Rationality Enhancement Members Publications

Metacognitive Learning

Members

Rationality Enhancement
Rationality Enhancement
no image
Rationality Enhancement
Rationality Enhancement
  • Research Engineer
no image
Rationality Enhancement
no image
Rationality Enhancement
no image
Rationality Enhancement
no image
Rationality Enhancement
Rationality Enhancement
  • Student Assistant
no image
Rationality Enhancement

Publications

Rationality Enhancement Article A Computational Process-Tracing Method for Measuring People’s Planning Strategies and How They Change Over Time Jain, Y. R., Callaway, F., Griffiths, T. L., Dayan, P., He, R., Krueger, P. M., Lieder, F. Behavior Research Methods, 55:20377-2079, June 2023 (Published)
One of the most unique and impressive feats of the human mind is its ability to discover and continuouslyrefine its own cognitive strategies. Elucidating the underlying learning and adaptation mechanisms is verydifficult because changes in cognitive strategies are not directly observable. One important domain in whichstrategies and mechanisms are studied is planning. To enable researchers to uncover how people learn howto plan, we offer a tutorial introduction to a recently developed process-tracing paradigm along with a newcomputational method for inferring people’s planning strategies and their changes over time from the resultingprocess-tracing data. Our method allows researchers to reveal experience-driven changes in people’s choice ofindividual planning operations, planning strategies, strategy types, and the relative contributions of differentdecision systems. We validate our method on simulated and empirical data. On simulated data, its inferencesabout the strategies and the relative influence of different decision systems are accurate. When evaluated on human data generated using our process-tracing paradigm, our computational method correctly detects theplasticity-enhancing effect of feedback and the effect of the structure of the environment on people’s planningstrategies. Together, these methods can be used to investigate the mechanisms of cognitive plasticity and toelucidate how people acquire complex cognitive skills such as planning and problem-solving. Importantly, ourmethods can also be used to measure individual differences in cognitive plasticity and examine how differenttypes (pedagogical) interventions affect the acquisition of cognitive skills.
DOI URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Improving Human Decision-Making by Discovering Efficient Strategies for Hierarchical Planning Consul, S., Heindrich, L., Stojcheski, J., Lieder, F. Computational Brain & Behavior, 5:185-216, Springer, April 2022 (Published)
To make good decisions in the real world people need efficient planning strategies because their computational resources are limited. Knowing which planning strategies would work best for people in different situations would be very useful for understanding and improving human decision-making. But our ability to compute those strategies used to be limited to very small and very simple planning tasks. To overcome this computational bottleneck, we introduce a cognitively-inspired reinforcement learning method that can overcome this limitation by exploiting the hierarchical structure of human behavior. The basic idea is to decompose sequential decision problems into two sub-problems: setting a goal and planning how to achieve it. This hierarchical decomposition enables us to discover optimal strategies for human planning in larger and more complex tasks than was previously possible. The discovered strategies outperform existing planning algorithms and achieve a super-human level of computational efficiency. We demonstrate that teaching people to use those strategies significantly improves their performance in sequential decision-making tasks that require planning up to eight steps ahead. By contrast, none of the previous approaches was able to improve human performance on these problems. These findings suggest that our cognitively-informed approach makes it possible to leverage reinforcement learning to improve human decision-making in complex sequential decision-problems. Future work can leverage our method to develop decision support systems that improve human decision making in the real world.
DOI URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Promoting metacognitive learning through systematic reflection Becker, F., Lieder, F. Workshop on Metacognition in the Age of AI. Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021), December 2021 (Published)
People are able to learn clever cognitive strategies through trial and error from small amounts of experience. This is facilitated by people's ability to reflect on their own thinking which is known as metacognition. To examine the effects of deliberate systematic metacognitive reflection on how people learn how to plan, the experimental group was guided to systematically reflect on their decision-making process after every third decision. We found that participants assisted by reflection prompts learned to plan better faster. Moreover, we found that reflection led to immediate improvements in the participants' planning strategies. Our preliminary results do suggest that deliberate metacognitive reflection can help people discover clever cognitive strategies from very small amounts of experience. Understanding the role of reflection in human learning is a promising approach for making reinforcement learning more sample efficient in both humans and machines.
