Abbott, J. T., & Griffiths, T. L. (2011). Exploring the influence of particle filter parameters on order effects in causal learning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33, 2950–2955.Google Scholar

Arulampalam, M. S., Maskell, S., Gordon, N., & Clapp, T. (2002). A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(2), 174–188.Google Scholar

Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), 18327–18332.Google Scholar

Blurton, S. P., Kyllingsbæk, S., Nielsen, C. S., & Bundesen, C. (2020). A Poisson random walk model of response times. Psychological Review, 127(3), 362.Google Scholar

Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: sampling in cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(10), 497–500.Google Scholar

Bowles, S., Kirman, A., & Sethi, R. (2017). Retrospectives: Friedrich Hayek and the market algorithm. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(3), 215–30.Google Scholar

Bramley, N. R., Dayan, P., Griffiths, T. L., & Lagnado, D. A. (2017). Formalizing Neurath’s ship: Approximate algorithms for online causal learning. Psychological Review, 124(3), 301.Google Scholar

Brown, G. D., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114(3), 539–576.Google Scholar

Brown, S. D., & Steyvers, M. (2009). Detecting and predicting changes. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 49–67.Google Scholar

Chater, N., & Manning, C. D. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Where do hypotheses come from? Cognitive Psychology, 96, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Daw, N., & Courville, A. (2008). The pigeon as particle filter. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 369–376.Google Scholar

Dellaportas, P., & Roberts, G. O. (2003). An introduction to MCMC. In Spatial statistics and computational methods (pp. 1–41). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Doucet, A., De Freitas, N., & Gordon, N. (2001). An introduction to sequential Monte Carlo methods. In Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice (pp. 3-14). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Earl, D. J., & Deem, M. W. (2005). Parallel tempering: Theory, applications, and new perspectives. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 7(23), 3910–3916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1998). A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44, 879–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (6), 721–741.Google Scholar

Gershman, S. J. (2019). Uncertainty and exploration. Decision, 6(3), 277.Google Scholar

Gershman, S. J., Blei, D. M., & Niv, Y. (2010). Context, learning, and extinction. Psychological Review, 117(1), 197.Google Scholar

Gershman, S. J., Vul, E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2012). Multistability and perceptual inference. Neural Computation, 24(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Geweke, J. (1989). Bayesian inference in econometric models using Monte Carlo integration. Econometrica, 57(6), 1317–1339.Google Scholar

Geyer, C. J. (1991). Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. In Keramidas, (Ed.), Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface. Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station, pp. 156–163.Google Scholar

Gilden, D. L. (2001). Cognitive emissions of 1/f noise. Psychological Review, 108(1), 33.Google Scholar

Gilden, D. L., Thornton, T., & Mallon, M. W. (1995). 1/f noise in human cognition. Science, 267(5205), 1837–1839.Google Scholar

Gittins, J., & Jones, D. (1979). A dynamic allocation index for the discounted multiarmed bandit problem. Biometrika. 66(3), 561–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17(9), 767–773.Google Scholar

Griffiths, T. L., Vul, E., & Sanborn, A. N. (2012). Bridging levels of analysis for probabilistic models of cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.Google Scholar

Koller, D., & Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. Cambridge; MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Krafft, P. M., Shmueli, E., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2021). Bayesian collective learning emerges from heuristic social learning. Cognition, 212, 104469.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levy, R. P., Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. In Koller, D., Schuurmans, D., Bengio, Y., & Bottou, L. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 21 (pp. 937–944).Google Scholar

Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., & Hsu, M. (2018). Overrepresentation of extreme events in decision making reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychological Review, 125(1), 1.Google Scholar

Lloyd, K., Sanborn, A., Leslie, D., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Why higher working memory capacity may help you learn: Sampling, search, and degrees of approximation. Cognitive Science, 43(12), e12805.Google Scholar

Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953). Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 21(6), 1087–1092.Google Scholar

Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, K. P. (2012). Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Nobandegani, A. S., Castanheira, K. D. S., Otto, A. R., & Shultz, T. R. (2018). Over-representation of extreme events in decision-making: A rational metacognitive account. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09848.Google Scholar

Osofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(1), 104–114.Google Scholar

Nosofsky, R. M. (2011). The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. In Pothos, E. M. & Wills, A. J. (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 18–39). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

O’Hagan, A., & Forster, J. J. (2004). Kendall’s advanced theory of statistics: Bayesian inference (Vol. 2B). London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: a theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review, 117(3), 864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Prat-Carrabin, A., Wilson, R. C., Cohen, J. D., & Azeredo da Silveira, R. (2021). Human inference in changing environments with temporal structure. Psychological Review, 128(5), 879–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88(2), 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9(5), 347–356.Google Scholar

Rhodes, T., & Turvey, M. T. (2007). Human memory retrieval as Lévy foraging. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 385(1), 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roth, D. (1996). On the hardness of approximate reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 82(1–2), 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russo, D. J., Van Roy, B., Kazerouni, A., Osband, I., & Wen, Z. (2018). A tutorial on Thompson sampling. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 11(1), 1–96.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J. (2010). Rational approximations to rational models: alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sanborn, A. N., Mansinghka, V. K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. Psychological Review, 120(2), 411.Google Scholar

Shadlen, M. N., & Shohamy, D. (2016). Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron, 90(5), 927–939.Google Scholar

Shi, L., Griffiths, T. L., Feldman, N. H., & Sanborn, A. N. (2010). Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 443–464.Google Scholar

Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Y., Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, C., & Fox, C. R. (2004). Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 573–582.Google Scholar

Speekenbrink, M. (2016). A tutorial on particle filters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 73, 140–152.Google Scholar

Speekenbrink, M., & Konstantinidis, E. (2015). Uncertainty and exploration in a restless bandit problem. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 351–367.Google Scholar

Spicer, J., Mullett, T. L., & Sanborn, A. N. (2022, December 2). Repeated Risky Choices Become More Consistent with Themselves but not Expected Value, with No Effect of Trial Order. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jgefrCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stigler, S. M. (1986). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. R. (1933). On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika, 25(3–4), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tierney, L. (1994). Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions. Annals of Statistics, 1701–1728.Google Scholar

Todd, P. M., & Hills, T. T. (2020). Foraging in mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 309–315.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108(3), 550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984.Google Scholar

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior (commemorative edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Vul, E., Goodman, N., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Science, 38(4), 599–637.Google Scholar

Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science, 19(7), 645–647.Google Scholar

Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist’s perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 101–118.Google Scholar

Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. Psychological Bulletin, 77(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolpert, D. M. (2007). Probabilistic models in human sensorimotor control. Human Movement Science, 26(4), 511–524.Google Scholar

Yi, M. S., Steyvers, M., & Lee, M. (2009). Modeling human performance in restless bandits with particle filters. Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), 5.Google Scholar

Zhu, J.-Q., Sanborn, A., & Chater, N. (2018). Mental sampling in multimodal representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 5748–5759.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98(3), 409.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 51(4), 819–852.Google Scholar

Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), 18327–18332.Google Scholar

Beaumont, M. A. (2019). Approximate Bayesian computation. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 6, 379–403.Google Scholar

Bousfield, W. A., & Sedgewick, C. H. W. (1944). An analysis of sequences of restricted associative responses. Journal of General Psychology, 30(2), 149–165.Google Scholar

Buesing, L., Bill, J., Nessler, B., & Maass, W. (2011). Neural dynamics as sampling: A model for stochastic computation in recurrent networks of spiking neurons. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(11), e1002211.Google Scholar

Castillo, L., León-Villagrá, P., Chater, N., & Sanborn, A. (2021). Local sampling with momentum accounts for human random sequence generation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3gz154kgGoogle Scholar

