IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.00195.html

Testing Capacity-Constrained Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Caplin
  • Daniel Martin
  • Philip Marx
  • Anastasiia Morozova
  • Leshan Xu

Abstract

We introduce the first general test of capacity-constrained learning models. Cognitive economic models of this type share the common feature that constraints on perception are exogenously fixed, as in the widely used fixed-capacity versions of rational inattention (Sims 2003) and efficient coding (Woodford 2012). We show that choice data are consistent with capacity-constrained learning if and only if they satisfy a No Improving (Action or Attention) Switches (NIS) condition. Based on existing experiments in which the incentives for being correct are varied, we find strong evidence that participants fail NIS for a wide range of standard perceptual tasks: identifying the proportion of ball colors, recognizing shapes, and counting the number of balls. However, we find that this is not true for all existing perceptual tasks in the literature, which offers insights into settings where we do or do not expect incentives to impact the extent of attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin & Philip Marx & Anastasiia Morozova & Leshan Xu, 2025. "Testing Capacity-Constrained Learning," Papers 2502.00195, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.00195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.00195
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2015. "A Testable Theory of Imperfect Perception," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 184-202, February.
    2. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    3. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    4. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    5. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01155313 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. David Almog & Daniel Martin, 2024. "Rational inattention in games: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(4), pages 715-742, September.
    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. Mingshi Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Shu Wang & Songfa Zhong & Yanju Zhou, 2025. "How General Are Measures of Choice Consistency? Evidence from Experimental and Scanner Data," Papers 2505.05275, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    2. Demuynck, Thomas & Salman, Umutcan, 2022. "On the revealed preference analysis of stable aggregate matchings," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(4), November.
    3. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    4. Yujian Chen & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    5. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    6. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2023. "Approximate Expected Utility Rationalization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 1821-1864.
    7. Javier A. Birchenall, 2024. "Random choice and market demand," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 165-198, February.
    8. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    9. Mia Lu & Nick Netzer, 2022. "The swaps index for consumer choice," ECON - Working Papers 418, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2023.
    10. Efe A. Ok & Gerelt Tserenjigmid, 2023. "Measuring Stochastic Rationality," Papers 2303.08202, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    11. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    12. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Relaxed Optimization: e-Rationalizability and the FOC-Departure Index in Consumer Theory," Working Papers 2020-07, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    13. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Adams-Prassl, Abigail, 2019. "Mutually Consistent Revealed Preference Demand Predictions," CEPR Discussion Papers 13580, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "Measuring rationality: percentages vs expenditures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 265-277, September.
    16. Youngjae Jeong, 2025. "An Empirical Framework for Discrete Games with Costly Information Acquisition," Papers 2510.19140, arXiv.org.
    17. Lasse Mononen, 2023. "Computing and comparing measures of rationality," ECON - Working Papers 437, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    19. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin & Philip Marx, 2025. "Rationalizable learning," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 80(1), pages 171-202, August.
    20. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2502.00195. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.