Representations of equation-based models are not created equal

ABSTRACT

For equation-based modelling languages, modelling experts have many degrees of freedom when building a model from scratch. One of the most basic choices the expert faces is the mode of representation. The same system can be represented for instance as a block-diagram, by writing down the physical equations, by writing an algorithm, or by graphically connecting ready-made subcomponents. To give some guidance in this aspect, an experiment was conducted to measure the effects of different representations on various tasks. Participants had to identify models and predict their transient response. Both the time to execute the task and the correctness of the answer were measured. Participants also had to rate their confidence regarding the models. Results showed that tasks were executed much faster for graphical representations than for block-digrams. Equation-based and algorithm-based models can be grouped in the middle. The same results hold for rated confidence. Interestingly, the amount of errors was similar for all representations. Apparently, modelling experts largely compensate for difficulty by taking their time.

References

1. James V Bradley. 1958. Complete counterbalancing of immediate sequential effects in a Latin square design. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 53, 282 (1958), 525--528.
2. Ap Dijksterhuis and Ad Van Knippenberg. 1998. The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of personality and social psychology 74, 4 (1998), 865.
3. Thomas RG Green and R Navarro. 1995. Programming plans, imagery, and visual programming. In Human Computer Interaction. Springer, 139--144.
4. Thomas R. G. Green and Marian Petre. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a cognitive dimensions framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 2 (1996), 131--174.
5. Sture Holm. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics (1979), 65--70.
6. Jill H Larkin and Herbert A Simon. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science 11, 1 (1987), 65--100.
7. Dominik J Leiner. 2014. SoSci survey (version 2.5.00-i){computer software}. (2014).
8. Margaret Shih, Todd L Pittinsky, and Nalini Ambady. 1999. Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological science 10, 1 (1999), 80--83.
9. Steven J Spencer, Claude M Steele, and Diane M Quinn. 1999. Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of experimental social psychology 35, 1 (1999), 4--28.
10. Claude MSteele. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American psychologist 52, 6 (1997), 613.
11. Iris Vessey and Dennis Galletta. 1991. Cognitive fit: An empirical study of information acquisition. Information systems research 2, 1 (1991), 63--84.
12. EJ Williams. 1949. Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Chemistry 2, 2 (1949), 149--168.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Physical sciences and engineering

    • Engineering

• Computing methodologies

  • Modeling and simulation

    • Model development and analysis

      • Modeling methodologies

    • Simulation support systems

      • Simulation languages