IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.29840.html

On the Complexity of Bayesian Signal Processing

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Liu

Abstract

We develop a computational framework for Bayesian decision-making. We show that as long as no action is optimal in every state, Bayes-optimal choice is intractable. This hardness need not arise from large action, state, or signal spaces, nor from a complicated represented utility function: extracting enough information from a hard-to-interpret signal to act optimally can itself be computationally hard. We also characterize tractability across approximation notions and identify their sources of difficulty. Under the probably approximately correct criterion, sample-based Bayesian learning is tractable if and only if the signal support is bounded. Our results provide justifications for bounded rationality, costly Bayesian inference, and sample-based Bayesian learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Liu, 2026. "On the Complexity of Bayesian Signal Processing," Papers 2608.29840, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.29840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.29840
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Halpern, Joseph Y. & Pass, Rafael, 2015. "Algorithmic rationality: Game theory with costly computation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 246-268.
    3. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Reasoning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(4), pages 881-925.
    4. Jan Hązła & Ali Jadbabaie & Elchanan Mossel & M. Amin Rahimian, 2021. "Bayesian Decision Making in Groups is Hard," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 632-654, March.
    5. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    6. Xavier Gabaix, 2014. "A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1661-1710.
    7. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    8. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
    9. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    10. Andrea Wilson, 2014. "Bounded Memory and Biases in Information Processing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2257-2294, November.
    11. Matthew Sainsbury-Dale & Andrew Zammit-Mangion & Raphaël Huser, 2024. "Likelihood-Free Parameter Estimation with Neural Bayes Estimators," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(1), pages 1-14, January.
    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. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R2, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 28 Feb 2018.
    3. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R3, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 26 Sep 2018.
    4. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when options have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 04 Oct 2016.
    5. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    7. Roc Armenter & Michèle Müller-Itten & Zachary Stangebye, 2020. "Rational Inattention via Ignorance Equivalence," Working Papers 20-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    8. Cristina Gualdani & Shruti Sinha, 2019. "Identification in discrete choice models with imperfect information," Papers 1911.04529, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    9. cook, kim, 2026. "A Micro-Equation for Economic Action: Action Generation under Path-Absence," MPRA Paper 129054, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Frank Huettner & Tamer Boyacı & Yalçın Akçay, 2019. "Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 671-699, May.
    11. Jehiel, Philippe & Steiner, Jakub, 2017. "On Second Thoughts, Selective Memory, and Resulting Behavioral Biases," CEPR Discussion Papers 12546, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    12. Alejandro Hirmas & Jan B. Engelmann & Joël van der Weele, 2024. "Individual and contextual effects of attention in risky choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(5), pages 1211-1238, November.
    13. Mackowiak, Bartosz & Matejka, Filip & Wiederholt, Mirko, 2018. "Survey: Rational Inattention, a Disciplined Behavioral Model," CEPR Discussion Papers 13243, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    14. Jan Engelmann & Alejandro Hirmas & Joël van der Weele, 2021. "Top Down or Bottom Up? Disentangling the Channels of Attention in Risky Choice," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-031/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Andrew Caplin & David J. Deming & Søren Leth-Petersen & Ben Weidmann, 2023. "Economic Decision-Making Skill Predicts Income in Two Countries," NBER Working Papers 31674, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2022. "Rationally Inattentive Behavior: Characterizing and Generalizing Shannon Entropy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(6), pages 1676-1715.
    17. Philippe Jehiel & Jakub Steiner, 2020. "Selective Sampling with Information-Storage Constraints [On interim rationality, belief formation and learning in decision problems with bounded memory]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1753-1781.
    18. Avi Goldfarb & Mo Xiao, 2024. "Transitory shocks, limited attention, and a firm’s decision to exit," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 223-255, September.
    19. George Loewenstein & Zachary Wojtowicz, 2023. "The Economics of Attention," CESifo Working Paper Series 10712, CESifo.
    20. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "Foundations for optimal inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 56-94.

    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:2608.29840. 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: https://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.