How do people predict a random walk? Lessons for models of human cognition.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1037/rev0000493
Jake Spicer, Jian-Qiao Zhu, Nick Chater, Adam N Sanborn
{"title":"How do people predict a random walk? Lessons for models of human cognition.","authors":"Jake Spicer, Jian-Qiao Zhu, Nick Chater, Adam N Sanborn","doi":"10.1037/rev0000493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Repeated forecasts of changing values are common in many everyday tasks, from predicting the weather to financial markets. A particularly simple and informative instance of such fluctuating values are <i>random walks</i>: Sequences in which each point is a random movement from only its preceding value, unaffected by any previous points. Moreover, random walks often yield basic rational forecasting solutions in which predictions of new values should repeat the most recent value, and hence replicate the properties of the original series. In previous experiments, however, we have found that human forecasters do not adhere to this standard, showing systematic deviations from the properties of a random walk such as excessive volatility and extreme movements between subsequent predictions. We suggest that such deviations reflect general statistical signatures of cognition displayed across multiple tasks, offering a window into underlying mechanisms. Using these deviations as new criteria, we here explore several cognitive models of forecasting drawn from various approaches developed in the existing literature, including Bayesian, error-based learning, autoregressive, and sampling mechanisms. These models are contrasted with human data from two experiments to determine which best accounts for the particular statistical features displayed by participants. We find support for sampling models in both aggregate and individual fits, suggesting that these variations are attributable to the use of inherently stochastic prediction systems. We thus argue that variability in predictions is strongly influenced by computational noise within the decision making process, with less influence from \"late\" noise at the output stage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1069-1113"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000493","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Repeated forecasts of changing values are common in many everyday tasks, from predicting the weather to financial markets. A particularly simple and informative instance of such fluctuating values are random walks: Sequences in which each point is a random movement from only its preceding value, unaffected by any previous points. Moreover, random walks often yield basic rational forecasting solutions in which predictions of new values should repeat the most recent value, and hence replicate the properties of the original series. In previous experiments, however, we have found that human forecasters do not adhere to this standard, showing systematic deviations from the properties of a random walk such as excessive volatility and extreme movements between subsequent predictions. We suggest that such deviations reflect general statistical signatures of cognition displayed across multiple tasks, offering a window into underlying mechanisms. Using these deviations as new criteria, we here explore several cognitive models of forecasting drawn from various approaches developed in the existing literature, including Bayesian, error-based learning, autoregressive, and sampling mechanisms. These models are contrasted with human data from two experiments to determine which best accounts for the particular statistical features displayed by participants. We find support for sampling models in both aggregate and individual fits, suggesting that these variations are attributable to the use of inherently stochastic prediction systems. We thus argue that variability in predictions is strongly influenced by computational noise within the decision making process, with less influence from "late" noise at the output stage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们如何预测随机行走?人类认知模型的启示
从预测天气到金融市场,重复预测不断变化的数值在许多日常工作中都很常见。随机漫步就是这种数值波动的一个特别简单且信息丰富的例子:序列中的每个点都是在其前一个值的基础上随机移动的,不受任何前一个点的影响。此外,随机漫步通常会产生基本的理性预测方案,其中对新值的预测应重复最近的值,从而复制原始序列的特性。然而,在之前的实验中,我们发现人类预测者并没有遵守这一标准,而是系统性地偏离了随机游走的特性,例如过度波动和后续预测之间的极端变动。我们认为,这种偏差反映了认知在多个任务中表现出的一般统计特征,为了解潜在机制提供了一个窗口。利用这些偏差作为新的标准,我们在此探讨了几种预测认知模型,这些模型来自现有文献中开发的各种方法,包括贝叶斯、基于误差的学习、自回归和抽样机制。我们将这些模型与两次实验中的人类数据进行对比,以确定哪种模型最能说明参与者所显示的特定统计特征。我们发现抽样模型在总体和个体拟合上都得到了支持,这表明这些变化可归因于使用了固有的随机预测系统。因此,我们认为预测的变异受决策过程中计算噪音的影响较大,而受输出阶段 "后期 "噪音的影响较小。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
How does depressive cognition develop? A state-dependent network model of predictive processing. A theory of flexible multimodal synchrony. Bouncing back from life's perturbations: Formalizing psychological resilience from a complex systems perspective. Bouncing back from life's perturbations: Formalizing psychological resilience from a complex systems perspective. The meaning of attention control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1