IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1012582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approximate planning in spatial search

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Kryven
  • Suhyoun Yu
  • Max Kleiman-Weiner
  • Tomer Ullman
  • Joshua Tenenbaum

Abstract

How people plan is an active area of research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. However, tasks traditionally used to study planning in the laboratory tend to be constrained to artificial environments, such as Chess and bandit problems. To date there is still no agreed-on model of how people plan in realistic contexts, such as navigation and search, where values intuitively derive from interactions between perception and cognition. To address this gap and move towards a more naturalistic study of planning, we present a novel spatial Maze Search Task (MST) where the costs and rewards are physically situated as distances and locations. We used this task in two behavioral experiments to evaluate and contrast multiple distinct computational models of planning, including optimal expected utility planning, several one-step heuristics inspired by studies of information search, and a family of planners that deviate from optimal planning, in which action values are estimated by the interactions between perception and cognition. We found that people’s deviations from optimal expected utility are best explained by planners with a limited horizon, however our results do not exclude the possibility that in human planning action values may be also affected by cognitive mechanisms of numerosity and probability perception. This result makes a novel theoretical contribution in showing that limited planning horizon generalizes to spatial planning, and demonstrates the value of our multi-model approach for understanding cognition.Author summary: We present a computational study of spatial planning under uncertainty using a novel Maze Search Task (MST), in which people search mazes for probabilistically hidden rewards. The MST is designed to resemble real-life spatial planning, where costs and rewards are physically situated as distances and locations. We found that people’s spatial planning is best explained by planners with limited planning horizon, as opposed to both myopic heuristics or the optimal expected utility, showing that a limited planning horizon can generalize to spatial planning tasks. We also find that our results do not exclude the possibility that in human planning action values may be affected by cognitive mechanisms of numerosity and probability perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Kryven & Suhyoun Yu & Max Kleiman-Weiner & Tomer Ullman & Joshua Tenenbaum, 2024. "Approximate planning in spatial search," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-21, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1012582
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012582
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012582&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amir-Homayoun Javadi & Beatrix Emo & Lorelei R. Howard & Fiona E. Zisch & Yichao Yu & Rebecca Knight & Joao Pinelo Silva & Hugo J. Spiers, 2017. "Hippocampal and prefrontal processing of network topology to simulate the future," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Fox, Craig R & Rogers, Brett A & Tversky, Amos, 1996. "Options Traders Exhibit Subadditive Decision Weights," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 5-17, July.
    3. Bas Opheusden & Ionatan Kuperwajs & Gianni Galbiati & Zahy Bnaya & Yunqi Li & Wei Ji Ma, 2023. "Expertise increases planning depth in human gameplay," Nature, Nature, vol. 618(7967), pages 1000-1005, June.
    4. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-03168957 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Christian Bongiorno & Yulun Zhou & Marta Kryven & David Theurel & Alessandro Rizzo & Paolo Santi & Joshua Tenenbaum & Carlo Ratti, 2021. "Vector-based Pedestrian Navigation in Cities," Post-Print hal-03168957, HAL.
    6. Frederick Callaway & Bas Opheusden & Sayan Gul & Priyam Das & Paul M. Krueger & Thomas L. Griffiths & Falk Lieder, 2022. "Publisher Correction: Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 1027-1027, July.
    7. Frederick Callaway & Bas Opheusden & Sayan Gul & Priyam Das & Paul M. Krueger & Thomas L. Griffiths & Falk Lieder, 2022. "Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(8), pages 1112-1125, August.
    8. Roey Schurr & Daniel Reznik & Hanna Hillman & Rahul Bhui & Samuel J. Gershman, 2024. "Dynamic computational phenotyping of human cognition," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 917-931, May.
    9. Shanjiang Zhu & David Levinson, 2015. "Do People Use the Shortest Path? An Empirical Test of Wardrop’s First Principle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Samuel J. Cheyette & Steven T. Piantadosi, 2020. "A unified account of numerosity perception," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(12), pages 1265-1272, December.
    11. Jiri Najemnik & Wilson S. Geisler, 2005. "Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7031), pages 387-391, March.
    12. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabella Rischall & Laura Hunter & Greg Jensen & Jacqueline Gottlieb, 2023. "Inefficient prioritization of task-relevant attributes during instrumental information demand," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    3. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2006. "Survival risks, intertemporal consumption, and insurance: The case of distorted probabilities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 335-346, April.
    5. Hilmar Gudmundsson & David Vyncke, 2021. "A Generalized Weighted Monte Carlo Calibration Method for Derivative Pricing," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Eyal Baharad & Doron Kliger, 2013. "Market failure in light of non-expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 599-619, October.
    7. Carlos G Correa & Mark K Ho & Frederick Callaway & Nathaniel D Daw & Thomas L Griffiths, 2023. "Humans decompose tasks by trading off utility and computational cost," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Nicolas Roux, 2008. "The Attitude Toward Probabilities of Portfolio Managers : an Experimental Study," Post-Print halshs-00344785, HAL.
    9. Nils Grevenbrock & Max Groneck & Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2021. "Cognition, Optimism, And The Formation Of Age‐Dependent Survival Beliefs," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(2), pages 887-918, May.
    10. William Neilson, 2001. "Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5.
    11. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Market Instability, Investor Sentiment, And Probability Judgment Error in Index Option Prices," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 71, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    12. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    13. Godfrey Cadogan, 2014. "Chaos in a Large System of Decision‐Makers with Heterogeneous Beliefs with Application to Index Option Prices," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 487-501, July.
    14. Evan M. Russek & Rani Moran & Yunzhe Liu & Raymond J. Dolan & Quentin J. M. Huys, 2024. "Heuristics in risky decision-making relate to preferential representation of information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Frank Vossmann & Martin Weber, 2005. "Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1384-1399, September.
    16. Mattos, Fabio & Garcia, Philip & Pennings, Joost M.E., 2007. "Insights into Trader Behavior: Risk Aversion and Probability Weighting," 2007 Conference, April 16-17, 2007, Chicago, Illinois 37569, NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    17. Kim Kaivanto, 2014. "Visceral emotions, within-community communication, and (ill-judged) endorsement of financial propositions," Working Papers 69123498, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    18. Arjun Chatrath & Rohan A. Christie‐David & Hong Miao & Sanjay Ramchander, 2019. "Losers and prospectors in the short‐term options market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(6), pages 721-743, June.
    19. Jie Zhang & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Choices Between Gambles of Children and Adults in China," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1012582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.