Cited by 35Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsVisual perception and processing mechanismsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Human inference reflects a normative balance of complexity and accuracy

Open access
Tavoni, Gaia, Doi, Takahiro, Pizzica, Chris, Balasubramanian, Vijay, Gold, Joshua I.·2022·Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract

We must often infer latent properties of the world from noisy and changing observations. Complex, probabilistic approaches to this challenge such as Bayesian inference are accurate but cognitively demanding, relying on extensive working memory and adaptive processing. Simple heuristics are easy to implement but may be less accurate. What is the appropriate balance between complexity and accuracy? Here we model a hierarchy of strategies of variable complexity and find a power law of diminishing returns: increasing complexity gives progressively smaller gains in accuracy. The rate of diminishing returns depends systematically on the statistical uncertainty in the world, such that complex strategies do not provide substantial benefits over simple ones when uncertainty is either too high or too low. In between, there is a complexity dividend. In two psychophysical experiments, we confirm specific model predictions about how working memory and adaptivity should be modulated by uncertainty.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-022-01357-z

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Shi L, Griffiths TL, Neural implementation of hierarchical Bayesian inference by importance sampling, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009, pp. 1669– 1677.
  2. [15]Heilbron M, Meyniel F, Subjective confidence reveals the hierarchical nature of learning under uncertainty, bioRxiv (2018) 256016.
  3. [35]Cover TM, Thomas JA, Elements of Information Theory, John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
  4. [38]Cheeseman PC, Kanefsky B, Taylor WM, Where the really hard problems are., in: IJCAI, Vol. 91, 1991, pp. 331– 340.
  5. [40]Mitchell D, Selman B, Levesque H, Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems, in: AAAI, Vol. 92, 1992, pp. 459– 465.

Cited by

Authors
Tavoni, G., Doi, T., Pizzica, C., Balasubramanian, V., & Gold, J. I.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Tavoni, Gaia
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2022-05-30
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
1153-1168
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281869941
Cited by
35
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH115557)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB026945)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
human inference, accuracy-complexity trade-off, Bayesian inference, heuristics, working memory, statistical uncertainty, adaptive inference, probabilistic reasoning
MeSH terms
Heuristics, Bayes Theorem, Data Collection, Humans, Uncertainty

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