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q03 G02Q11: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap (\neg A \sqcap (B \sqcap C))) \\} \)' G04Q64: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q11 G02Q13: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \\} \)' G04Q65: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q13 G02Q25: 'How difficult was it to decide whether the last ABox was inconsistent? 1 is very easy. 5 is very difficult.' G02Q10: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \neg A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg B \\} \)' G04Q66: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q10 G02Q21: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg A,\ b \{\,:\,\} \forall r. A \\} \)' G04Q67: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q21 G02Q15: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} ( (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \forall r. (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B)) \\} \)' G04Q68: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q15 G02Q09: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} A,\ a \{\,:\,\} B \\} \)' G04Q69: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q09 G02Q05: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \exists r.A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \forall s. \neg A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \exists r. B \\} \)' G04Q69Copy: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q05 G02Q26: 'How difficult was it to decide whether the last ABox was inconsistent? 1 is very easy. 5 is very difficult.' G02Q16: \( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} ( (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \forall r. (\exists r. (\exists r. A \sqcap \exists r. B) \sqcap \exists r. B)) \\} \) G04Q70: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q16 G02Q08: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \neg B,\ a \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap B) \\} \)' G04Q71: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q08 G02Q06: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} \exists r. A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \forall s. \neg A,\ a \{\,:\,\} \exists s. B \\} \)' G04Q72: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q06 G02Q04: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} A,\ b \{\,:\,\} B,\ a \{\,:\,\} \neg A \\} \)' G04Q73: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q04 G02Q20: '\( \\{ a \{\,:\,\} (\neg A \sqcap (B \sqcap \neg C)),\ b \{\,:\,\} (\neg B \sqcap (C \sqcap A)),\ b \{\,:\,\} (A \sqcap C),\ a \{\,:\,\} B \\} \)' G04Q74: the order of the ABox presented in question G02Q20 G02Q26Copy: 'How difficult was it to decide whether the last ABox was inconsistent? 1 is very easy. 5 is very difficult.' interviewtime: the total response time G01Q37Time: the reponse time of question G01Q37 G01Q36Time: the reponse time of question G01Q36 G01Q39Time: the reponse time of question G01Q39 G02Q38Time: the reponse time of question G02Q38 G02Q39Time: the reponse time of question G02Q39 G02Q40Time: the reponse time of question G02Q40 G01Q00Time: the reponse time of question G01Q00 G01Q01Time: the reponse time of question G01Q01 G02Q27Time: the reponse time of question G02Q27 G02Q28Time: the reponse time of question G02Q28 remove G04Q41CopyTime: the waiting time before question G02Q18 G02Q18Time: the reponse time of question G02Q18 G04Q41Time: the waiting time before question G02Q12 G02Q12Time: the reponse time of question G02Q12 G04Q42Time: the waiting time before question G02Q19 G02Q19Time: the reponse time of question G02Q19 G04Q45Time: the waiting time before question G02Q17 G02Q17Time: the reponse time of question G02Q17 G04Q45CopyTime: the waiting time before question G02Q22 G02Q22Time: the reponse time of question G02Q22 G02Q23Time: the reponse time of question G02Q23 G04Q43Time: the waiting time before question G02Q07 G02Q07Time: the reponse time of question G02Q07 G04Q44Time: the waiting time before question G02Q14 G02Q14Time: the reponse time of question G02Q14 G04Q46Time: the waiting time before question G02Q03 G02Q03Time: the reponse time of question G02Q03 G04Q88Time: the waiting time before question G02Q11 G02Q11Time: the reponse time of question G02Q11 G04Q88CopyTime: the waiting time before question G02Q13 G02Q13Time: the reponse time of question G02Q13 G02Q25Time: the response time of question G02Q25 G04Q48Time: the waiting time before question G02Q10 G02Q10Time: the reponse time of question G02Q10 G04Q49Time: the waiting time before question G02Q21 G02Q21Time: the reponse time of question G02Q21 G04Q50Time: the waiting time before question G02Q15 G02Q15Time: the reponse time of question G02Q15 G04Q51Time: the waiting time before question G02Q09 