Zhu, J.-Q., Spicer, J., Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (Preprint). Cognitive variability matches speculative price dynamics. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/gfjvsGoogle Scholar

Cont, R. (2001). Empirical properties of asset returns: Stylized facts and statistical issues. Quantitative Finance, 1(2), 223–236Google Scholar

Correll, J. (2008). 1/f noise and effort on implicit measures of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2014). Surprisingly rational: Probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment. Psychological Review, 121(3), 463.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Where do hypotheses come from? Cognitive Psychology, 96, 1–25.Google Scholar

Edwards, W. (1968). Conservatism in human information processing: Formal representation of human judgment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over-and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101(3), 519.Google Scholar

Fiser, J., Berkes, P., Orbán, G., & Lengyel, M. (2010). Statistically optimal perception and learning: From behavior to neural representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gardner, M. (1978). White and brown music, fractal curves and one-over-f fluctuations. Scientific American, 238(4), 16–27.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Gilden, D. L. (1997). Fluctuations in the time required for elementary decisions. Psychological Science, 8(4), 296–301.Google Scholar

Gilden, D. L., Thornton, T., & Mallon, M. W. (1995). 1/f noise in human cognition. Science, 267(5205), 1837–1839.Google Scholar

Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114(3), 704.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. K., Banner, S., Forrester, S., & Navarro, D. J. (2019). Selective sampling and inductive inference: Drawing inferences based on observed and missing evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 113, 101221.Google Scholar

Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211.Google Scholar

Hills, T. T., Jones, M. N., & Todd, P. M. (2012). Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 119(2), 431.Google Scholar

Howe, R., & Costello, F. (2020). Random variation and systematic biases in probability estimation. Cognitive Psychology, 123, 101306.Google Scholar

Hoyer, P. O., & Hyvärinen, A. (2003). Interpreting neural response variability as Monte Carlo sampling of the posterior. In Becker, S., Thrun, S. & Obermayer, K. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 293–300). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2007). The naïve intuitive statistician: A naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychological Review, 114(3), 678–703.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.Google Scholar

Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271–304.Google Scholar

Koehler, D. J., & James, G. (2009). Probability matching in choice under uncertainty: Intuition versus deliberation. Cognition, 113(1), 123–127.Google Scholar

Konovalova, E., & Le Mens, G. (2020). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review, 127(1), 47.Google Scholar

Lake, B. M., Salakhutdinov, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350(6266), 1332–1338.Google Scholar

Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379.Google Scholar

Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43.Google Scholar

Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., Huys, Q. J., & Goodman, N. D. (2018). The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 322–349.Google Scholar

Lloyd, K., Sanborn, A., Leslie, D., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Why higher working memory capacity may help you learn: Sampling, search, and degrees of approximation. Cognitive Science, 43(12), e12805.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Moreno-Bote, R., Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2011). Bayesian sampling in visual perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(30), 12491–12496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101(4), 608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2020). New paradigms in the psychology of reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 305–330.Google Scholar

Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68(1), 29.Google Scholar

Redelmeier, D. A., Koehler, D. J., Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1995). Probability judgment in medicine: Discounting unspecified possibilities. Medical Decision Making, 15(3), 227–230.Google Scholar

Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(3), 179.Google Scholar

Rhodes, T., & Turvey, M. T. (2007). Human memory retrieval as Lévy foraging. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 385(1), 255–260.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J. (2010). Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1144.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., Mansinghka, V. K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. Psychological Review, 120(2), 411.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., Zhu, J.-Q., Spicer, J., et al. (2021). Sampling as the human approximation to probabilistic inference. In Muggleton, S. & Chater, N. (Eds). Human-like machine intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shi, L., Griffiths, T. L., Feldman, N. H., & Sanborn, A. N. (2010). Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 443–464.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Y., Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, C., & Fox, C. R. (2004). Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 573.Google Scholar

Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Sundh, J., Zhu, J. Q., Chater, N., & Sanborn, A. (2021, July 30). The mean-variance signature of Bayesian probability judgment. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yuhazGoogle Scholar

