Suboptimal human inference can invert the bias-variance trade-off for decisions with asymmetric evidence

Solutions to challenging inference problems are often subject to a fundamental trade-off between: 1) bias (being systematically wrong) that is minimized with complex inference strategies, and 2) variance (being oversensitive to uncertain observations) that is minimized with simple inference strategies. However, this trade-off is based on the assumption that the strategies being considered are optimal for their given complexity and thus has unclear relevance to forms of inference based on suboptimal strategies. We examined inference problems applied to rare, asymmetrically available evidence, which a large population of human subjects solved using a diverse set of strategies that varied in form and complexity. In general, subjects using more complex strategies tended to have lower bias and variance, but with a dependence on the form of strategy that reflected an inversion of the classic bias-variance trade-off: subjects who used more complex, but imperfect, Bayesian-like strategies tended to have lower variance but higher bias because of incorrect tuning to latent task features, whereas subjects who used simpler heuristic strategies tended to have higher variance because they operated more directly on the observed samples but lower, near-normative bias. Our results help define new principles that govern individual differences in behavior that depends on rare-event inference and, more generally, about the information-processing trade-offs that can be sensitive to not just the complexity, but also the optimality, of the inference process.Author summary: People use diverse strategies to make inferences about the world around them, often based on limited evidence. Such inference strategies may be simple but prone to systematic errors or more complex and accurate, but such trends need not always be the rule. We modeled and measured how human participants made rare-event decisions in a preregistered, online study. The participants tended to use suboptimal decision strategies that reflected an inversion of the classic bias-variance trade-off: some used complex, nearly normative strategies with mistuned evidence weights that corresponded to relatively high choice biases but lower choice variance, whereas others used simpler heuristic strategies that corresponded to lower biases but higher variance. These relationships illustrate structure in suboptimality that can be used to identify systematic sources of human errors.