DOI URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Have I done enough planning or should I plan more? He, R., Jain, Y. R., Lieder, F. Workshop on Metacognition in the Age of AI. Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Paper, Workshop on Metacognition in the Age of AI. Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, December 2021 (Accepted)
People’s decisions about how to allocate their limited computational resources are essential to human intelligence. An important component of this metacognitive ability is deciding whether to continue thinking about what to do and move on to the next decision. Here, we show that people acquire this ability through learning and reverse-engineer the underlying learning mechanisms. Using a process-tracing paradigm that externalises human planning, we find that people quickly adapt how much planning they perform to the cost and benefit of planning. To discover the underlying metacognitive learning mechanisms we augmented a set of reinforcement learning models with metacognitive features and performed Bayesian model selection. Our results suggest that the metacognitive ability to adjust the amount of planning might be learned through a policy-gradient mechanism that is guided by metacognitive pseudo-rewards that communicate the value of planning.
BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Automatic Discovery of Interpretable Planning Strategies Skirzyński, J., Becker, F., Lieder, F. Machine Learning, 110:2641-2683, February 2021 (Published)
When making decisions, people often overlook critical information or are overly swayed by irrelevant information. A common approach to mitigate these biases is to provide decisionmakers, especially professionals such as medical doctors, with decision aids, such as decision trees and flowcharts. Designing effective decision aids is a difficult problem. We propose that recently developed reinforcement learning methods for discovering clever heuristics for good decision-making can be partially leveraged to assist human experts in this design process. One of the biggest remaining obstacles to leveraging the aforementioned methods for improving human decision-making is that the policies they learn are opaque to people. To solve this problem, we introduce AI-Interpret: a general method for transforming idiosyncratic policies into simple and interpretable descriptions. Our algorithm combines recent advances in imitation learning and program induction with a new clustering method for identifying a large subset of demonstrations that can be accurately described by a simple, high-performing decision rule. We evaluate our new AI-Interpret algorithm and employ it to translate information-acquisition policies discovered through metalevel reinforcement learning. The results of three large behavioral experiments showed that the provision of decision rules as flowcharts significantly improved people’s planning strategies and decisions across three different classes of sequential decision problems. Furthermore, a series of ablation studies confirmed that our AI-Interpret algorithm was critical to the discovery of interpretable decision rules and that it is ready to be applied to other reinforcement learning problems. We conclude that the methods and findings presented in this article are an important step towards leveraging automatic strategy discovery to improve human decision-making.
Automatic Discovery of Interpretable Planning Strategies The code for our algorithm and the experiments is available URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Measuring and modelling how people learn how to plan and how people adapt their planning strategies the to structure of the environment He, R., Jain, Y. R., Lieder, F. International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 2021
Often we find ourselves in unknown situations where we have to make a decision based on reasoning upon experiences. However, it is still unclear how people choose which pieces of information to take into account to achieve well-informed decisions. Answering this question requires an understanding of human metacognitive learning, that is how do people learn how to think. In this study, we focus on a special kind of metacognitive learning, namely how people learn how to plan and how their mechanisms of metacognitive learning adapt the planning strategies to the structures of the environment. We first measured people's adaptation to different environments via a process-tracing paradigm that externalises planning. Then we introduced and fitted novel metacognitive reinforcement learning algorithms to model the underlying learning mechanisms, which enabled us insights into the learning behaviour. Model-based analysis suggested two sources of maladaptation: no learning and reluctance to explore new alternatives.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Leveraging Machine Learning to Automatically Derive Robust Planning Strategies from Biased Models of the Environment Kemtur, A., Jain, Y. R., Mehta, A., Callaway, F., Consul, S., Stojcheski, J., Lieder, F. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science Society, CogSci, July 2020, Anirudha Kemtur and Yash Raj Jain contributed equally to this publication. (Published)
Teaching clever heuristics is a promising approach to improve decision-making. We can leverage machine learning to discover clever strategies automatically. Current methods require an accurate model of the decision problems people face in real life. But most models are misspecified because of limited information and cognitive biases. To address this problem we develop strategy discovery methods that are robust to model misspecification. Robustness is achieved by model-ing model-misspecification and handling uncertainty about the real-world according to Bayesian inference. We translate our methods into an intelligent tutor that automatically discovers and teaches robust planning strategies. Our robust cognitive tutor significantly improved human decision-making when the model was so biased that conventional cognitive tutors were no longer effective. These findings highlight that our robust strategy discovery methods are a significant step towards leveraging artificial intelligence to improve human decision-making in the real world.
Leveraging Machine Learning to Automatically Derive Robust Planning Strategies from Biased Models of the Environment BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Doing More with Less: Meta-Reasoning and Meta-Learning in Humans and Machines Griffiths, T. L., Callaway, F., Chang, M. B., Grant, E., Krueger, P. M., Lieder, F. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29:24-30, October 2019 (Published)
Artificial intelligence systems use an increasing amount of computation and data to solve very specific problems. By contrast, human minds solve a wide range of problems using a fixed amount of computation and limited experience. We identify two abilities that we see as crucial to this kind of general intelligence: meta-reasoning (deciding how to allocate computational resources) and meta-learning (modeling the learning environment to make better use of limited data). We summarize the relevant AI literature and relate the resulting ideas to recent work in psychology.
DOI BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper How do people learn how to plan? Jain, Y. R., Gupta, S., Rakesh, V., Dayan, P., Callaway, F., Lieder, F. 2019 Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience, September 2019 (Published)
How does the brain learn how to plan? We reverse-engineer people's underlying learning mechanisms by combining rational process models of cognitive plasticity with recently developed empirical methods that allow us to trace the temporal evolution of people's planning strategies. We find that our Learned Value of Computation model (LVOC) accurately captures people's average learning curve. However, there were also substantial individual differences in metacognitive learning that are best understood in terms of multiple different learning mechanisms-including strategy selection learning. Furthermore, we observed that LVOC could not fully capture people's ability to adaptively decide when to stop planning. We successfully extended the LVOC model to address these discrepancies. Our models broadly capture people's ability to improve their decision mechanisms and represent a significant step towards reverse-engineering how the brain learns increasingly effective cognitive strategies through its interaction with the environment.
How do people learn to plan? How do people learn to plan? BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Measuring How People Learn How to Plan Jain, Y. R., Callaway, F., Lieder, F. In Proceedings 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1956-1962, CogSci2019, 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, July 2019 (Published)
The human mind has an unparalleled ability to acquire complex cognitive skills, discover new strategies, and refine its ways of thinking and decision-making; these phenomena are collectively known as cognitive plasticity. One important manifestation of cognitive plasticity is learning to make better–more far-sighted–decisions via planning. A serious obstacle to studying how people learn how to plan is that cognitive plasticity is even more difficult to observe than cognitive strategies are. To address this problem, we develop a computational microscope for measuring cognitive plasticity and validate it on simulated and empirical data. Our approach employs a process tracing paradigm recording signatures of human planning and how they change over time. We then invert a generative model of the recorded changes to infer the underlying cognitive plasticity. Our computational microscope measures cognitive plasticity significantly more accurately than simpler approaches, and it correctly detected the effect of an external manipulation known to promote cognitive plasticity. We illustrate how computational microscopes can be used to gain new insights into the time course of metacognitive learning and to test theories of cognitive development and hypotheses about the nature of cognitive plasticity. Future work will leverage our computational microscope to reverse-engineer the learning mechanisms enabling people to acquire complex cognitive skills such as planning and problem solving.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper What’s in the Adaptive Toolbox and How Do People Choose From It? Rational Models of Strategy Selection in Risky Choice Mohnert, F., Pachur, T., Lieder, F. 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, July 2019
Although process data indicates that people often rely on various (often heuristic) strategies to choose between risky options, our models of heuristics cannot predict people's choices very accurately. To address this challenge, it has been proposed that people adaptively choose from a toolbox of simple strategies. But which strategies are contained in this toolbox? And how do people decide when to use which decision strategy? Here, we develop a model according to which each person selects decisions strategies rationally from their personal toolbox; our model allows one to infer which strategies are contained in the cognitive toolbox of an individual decision-maker and specifies when she will use which strategy. Using cross-validation on an empirical data set, we find that this rational model of strategy selection from a personal adaptive toolbox predicts people's choices better than any single strategy (even when it is allowed to vary across participants) and better than previously proposed toolbox models. Our model comparisons show that both inferring the toolbox and rational strategy selection are critical for accurately predicting people's risky choices. Furthermore, our model-based data analysis reveals considerable individual differences in the set of strategies people are equipped with and how they choose among them; these individual differences could partly explain why some people make better choices than others. These findings represent an important step towards a complete formalization of the notion that people select their cognitive strategies from a personal adaptive toolbox.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Discovering Rational Heuristics for Risky Choice Gul, S., Krueger, P. M., Callaway, F., Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F. The 14th biannual conference of the German Society for Cognitive Science, GK, The 14th biannual conference of the German Society for Cognitive Science, GK, September 2018 (Published)
