nips nips2007 nips2007-176 nips2007-176-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Peter Frazier, Angela J. Yu
Abstract: Most models of decision-making in neuroscience assume an infinite horizon, which yields an optimal solution that integrates evidence up to a fixed decision threshold; however, under most experimental as well as naturalistic behavioral settings, the decision has to be made before some finite deadline, which is often experienced as a stochastic quantity, either due to variable external constraints or internal timing uncertainty. In this work, we formulate this problem as sequential hypothesis testing under a stochastic horizon. We use dynamic programming tools to show that, for a large class of deadline distributions, the Bayes-optimal solution requires integrating evidence up to a threshold that declines monotonically over time. We use numerical simulations to illustrate the optimal policy in the special cases of a fixed deadline and one that is drawn from a gamma distribution.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Wald, A & Wolfowitz, J (1948). Ann. Math. Statisti. 19: 326-39. Luce, R D (1986). Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Org. Oxford Univ. Press. Ratcliff, R & Rouder, J N (1998). Psychol. Sci. 9: 347-56. Bogacz, R et al (2006). Pyschol. Rev. 113: 700-65. Bertsekas, D P (1995). Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control. Athena Scientific. Gold, J I & Shadlen, M N (2002). Neuron 36: 299-308. Mozer et al (2004). Proc. Twenty Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 981-86. Siegmund, D (1985). Sequential Analysis. Springer. Boyd, S & Vandenberghe, L (2004) Convex Optimization. Cambridge Univ. Press. Poor, H V (1994). An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation. Springer-Verlag. Powell, W B (2007) Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the curses of dimensionality. Wiley. Rakitin, et al (1998). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 24: 15-33. 8