Multi-alternative decision-making with non-stationary inputs

One of the most widely implemented models for multi-alternative decision-making is the multihypothesis sequential probability ratio test (MSPRT). It is asymptotically optimal, straightforward to implement, and has found application in modelling biological decision-making. However, the MSPRT is limited in application to discrete (‘trial-based’), non-time-varying scenarios. By contrast, real world situations will be continuous and entail stimulus non-stationarity. In these circumstances, decision-making mechanisms (like the MSPRT) which work by accumulating evidence, must be able to discard outdated evidence which becomes progressively irrelevant. To address this issue, we introduce a new decision mechanism by augmenting the MSPRT with a rectangular integration window and a transparent decision boundary. This allows selection and de-selection of options as their evidence changes dynamically. Performance was enhanced by adapting the window size to problem difficulty. Further, we present an alternative windowing method which exponentially decays evidence and does not significantly degrade performance, while greatly reducing the memory resources necessary. The methods presented have proven successful at allowing for the MSPRT algorithm to function in a non-stationary environment.

[1]  Kevin N. Gurney,et al.  The Basal Ganglia and Cortex Implement Optimal Decision Making Between Alternative Actions , 2007, Neural Computation.

[2]  P. Holmes,et al.  The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives , 2006 .

[3]  J. Deniau,et al.  Disinhibition as a basic process in the expression of striatal functions , 1990, Trends in Neurosciences.

[4]  R. Audley,et al.  SOME ALTERNATIVE STOCHASTIC MODELS OF CHOICE1 , 1965 .

[5]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[6]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[7]  Marius Usher,et al.  Dynamics of decision-making: from evidence accumulation to preference and belief , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[8]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[9]  Marius Usher,et al.  The Timescale of Perceptual Evidence Integration Can Be Adapted to the Environment , 2013, Current Biology.

[10]  Zachary P. Kilpatrick,et al.  Stochastic models of evidence accumulation in changing environments , 2015, bioRxiv.

[11]  J. Gold,et al.  The Basal Ganglia’s Contributions to Perceptual Decision Making , 2013, Neuron.

[12]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests - Part II: Accurate asymptotic expansions for the expected sample size , 2000, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[13]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[14]  Jochen Ditterich,et al.  A Comparison between Mechanisms of Multi-Alternative Perceptual Decision Making: Ability to Explain Human Behavior, Predictions for Neurophysiology, and Relationship with Decision Theory , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[15]  Marius Usher,et al.  Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  The accumulator model of two-choice discrimination , 1988 .

[17]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Decision-making with multiple alternatives , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  Marius Usher,et al.  Testing Multi-Alternative Decision Models with Non-Stationary Evidence , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[19]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions , 1998 .

[20]  P. Redgrave,et al.  The basal ganglia: a vertebrate solution to the selection problem? , 1999, Neuroscience.

[21]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[22]  Jochen Ditterich,et al.  New advances in understanding decisions among multiple alternatives , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  A. Rangel,et al.  Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  M. Stone Models for choice-reaction time , 1960 .

[25]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests - Part I: Asymptotic optimality , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[26]  Nathan F. Lepora,et al.  Probabilistic Decision Making with Spikes: From ISI Distributions to Behaviour via Information Gain , 2015, PloS one.

[27]  D. Vickers,et al.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[28]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[29]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  Optimum Character of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test , 1948 .

[30]  Nathan F. Lepora,et al.  The Basal Ganglia Optimize Decision Making over General Perceptual Hypotheses , 2012, Neural Computation.

[31]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  A sequential procedure for multihypothesis testing , 1994, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.