How should we think and decide to make the best possible use of our precious time and limited cognitive resources? And how do people’s cognitive strategies compare to this ideal? We study these questions in the domain of multi-alternative risky choice using the methodology of resource-rational analysis. To answer the first question, we leverage a new meta-level reinforcement learning algorithm to derive optimal heuristics for four different risky choice environments. We find that our method rediscovers two fast-and-frugal heuristics that people are known to use, namely Take-The-Best and choosing randomly, as resource-rational strategies for specific environments. Our method also discovered a novel heuristic that combines elements of Take-The-Best and Satisficing. To answer the second question, we use the Mouselab paradigm to measure how people’s decision strategies compare to the predictions of our resource-rational analysis. We found that our resource-rational analysis correctly predicted which strategies people use and under which conditions they use them. While people generally tend to make rational use of their limited resources overall, their strategy choices do not always fully exploit the structure of each decision problem. Overall, people’s decision operations were about 88% as resource-rational as they could possibly be. A formal model comparison confirmed that our resource-rational model explained people’s decision strategies significantly better than the Directed Cognition model of Gabaix et al. (2006). Our study is a proof-of-concept that optimal cognitive strategies can be automatically derived from the principle of resource-rationality. Our results suggest that resource-rational analysis is a promising approach for uncovering people’s cognitive strategies and revisiting the debate about human rationality with a more realistic normative standard.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Learning to Select Computations Callaway, F., Gul, S., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Conference, August 2018, Frederick Callaway and Sayan Gul and Falk Lieder contributed equally to this publication. (Published)
The efficient use of limited computational resources is an essential ingredient of intelligence. Selecting computations optimally according to rational metareasoning would achieve this, but this is computationally intractable. Inspired by psychology and neuroscience, we propose the first concrete and domain-general learning algorithm for approximating the optimal selection of computations: Bayesian metalevel policy search (BMPS). We derive this general, sample-efficient search algorithm for a computation-selecting metalevel policy based on the insight that the value of information lies between the myopic value of information and the value of perfect information. We evaluate BMPS on three increasingly difficult metareasoning problems: when to terminate computation, how to allocate computation between competing options, and planning. Across all three domains, BMPS achieved near-optimal performance and compared favorably to previously proposed metareasoning heuristics. Finally, we demonstrate the practical utility of BMPS in an emergency management scenario, even accounting for the overhead of metareasoning.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Rational metareasoning and the plasticity of cognitive control Lieder, F., Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Griffiths, T. L. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(4):e1006043, Public Library of Science, April 2018 (Published)
The human brain has the impressive capacity to adapt how it processes information to high-level goals. While it is known that these cognitive control skills are malleable and can be improved through training, the underlying plasticity mechanisms are not well understood. Here, we develop and evaluate a model of how people learn when to exert cognitive control, which controlled process to use, and how much effort to exert. We derive this model from a general theory according to which the function of cognitive control is to select and configure neural pathways so as to make optimal use of finite time and limited computational resources. The central idea of our Learned Value of Control model is that people use reinforcement learning to predict the value of candidate control signals of different types and intensities based on stimulus features. This model correctly predicts the learning and transfer effects underlying the adaptive control-demanding behavior observed in an experiment on visual attention and four experiments on interference control in Stroop and Flanker paradigms. Moreover, our model explained these findings significantly better than an associative learning model and a Win-Stay Lose-Shift model. Our findings elucidate how learning and experience might shape people’s ability and propensity to adaptively control their minds and behavior. We conclude by predicting under which circumstances these learning mechanisms might lead to self-control failure.