Tentori, K., Crupi, V., & Russo, S. (2013). On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: Probability versus inductive confirmation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 235.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293.Google Scholar

Van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984.Google Scholar

Van Rooij, I., & Wareham, T. (2012). Intractability and approximation of optimization theories of cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(4), 232–247.Google Scholar

Viswanathan, G. M., Buldyrev, S. V., Havlin, S., et al. (1999). Optimizing the success of random searches. Nature, 401(6756), 911–914.Google Scholar

Vul, E., Goodman, N., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Science, 38(4), 599–637.Google Scholar

Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. Psychological Bulletin, 77(1), 65.Google Scholar

Zhu, J.-Q., Leon-Villagra, P., Chater, N., & Sanborn, A. N. (2022). Understanding the structure of cognitive noise. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010312Google Scholar

Zhu, J. Q., Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2018). Mental sampling in multimodal representations. In Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H. et al. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 31. Montreal: Curran Associates.Google Scholar

Zhu, J. Q., Sanborn, A., & Chater, N. (2019). Why decisions bias perception: An amortised sequential sampling account. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 41, 3220–3226.Google Scholar

Zhu, J. Q., Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2020). The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments. Psychological Review, 127(5), 719–748.Google Scholar

Zhu, J.-Q., Spicer, J., Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (Preprint). Cognitive variability matches speculative price dynamics. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/gfjvsGoogle Scholar

Zhu, J., Sundh, J., Spicer, J., Chater, N., & Sanborn, A. N. (2021, February 4). The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3qxf7Google Scholar

Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H., & Klotz, L. E. (2021). People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature, 592(7853), 258–261.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113(3), 329–349.Google Scholar

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), 18327–18332.Google Scholar

Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological review, 113(4), 700.Google Scholar

Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Win-stay, lose-sample: A simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference. Cognitive psychology, 74, 35–65.Google Scholar

Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: Sampling in cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(10), 497–500.Google Scholar

Bonawitz, E. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Deconfounding hypothesis generation and evaluation in Bayesian models. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32).Google Scholar

Bourgin, D., Abbott, J., Griffiths, T., Smith, K., & Vul, E. (2014). Empirical evidence for Markov chain Monte Carlo in memory search. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36(36).Google Scholar

Braddick, O. (1974). A short-range process in apparent motion. Vision Research, 14(7), 519–527.Google Scholar

Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Yuille, A. (2006). Probabilistic models of cognition: Where next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 292–293.Google Scholar

Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358.Google Scholar

Coenen, A., & Gureckis, T. (2021). The distorting effects of deciding to stop sampling information. PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/osf.io/tbreaGoogle Scholar

Dasgupta, I., & Gershman, S. J. (2021). Memory as a computational resource. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 240–251.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Where do hypotheses come from? Cognitive Psychology, 96, 1–25.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., Goodman, N. D., & Gershman, S. J. (2018). Remembrance of inferences past: Amortization in human hypothesis generation. Cognition, 178, 67–81.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2020). A theory of learning to infer. Psychological Review, 127(3), 412.Google Scholar

Daw, N., & Courville, A. (2008). The pigeon as particle filter. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 369–376.Google Scholar

Daw, N. D., O’Doherty, J. P., Dayan, P., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature, 441(7095), 876–879.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M. (1993). Prediction of the future versus an understanding of the past: A basic asymmetry. American Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126(2), 285–300.Google Scholar

Doucet, A., de Freitas, N., & Gordon, N. (Eds.) (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der psychophysik (Vol. 2). Wiesbaden: Breitkopf u. Härtel.Google Scholar

Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659.Google Scholar

Fiedler, K. (2008). The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 186.Google Scholar

Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (2006). Taking the interface between mind and environment seriously. In Fiedler, K. & Juslin, P. (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523.Google Scholar

Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363.Google Scholar

Gershman, S., & Goodman, N. (2014). Amortized inference in probabilistic reasoning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36(36).Google Scholar

