Input-dependent noise can explain magnitude-sensitivity in optimal value-based decision-making

Angelo Pirrone, Andreagiovanni Reina and Fernand Gobet

Judgment and Decision Making, 2021, vol. 16, issue 5, 1221-1233

Abstract: Recent work has derived the optimal policy for two-alternative value-based decisions, in which decision-makers compare the subjective expected reward of two alternatives. Under specific task assumptions — such as linear utility, linear cost of time and constant processing noise — the optimal policy is implemented by a diffusion process in which parallel decision thresholds collapse over time as a function of prior knowledge about average reward across trials. This policy predicts that the decision dynamics of each trial are dominated by the difference in value between alternatives and are insensitive to the magnitude of the alternatives (i.e., their summed values). This prediction clashes with empirical evidence showing magnitude-sensitivity even in the case of equal alternatives, and with ecologically plausible accounts of decision making. Previous work has shown that relaxing assumptions about linear utility or linear time cost can give rise to optimal magnitude-sensitive policies. Here we question the assumption of constant processing noise, in favour of input-dependent noise. The neurally plausible assumption of input-dependent noise during evidence accumulation has received strong support from previous experimental and modelling work. We show that including input-dependent noise in the evidence accumulation process results in a magnitude-sensitive optimal policy for value-based decision-making, even in the case of a linear utility function and a linear cost of time, for both single (i.e., isolated) choices and sequences of choices in which decision-makers maximise reward rate. Compared to explanations that rely on non-linear utility functions and/or non-linear cost of time, our proposed account of magnitude-sensitive optimal decision-making provides a parsimonious explanation that bridges the gap between various task assumptions and between various types of decision making.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1221-1233_4

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Judgment and Decision Making from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().