Rational metareasoning and the plasticity of cognitive control DOI BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Strategy selection as rational metareasoning Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L. Psychological Review, 124:762-794, American Psychological Association, November 2017 (Published)
Many contemporary accounts of human reasoning assume that the mind is equipped with multiple heuristics that could be deployed to perform a given task. This raises the question of how the mind determines when to use which heuristic. To answer this question, we developed a rational model of strategy selection, based on the theory of rational metareasoning developed in the artificial intelligence literature. According to our model people learn to efficiently choose the strategy with the best cost–benefit tradeoff by learning a predictive model of each strategy’s performance. We found that our model can provide a unifying explanation for classic findings from domains ranging from decision-making to arithmetic by capturing the variability of people’s strategy choices, their dependence on task and context, and their development over time. Systematic model comparisons supported our theory, and 4 new experiments confirmed its distinctive predictions. Our findings suggest that people gradually learn to make increasingly more rational use of fallible heuristics. This perspective reconciles the 2 poles of the debate about human rationality by integrating heuristics and biases with learning and rationality. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
DOI BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper An automatic method for discovering rational heuristics for risky choice Lieder, F., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 2017, Falk Lieder and Paul M. Krueger contributed equally to this publication. (Published)
What is the optimal way to make a decision given that your time is limited and your cognitive resources are bounded? To answer this question, we formalized the bounded optimal decision process as the solution to a meta-level Markov decision process whose actions are costly computations. We approximated the optimal solution and evaluated its predictions against human choice behavior in the Mouselab paradigm, which is widely used to study decision strategies. Our computational method rediscovered well-known heuristic strategies and the conditions under which they are used, as well as novel heuristics. A Mouselab experiment confirmed our model’s main predictions. These findings are a proof-of-concept that optimal cognitive strategies can be automatically derived as the rational use of finite time and bounded cognitive resources.
BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Enhancing metacognitive reinforcement learning using reward structures and feedback Krueger, P. M., Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2017 BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Mouselab-MDP: A new paradigm for tracing how people plan Callaway, F., Lieder, F., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L. In The 3rd multidisciplinary conference on reinforcement learning and decision making, 2017 BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Article Model-Based Strategy Selection Learning Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L. The 2nd Multidisciplinary Conference on Reinforcement Learning and Decision Making, 2015 (Published)
Humans possess a repertoire of decision strategies. This raises the question how we decide how to decide. Behavioral experiments suggest that the answer includes metacognitive reinforcement learning: rewards reinforce not only our behavior but also the cognitive processes that lead to it. Previous theories of strategy selection, namely SSL and RELACS, assumed that model-free reinforcement learning identifies the cognitive strategy that works best on average across all problems in the environment. Here we explore the alternative: model-based reinforcement learning about how the differential effectiveness of cognitive strategies depends on the features of individual problems. Our theory posits that people learn a predictive model of each strategy’s accuracy and execution time and choose strategies according to their predicted speed-accuracy tradeoff for the problem to be solved. We evaluate our theory against previous accounts by fitting published data on multi-attribute decision making, conducting a novel experiment, and demonstrating that our theory can account for people’s adaptive flexibility in risky choice. We find that while SSL and RELACS are sufficient to explain people’s ability to adapt to a homogeneous environment in which all decision problems are of the same type, model-based strategy selection learning can also explain people’s ability to adapt to heterogeneous environments and flexibly switch to a different decision-strategy when the situation changes.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper When to use which heuristic: A rational solution to the strategy selection problem Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2015 (Published)
The human mind appears to be equipped with a toolbox full of cognitive strategies, but how do people decide when to use which strategy? We leverage rational metareasoning to derive a rational solution to this problem and apply it to decision making under uncertainty. The resulting theory reconciles the two poles of the debate about human rationality by proposing that people gradually learn to make rational use of fallible heuristics. We evaluate this theory against empirical data and existing accounts of strategy selection (i.e. SSL and RELACS). Our results suggest that while SSL and RELACS can explain people's ability to adapt to homogeneous environments in which all decision problems are of the same type, rational metareasoning can additionally explain people's ability to adapt to heterogeneous environments and flexibly switch strategies from one decision to the next.
URL BibTeX

Rationality Enhancement Conference Paper Algorithm selection by rational metareasoning as a model of human strategy selection Lieder, F., Plunkett, D., Hamrick, J. B., Russell, S. J., Hay, N. J., Griffiths, T. L. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014
Selecting the right algorithm is an important problem in computer science, because the algorithm often has to exploit the structure of the input to be efficient. The human mind faces the same challenge. Therefore, solutions to the algorithm selection problem can inspire models of human strategy selection and vice versa. Here, we view the algorithm selection problem as a special case of metareasoning and derive a solution that outperforms existing methods in sorting algorithm selection. We apply our theory to model how people choose between cognitive strategies and test its prediction in a behavioral experiment. We find that people quickly learn to adaptively choose between cognitive strategies. People's choices in our experiment are consistent with our model but inconsistent with previous theories of human strategy selection. Rational metareasoning appears to be a promising framework for reverse-engineering how people choose among cognitive strategies and translating the results into better solutions to the algorithm selection problem.
BibTeX