An entropic barriers diffusion theory of decision-making in multiple alternative tasks

We present a theory of decision-making in the presence of multiple choices that departs from traditional approaches by explicitly incorporating entropic barriers in a stochastic search process. We analyze response time data from an on-line repository of 15 million blitz chess games, and show that our model fits not just the mean and variance, but the entire response time distribution (over several response-time orders of magnitude) at every stage of the game. We apply the model to show that (a) higher cognitive expertise corresponds to the exploration of more complex solution spaces, and (b) reaction times of users at an on-line buying website can be similarly explained. Our model can be seen as a synergy between diffusion models used to model simple two-choice decision-making and planning agents in complex problem solving.

[1]  E. Arredondo,et al.  Council of Europe Black Sea Area Project: International Cooperation for the Development of Activities Related to Donation and Transplantation of Organs in the Region. , 2018, Transplantation proceedings.

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

[3]  D. Vickers Decision processes in visual perception , 1979 .

[4]  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.

[5]  A. D. D. Groot,et al.  Perception and memory in chess: Studies in the heuristics of the prodessional eye , 1996 .

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

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

[8]  Dennis H. Holding,et al.  Theories of chess skill , 1992 .

[9]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

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

[11]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[12]  Allen Newell,et al.  Chess-Playing Programs and the Problem of Complexity , 1958, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[13]  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers,et al.  The effects of time pressure on chess skill: an investigation into fast and slow processes underlying expert performance , 2007, Psychological research.

[14]  Francis Tuerlinckx,et al.  The Ising Decision Maker: a binary stochastic network for choice response time. , 2014, Psychological review.

[15]  H. Risken Fokker-Planck Equation , 1996 .

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

[17]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  Modeling the Adaptation of Search Termination in Human Decision Making , 2014 .

[18]  Cecchi,et al.  Negative resistance and rectification in Brownian transport. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[19]  Alexandre Linhares,et al.  An Active Symbols Theory of Chess Intuition , 2005, Minds and Machines.

[20]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[21]  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.

[22]  Huaiyu Zhu On Information and Sufficiency , 1997 .

[23]  B. K. Ghosh,et al.  Handbook of sequential analysis , 1991 .

[24]  M. Glickman Parameter Estimation in Large Dynamic Paired Comparison Experiments , 1999 .

[25]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  Response Time Distributions in Rapid Chess: A Large-Scale Decision Making Experiment , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[26]  G. King,et al.  Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences , 2011, Science.

[27]  Ian Krajbich,et al.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Roles of Recognition Processes and Look-Ahead Search in Time-Constrained Expert Problem Solving: Evidence From Grand-Master-Level Chess , 1996 .

[29]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Multinomial Modeling and the Measurement of Cognitive Processes , 2001 .

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

[31]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[32]  Csaba Szepesvári,et al.  Bandit Based Monte-Carlo Planning , 2006, ECML.

[33]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[34]  Jochen Ditterich,et al.  Perceptual Decisions between Multiple Directions of Visual Motion , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  Alexandre Linhares,et al.  The emergence of choice: Decision-making and strategic thinking through analogies , 2014, Inf. Sci..

[36]  Sidney Redner,et al.  A guide to first-passage processes , 2001 .

[37]  J. Elgin The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications , 1984 .

[38]  J. Stoyanov A Guide to First‐passage Processes , 2003 .

[39]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Stochastic Dynamic Models of Response Time and Accuracy: A Foundational Primer. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[40]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Planning and Acting in Partially Observable Stochastic Domains , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[41]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Similarity Effect and Optimal Control of Multiple-Choice Decision Making , 2008, Neuron.

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

[43]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[44]  P. W. Lamberti,et al.  Wootters’ distance revisited: a new distinguishability criterium , 2005 .