G02Q09Time: the reponse time of question G02Q09 G04Q89Time: the waiting time before question G02Q05 G02Q05Time: the reponse time of question G02Q05 G02Q26Time: the reponse time of question G02Q26 G04Q53Time: the waiting time before question G02Q16 G02Q16Time: the reponse time of question G02Q16 G04Q54Time: the waiting time before question G02Q08 G02Q08Time: the reponse time of question G02Q08 G04Q54CopyTime: the waiting time before question G02Q06 G02Q06Time: the reponse time of question G02Q06 G04Q52CopyTime: the waiting time before question G02Q04 G02Q04Time: the reponse time of question G02Q04 G04Q92Time: the waiting time before question G02Q20 G02Q20Time: the reponse time of question G02Q20 G02Q26CopyTime: the reponse time of question G02Q26Copy Data från enkät som utvärderar den kognitiva modellen SHARP för mänskliga deduktiva resonemang. Se den engelskspråkiga katalogposten samt README.txt för utförlig information om studien och datasetet. 2023-06-01 2023-11-30 Sweden Sverige Netherlands Nederländerna Germany Tyskland IndividualIndividual IndividIndivid People affiliated to study programs in logic and/or computer science in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands who have certain experience with logic and deductive reasoning. Människor relaterade till studieprogram i både logik och/eller datavetenskap i Sverige, Tyskland och Nederländerna som har viss erfarenhet i logik och deduktivt resonemang. Numeric Text Cross-sectionCross-section TvärsnittTvärsnitt University teachers of logic courses in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands were contacted and asked to participate and share the survey link. Sampling was stopped after 71 usable (based on the criterion of 75% correct responses) responses were collected.University teachers of logic courses in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands were contacted and asked to participate and share the survey link. Sampling was stopped after 71 usable (based on the criterion of 75% correct responses) responses were collected. Universitetslärare som undervisade i logikkurser på svenska, tyska och nederländska universiteter kontaktades och frågades om de kan dela länken. Insamlingen var stängd efter 71 användbara (baserad på kriterium av minst 75% rätta) svar insamlades.Universitetslärare som undervisade i logikkurser på svenska, tyska och nederländska universiteter kontaktades och frågades om de kan dela länken. Insamlingen var stängd efter 71 användbara (baserad på kriterium av minst 75% rätta) svar insamlades. Non-probability: Respondent-assistedNon-probability: Respondent-assisted Icke-sannolikhetsurval: respondent-assisterat urvalIcke-sannolikhetsurval: respondent-assisterat urval Non-probability: AvailabilityNon-probability: Availability Icke-sannolikhetsurval: tillgänglighetsurvalIcke-sannolikhetsurval: tillgänglighetsurval Online questionnaire using the LimeSurvey platform. Both responses and responses times were recorded.Online questionnaire using the LimeSurvey platform. Both responses and responses times were recorded. Onlineenkät med hjälp av LimeSurvey-plattformen. Både svar och svarstider registrerades.Onlineenkät med hjälp av LimeSurvey-plattformen. Både svar och svarstider registrerades. Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based (CAWI)Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based (CAWI) Självadministrerat frågeformulär: webbaseratSjälvadministrerat frågeformulär: webbaserat Access to data through SND. Data are freely accessible. Åtkomst till data via SND. Data är fritt tillgängliga. openAccess Fokkens, J. T. (2023). Modelling the logical mind - Using the cognitive architecture ACT-R to model human symbolic reasoning in the description logic 𝒜ℒℰ [Licentiate thesis]. University of Gothenburg. Fokkens, J. T. (2023). Modelling the logical mind - Using the cognitive architecture ACT-R to model human symbolic reasoning in the description logic 𝒜ℒℰ [Licentiate thesis]. University of Gothenburg. hdl.handle.net/2077/74797 2023 Engström, F., & Fokkens, J. T. (2023). Cognitively adequate complexity of reasoning in a description logic. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3548. CAKR’23: The 2nd International Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Knowledge Representation, September 4, 2023, Rhodes, Greece. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3548/paper6.pdf Engström, F., & Fokkens, J. T. (2023). Cognitively adequate complexity of reasoning in a description logic. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3548. CAKR’23: The 2nd International Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Knowledge Representation, September 4, 2023, Rhodes, Greece. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3548/paper6.pdf urn:nbn:de:0074-3548-5 oai:gup.ub.gu.se/331156 2023 oai:gup.ub.gu.se/331156