Advertisement

A unifying computational model of decision making

  • Alexandra KirschEmail author
Research Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Decision making has long been of interest as a descriptive phenomenon in psychology and as a generative one in artificial intelligence. Research ranges from general, descriptive models of heuristic decision making to detailed studies of decision parameters. This paper introduces a model that formalizes and integrates several descriptive models so that it can serve both as a framework for psychological models and as an algorithm for computational decision making. We set special focus on the instantiation of this model with respect to aggregating cue values by reviewing some methods from the field of computational social choice. To show its applicability in the context of artificial intelligence we present a case study of computational problem solving.

Keywords

Decision making Heuristics Computational social choice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

The research involved no human participants or animals.

References

  1. Ariely D (2010) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller R, Francone F (1998) Genetic programming—an introduction. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia AD (2016) Handbook of computational social choice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dantzig GB (1963) Linear programming and extensions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Gigerenzer G (2001) The adaptive toolbox. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) Betting on one good reason: the take the best heuristic. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, The ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cognit Sci 1:107–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glöckner A, Hilbig BE, Jekel M (2014) What is adaptive about adaptive decision making? a parallel constraint satisfaction account. Cognition 133:641–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham SM, Joshi A, Pizlo Z (2000) The traveling salesman problem: a hierarchical model. Mem Cognit 28(7):1191–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertwig R, Hoffrage U, Martignon L (1999) Quick estimation: letting the environment do the work. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, The ABC Research Group (eds) Simple Heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Huber O (1979) Nontransitive multidimensional preferences: theoretical analysis of a model. Theory Decis 10:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katsikopoulos KV, Martignon L (2006) Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: some results on their relative accuracy. J Math Psychol 50(5):488–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller N, Katsikopoulos KV (2016) On the role of psychological heuristics in operational research; and a demonstration in military stability operations. Eu J Oper Res 3:1063–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirsch A (2011) Humanlike problem solving in the context of the traveling salesperson problem. In: AAAI fall symposium on advances in cognitive systemsGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirsch A (2012) Hierarchical knowledge for heuristic problem solving—a case study on the traveling salesperson problem. In: First annual conference on advances in cognitive systemsGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirsch A (2016) Heuristic decision-making for human-aware navigation in domestic environments. In: 2nd global conference on artificial intelligence (GCAI)Google Scholar
  18. Kirsch A (2017) A modular approach of decision-making in the context of robot navigation in domestic environments. In: 3rd global conference on artificial intelligence (GCAI)Google Scholar
  19. Klein G (2017) Sources of power: how people make decisions. The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK (2016) A review of 40 years of cognitive architecture research: core cognitive abilities and practical applications. arXiv:1610.08602
  21. Langley P (2017) Progress and challenges in research on cognitive architectures. In: Proceedings of the thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-17)Google Scholar
  22. Lee MD, Newell BR (2011) Using hierarchical bayesian methods to examine the tools of decision-making. Judgm Decis Mak 6(8):832–842Google Scholar
  23. MacGregor J, Ormerod T (1996) Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Percept Psychophys 58(4):527–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacGregor JN, Chu Y (2011) Human performance on the traveling salesman and related problems: a review. J Prob Solving 3(2):2Google Scholar
  25. March JG (1988) Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–57Google Scholar
  26. Marewski JN, Mehlhorn K (2011) Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making. Judgm Decis Mak 6(6):439–519Google Scholar
  27. Marewski JN, Schooler LJ (2011) Cognitive niches: an ecological model of strategy selection. Psychol Rev 118(3):393–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newell A (1982) The knowledge level. Artif Intell 18:81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newell A, Simon H (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Rach T, Kirsch A (2016) Modelling human problem solving with data from an online game. Cognit Process 17(4):415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rieskamp J, Hoffrage U (1999) When do people use simple heuristics and how can we tell? In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, The ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Rieskamp J, Otto PE (2006) SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. J Exp Psychol: Gen 135(2):207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russell S, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence—a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  34. Russo JE, Dosher BA (1983) Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cognit 9(4):676–696Google Scholar
  35. Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM (2008) Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychol Bull 134(2):207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Svenson O (1979) Process descriptions of decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform 23:86–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tak S, Plaisier M, van Rooij I (2008) Some tours are more equal than others: the convex-hull model revisited with lessons for testing models of the traveling salesperson problem. J Prob Solv 2(1):2Google Scholar
  40. Tenbrink T, Wiener J (2009) The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognit Process 10:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolter D, Kirsch A (2015) Leveraging qualitative reasoning to learning manipulation tasks. Robotics 4(3):253–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood W, Neal D (2007) A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychol Rev 114(4):843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zwicker WS (2016) Introduction to the theory of voting, chapter 2. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations