One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples

Cognitive Science

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 599-637

  Vul, Edward ^a   Goodman, Noah ^b   Griffiths, Thomas L ^c   Tenenbaum, Joshua B ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Bounded rationality; Computational; Inference; Sampling

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84901691896     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12101     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Anderson, J. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98(3), 409-429.
2. Battaglia, P., & Schrater, P. (2007). Humans trade off viewing time and movement duration to improve visuomotor accuracy in a fast reaching task. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 6984-6994.
3. Berger, J. (1985). Statistical decision theory and bayesian analysis. New York: Springer.
4. Bogacz, R. (2007). Optimal decision-making theories: Linking neurobiology with behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 118-125.
5. Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological Review, 113, 700-765.
6. Brainard, D., & Freeman, W. (1997). Bayesian color constancy. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 14(7), 1393-1411.
7. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178.
8. Brown, S., & Steyvers, M. (2008). Detecting and predicting changes. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 49-67.
9. Brown, S., Steyvers, M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Observing evidence accumulation during multi-alternative decisions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(6), 453-462.
10. Chater, N., & Manning, C. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 335-344.
11. Daw, N., & Courville, A. (2008). The rat as particle filter. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, & S. Roweis (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems. Vol. 20 (pp. 369*-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2013). Rational variability in children's causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126(3), 285-399.
13. Doucet, A., De Freitas, N., & Gordon, N. (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo methods. New York: Springer.
14. Feller, (1966). An introduction to probability theory and its applications. New York: Wiley.
15. Gamerman, D., & Lopes, H.(2006). Markov chain Monte Carlo. New York: Chapman and Hall.
16. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D. (2004). Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall.
17. Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721-741.
18. Gershman, S., Vul, E., & Tenenbaum, J. (2012). Multistability and perceptual inference. Neural Computation, 24(1), 1-24.
19. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford University Press, USA.
20. Gold, J., & Shadlen, M. (2000). Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature, 404, 390-394.
21. Gold, J., & Shadlen, M. (2002). Banburismus and the brain: Decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron, 36, 299-308.
22. Goodman, N., Tenenbaum, J., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108-154.
23. Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 354-384.
24. Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17, 767-773.
25. Herrnstein, R. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4(3), 267.
26. Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(12), 517-523.
27. Hertwig, R., & Pleskac, T. (2010). Decisions from experience: Why small samples? Cognition, 115, 225-237.
28. Hick, W. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26.
29. Hourihan, K., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Smaller is better (when sampling from the crowd within): Low memory-span individuals benefit more from multiple opportunities for estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 1068-1074.
30. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188-196.
31. Jones, M., & Love, B. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? on the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 169-188.
32. Knill, D., & Richards, W. (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kording, K. (2007). Decision theory: What should the nervous system do? Science, 318(5850), 606.
34. Kwisthout, J., Wareham, T., & van Rooij, I. (2011). Bayesian intractability is not an ailment that approximation can cure. Cognitive Science, 1, 1-6.
35. Levy, R., Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. (2009). Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, & L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 21 (pp. 937-944). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Lewandowsky, S., Griffiths, T., & Kalish, M. (2009). The wisdom of individuals: Exploring peoples knowledge about everyday events using iterated learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 969-998.
37. Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring. In P. Bartlett, F. C. N. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems. Vol. 25 (pp. 2699-2707). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
39. Maloney, L. (2002). Statistical decision theory and biological vision. In D. Heyer & R. Mausfield (Eds.), Perception and the physical world (pp. 145-189). New York, NY: Wiley.
40. Maloney, L., Trommershauser, J., & Landy, M. (2007). Questions without words: A comparison between decision making under risk and movement planning under risk. In W. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 297-313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. McKenzie, C. (1994). The accuracy of intuitive judgment strategies: Covariation assessment and Bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 209-239. Available at: http://psy.ucsd.edu/mckenzie/McKenzie1994CogPsych.pdf
43. Mozer, M., Pashler, H., & Homaei, H. (2008). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition: The wisdom of individuals or crowds? Cognitive Science, 32, 1133-1147.
44. Navarro, D. (2007). On the interaction between exemplar-based concepts and a response scaling process. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51, 85-98.
45. Nosofsky, R., Palmeri, T., & McKinley, S. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
46. Ratcliff, & Smith. (2004). A comparison of sequential-sampling models for two choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333-367.
47. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
48. Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo statistical methods. New York: Springer.
49. Sanborn, A. N., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). Markov chain Monte Carlo with people. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, & S. Roweis (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems. Vol. 20 (pp. 1265-1272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. (2006). A more rational model of categorization. In R. Sun, & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 726-731). Vancouver, BC.
51. Schneider, A., Oppenheimer, D., & Detre, G. (2007). Application of voting geometry to multialternative choice. In D. McNamara, & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 635-640). Nashville, TN.
52. Shanks, D., Tunney, R., & McCarthy, J. (2002). A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 233-250.
53. Shi, L., Griffiths, T. L., Feldman, N. H., & Sanborn, A. N. (2010). Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 443-464.
54. Simon, H. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
55. Sobel, D., Tenenbaum, J., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Children's causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28, 303-333.
56. Srinivasan, R. (2002). Importance sampling - applications in communications and detection. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
57. Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1-26.
58. Stigler, S. (1986). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Sutter, R., & Barlo, A. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Taleb, N. (2008). The black swan. New York: Random House.
61. Trommershauser, J., Maloney, L., & Landy, M. (2003). Statistical decision theory and rapid, goal-directed movements. Journal of the Optical Society A, 1419-1433.
62. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
63. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592.
64. Usher, M., Olami, & McClelland, J. (2002). Hick's law in a stochastic race model with speed-accuracy tradeoff. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 704-715.
65. Vickers, D. (1979). Decision processes in visual perception. New York: Academic Press.
66. Vul, E., Goodman, N., Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. (2009). One and done? Optimal decisions from few samples. In N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker, & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society. Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
67. Vul, E., Hanus, D., & Kanwisher, N. (2009). Attention as inference: Selection is probabilistic; responses are all or none samples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 546-560.
68. Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science, 19(7), 645-647.
69. Vul, E., & Rich, A. (2010). Independent sampling of features enables conscious perception of bound objects. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1168-1175.
70. Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist's perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 101-118.
71. Wald. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.
72. Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Sensitivity to sampling in Bayesian word learning. Developmental Science, 10(3), 288-297.
73. Yuille, A., & Bülthoff, H. (1996). Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics. In D. Knill & W. RIchards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian inference (pp. 123-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.