CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning

Callaway, Frederick, van Opheusden, Bas, Gul, Sayan, Das, Priyam, Krueger, Paul M., Griffiths, Thomas L., Lieder, Falk·2022·Nature Human Behaviour
DOI 10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Making good decisions requires thinking ahead, but the huge number of actions and outcomes one could consider makes exhaustive planning infeasible for computationally constrained agents, such as humans. How people are nevertheless able to solve novel problems when their actions have long-reaching consequences is thus a long-standing question in cognitive science. To address this question, we propose a model of resource-constrained planning that allows us to derive optimal planning strategies. We find that previously proposed heuristics such as best-first search are near optimal under some circumstances but not others. In a mouse-tracking paradigm, we show that people adapt their planning strategies accordingly, planning in a manner that is broadly consistent with the optimal model but not with any single heuristic model. We also find systematic deviations from the optimal model that might result from additional cognitive constraints that are yet to be uncovered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, 1944).
  2. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C. & Simon, H. A. Report on a general problem solving program. In Proc. International Conference on Information Processing 256–264 (UNESCO, Paris, 1959).
  3. Newell, A. et al. Human Problem Solving Vol. 104 (Prentice-Hall, 1972).
  4. Anderson, J. R. The Adaptive Character of Thought (Psychology Press, 1990).
  5. Savage, L. J. The Foundations of Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, 1954).
  6. Horvitz, E. J. Reasoning about beliefs and actions under computational resource constraints. In Proc. 3rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (eds Kanal L. N. et al.) 429–447 (AUAI Press, 1987).
  7. Hay, N., Russell, S., Tolpin, D. & Shimony, S. Selecting computations: theory and applications. In Proc. 28th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (eds de Freitas, N. & Murphy, K.) 346–355 (AUAI Press, 2012).
  8. Russell, S. J. & Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Prentice Hall, 2002).
  9. Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).
  10. Ongchoco, J. D., Jara-Ettinger, J. & Knobe, J. Imagining the good: an offline tendency to simulate good options even when no decision has to be made. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (eds Goel, A. K. et al.) 904–910 (Cognitive Science Society, 2019).
  11. Krueger, P. M., Lieder, F. & Griffiths, T. L. Enhancing metacognitive reinforcement learning using reward structures and feedback. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (eds Gunzelmann, G. et al.) 2469–2474 (Cognitive Science Society, 2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–122 of 122

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Callaway, F., van Opheusden, B., Gul, S., Das, P., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L., & Lieder, F.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (DE)
Corresponding author
Callaway, Frederick
ORCID
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-04-28
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
1112-1125
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8
OpenAlex
W4225148555
Cited by
121
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 18
FWCI
16.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2022-06-16)
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Templeton World Charity Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
resource-constrained planning, human decision-making, planning strategies, best-first search, heuristics, mouse tracking, cognitive resources, computational resource constraints, problem solving
MeSH terms
Heuristics, Cognition, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review