Remembrance of Inferences Past

Bayesian models of cognition assume that people compute probability distributions over hypotheses. However, the required computations are frequently intractable or prohibitively expensive. Since people often encounter many closely related distributions, selective reuse of computations (amortized inference) is a computationally efficient use of the brain’s limited resources. We present three experiments that provide evidence for amortization in human probabilistic reasoning. When sequentially answering two related queries about natural scenes, participants’ responses to the second query systematically depend on the structure of the first query. This influence is sensitive to the content of the queries, only appearing when the queries are related. Using a cognitive load manipulation, we find evidence that people amortize summary statistics of previous inferences, rather than storing the entire distribution. These findings support the view that the brain trades off accuracy and computational cost, to make efficient use of its limited cognitive resources to approximate probabilistic inference.

[1]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[2]  Alan A. Stocker,et al.  A Bayesian Model of Conditioned Perception , 2007, NIPS.

[3]  Charles Cole,et al.  Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought , 1996 .

[4]  Fintan Costello,et al.  Invariants in probabilistic reasoning , 2018, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Francis R. Bach,et al.  Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger Convergence Rates for Least-Squares Regression , 2016, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Online learning of symbolic concepts , 2017 .

[7]  Evan Heit,et al.  A dynamic model of reasoning and memory. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Ardavan Saeedi,et al.  Variational Particle Approximations , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  Rick P. Thomas,et al.  Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment. , 2008, Psychological review.

[10]  E. Heit,et al.  How similar are recognition memory and inductive reasoning? , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Multistability and Perceptual Inference , 2012, Neural Computation.

[12]  Nathaniel D. Daw,et al.  Self-Evaluation of Decision-Making: A General Bayesian Framework for Metacognitive Computation , 2017, Psychological review.

[13]  S. Denison,et al.  Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The Sampling Hypothesis , 2013, Cognition.

[14]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Amortized Hypothesis Generation , 2017, bioRxiv.

[15]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[16]  Yuval Rottenstreich,et al.  Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Theory learning as stochastic search in the language of thought , 2012 .

[19]  Max Welling,et al.  Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes , 2013, ICLR.

[20]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Ilker Yildirim Efficient and robust analysis-by-synthesis in vision : A computational framework , behavioral tests , and modeling neuronal representations , 2015 .

[22]  Frank D. Wood,et al.  Inference Networks for Sequential Monte Carlo in Graphical Models , 2016, ICML.

[23]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines , 2015, Science.

[24]  P. Dayan,et al.  Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  J. Movshon,et al.  A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding , 2007, Nature.

[26]  P. Dayan,et al.  Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors , 2011, Neuron.

[27]  A. Torralba,et al.  The role of context in object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  D. Knill,et al.  Bayesian sampling in visual perception , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Ido Erev,et al.  Noisy retrieval models of over- and undersensitivity to rare events , 2015 .

[30]  Jennifer Trueblood,et al.  A Quantum Probability Account of Order Effects in Inference , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An Introduction to Variational Methods for Graphical Models , 1999, Machine Learning.

[32]  Rick P. Thomas,et al.  Science Current Directions in Psychological Memory Constraints on Hypothesis Generation and Decision Making on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science , 2022 .

[33]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The Helmholtz Machine , 1995, Neural Computation.

[34]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  A Quantum Question Order Model Supported by Empirical Tests of an A Priori and Precise Prediction , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[35]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Bridging Levels of Analysis for Probabilistic Models of Cognition , 2012 .

[36]  P. Dayan,et al.  Adaptive integration of habits into depth-limited planning defines a habitual-goal–directed spectrum , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Jordan W. Suchow,et al.  Evolution in Mind: Evolutionary Dynamics, Cognitive Processes, and Bayesian Inference , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Neurally-Guided Procedural Models: Amortized Inference for Procedural Graphics Programs using Neural Networks , 2016, NIPS.

[39]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Bayesian Brains without Probabilities , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  M. Dougherty,et al.  Probability judgment and subadditivity: The role of working memory capacity and constraining retrieval , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[41]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Efficient analysis-by-synthesis in vision: A computational framework, behavioral tests, and modeling neuronal representations , 2015, Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.

[43]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  "Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring" , 2012, NIPS.

[44]  A. Tversky,et al.  Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. , 1994 .

[45]  E. Heit,et al.  Predicting Reasoning from Memory , 2022 .

[46]  N. Chater,et al.  Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[47]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Rational Use of Cognitive Resources: Levels of Analysis Between the Computational and the Algorithmic , 2015, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[48]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The "wake-sleep" algorithm for unsupervised neural networks. , 1995, Science.

[49]  Evan Heit,et al.  The relationship between memory and inductive reasoning: does it develop? , 2013, Developmental psychology.

[50]  Wouter Kool,et al.  Cost-Benefit Arbitration Between Multiple Reinforcement-Learning Systems , 2017, Psychological science.

[51]  C. Gettys,et al.  MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. , 1999 .

[52]  Daan Wierstra,et al.  Stochastic Backpropagation and Approximate Inference in Deep Generative Models , 2014, ICML.

[53]  Alan A. Stocker,et al.  Choice-dependent Perceptual Biases , 2016 .

[54]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Learning Stochastic Inverses , 2013, NIPS.

[55]  S. Gershman,et al.  Where do hypotheses come from? , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[56]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Amortized Inference in Probabilistic Reasoning , 2014, CogSci.

[57]  M. Dougherty,et al.  Hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and individual differences in working memory capacity. , 2003, Acta psychologica.