Seeing Patterns in Randomness: A Computational Model of Surprise

While seemingly a ubiquitous cognitive process, the precise definition and function of surprise remains elusive. Surprise is often conceptualized as being related to improbability or to contrasts with higher probability expectations. In contrast to this probabilistic view, we argue that surprising observations are those that undermine an existing model, implying an alternative causal origin. Surprises are not merely improbable events; instead, they indicate a breakdown in the model being used to quantify probability. We suggest that the heuristic people rely on to detect such anomalous events is randomness deficiency. Specifically, people experience surprise when they identify patterns where their model implies there should only be random noise. Using algorithmic information theory, we present a novel computational theory which formalizes this notion of surprise as randomness deficiency. We also present empirical evidence that people respond to randomness deficiency in their environment and use it to adjust their beliefs about the causal origins of events. The connection between this pattern-detection view of surprise and the literature on learning and interestingness is discussed.

[1]  Rainer Stiefelhagen,et al.  “Wow!” Bayesian surprise for salient acoustic event detection , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[2]  A. Gopnik,et al.  Mechanisms of theory formation in young children , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Nick Chater,et al.  Reconciling simplicity and likelihood principles in perceptual organization. , 1996, Psychological review.

[4]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty , 2015, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Making sense of surprise: an investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  A Large Dataset of Generalization Patterns in the Number Game , 2016 .

[7]  K. Teigen,et al.  Surprises: low probabilities or high contrasts? , 2003, Cognition.

[8]  Nick Chater,et al.  From Universal Laws of Cognition to Specific Cognitive Models Candidate Principles 1: Scale Invariance Candidate Law 2: the Simplicity Principle , 2008 .

[9]  D. Osherson,et al.  Perception and identification of random events. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  N. Chater,et al.  Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Benjamin M. Rottman,et al.  Do people reason rationally about causally related events? Markov violations, weak inferences, and failures of explaining away , 2016, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Non-Bayesian Noun Generalization in 3- to 5-Year-Old Children: Probing the Role of Prior Knowledge in the Suspicious Coincidence Effect , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Jeffrey Loewenstein,et al.  The Repetition-Break Plot Structure: A Cognitive Influence on Selection in the Marketplace of Ideas , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Perceptions as Hypotheses: Saccades as Experiments , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[15]  Fei Xu,et al.  Infants Are Rational Constructivist Learners , 2013 .

[16]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Simple algorithmic theory of subjective beauty, novelty, surprise, interestingness, attention, curiosity, creativity, art, science, music, jokes (特集 高次機能の学習と創発--脳・ロボット・人間研究における新たな展開) , 2009 .

[17]  Roman Feiman,et al.  Expressing fear enhances sensory acquisition , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention , 2010, Neural Networks.

[19]  Ming Li,et al.  Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov complexity , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[20]  O. Mason,et al.  Apophenia, theory of mind and schizotypy: Perceiving meaning and intentionality in randomness , 2008, Cortex.

[21]  Nick Chater,et al.  Bayesian models of cognition. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[22]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  From mere coincidences to meaningful discoveries , 2007, Cognition.

[23]  Aaron C. Courville,et al.  Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  J. Tanaka,et al.  The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants , 2009, Psychiatry Research.

[25]  W. Meyer,et al.  Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise , 1997 .