Gershman, S., Horvitz, E. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science, 349(6245), 273–278.Google Scholar

Gershman, S. J., Vul, E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2012). Multistability and perceptual inference. Neural Computation, 24(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684.Google Scholar

Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D. (1995). Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gittins, J. C. (1979). Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 41(2), 148–164.Google Scholar

Gläscher, J., Daw, N., Dayan, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2010). States versus rewards: Dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron, 66(4), 585–595.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108–154.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Lucas, C. G. (2015). When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 87–92.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A., O’Grady, S., & Lucas, C. G., et al. (2017). Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7892–7899.Google Scholar

Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17(9), 767–773.Google Scholar

Griffiths, T. L., Vul, E., & Sanborn, A. N. (2012). Bridging levels of analysis for probabilistic models of cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 263–268.Google Scholar

Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Decisions from experience and statistical probabilities: Why they trigger different choices than a priori probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 48–68.Google Scholar

Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 393–408.Google Scholar

Hayden, B., & Niv, Y. (2020). The case against economic values in the brain. Behavioral Neuroscience, 135(2), 192–201.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description–experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 517–523.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R., & Pleskac, T. J. (2010). Decisions from experience: Why small samples? Cognition, 115, 225–237.Google Scholar

Hills, T. T., Jones, M. N., & Todd, P. M. (2012). Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 119(2), 431.Google Scholar

Hogarth, R. M., Lejarraga, T., & Soyer, E. (2015). The two settings of kind and wicked learning environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 379–385.Google Scholar

Hourihan, K. L., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Smaller is better (when sampling from the crowd within): Low memory-span individuals benefit more from multiple opportunities for estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1068.Google Scholar

Jazayeri, M., & Movshon, J. A. (2007). A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding. Nature, 446(7138), 912–915.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. G., & Raab, M. (2003). Take the first: Option-generation and resulting choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 215–229.Google Scholar

Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 169.Google Scholar

Juni, M. Z., Gureckis, T. M., & Maloney, L. T. (2016). Information sampling behavior with explicit sampling costs. Decision, 3, 147.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.Google Scholar

Kaiser, S., Simon, J. J., & Kalis, A., et al. (2013). The cognitive and neural basis of option generation and subsequent choice. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(4), 814–829.Google Scholar

Kalis, A., Kaiser, S., & Mojzisch, A. (2013). Why we should talk about option generation in decision-making research. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 555.Google Scholar

Karnopp, D. C. (1963). Random search techniques for optimization problems. Automatica, 1(2–3), 111–121.Google Scholar

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211.Google Scholar

Knill, D. C., & Richards, W. (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Konovalova, E., & Le Mens, G. (2020). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review, 127(1), 47.Google Scholar

Kwisthout, J., Wareham, T., & van Rooij, I. (2011). Bayesian intractability is not an ailment that approximation can cure. Cognitive Science, 35(5), 779–784.Google Scholar

Levy, R. P., Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 21, 937–944.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Kalish, M. L. (2009). The wisdom of individuals: Exploring people’s knowledge about everyday events using iterated learning. Cognitive Science, 33(6), 969–998.Google Scholar

Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., & Hsu, M. (2018). Overrepresentation of extreme events in decision making reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychological Review, 125, 1.Google Scholar

Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., Huys, Q. J., & Goodman, N. D. (2018). The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 322–349.Google Scholar

Logan, G. D. (1988a). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492.Google Scholar

Logan, G. D. (1988b). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492.Google Scholar

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805–824.Google Scholar

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53(2), 271–282.Google Scholar

Lucas, C. G., Bridgers, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. Cognition, 131(2), 284–299.Google Scholar

Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423–429.Google Scholar

Morris, A., Phillips, J., Huang, K., & Cushman, F. (2021). Generating options and choosing between them depend on distinct forms of value representation. Psychological Science, 32(11), 1731–1746.Google Scholar

Mozer, M. C., Pashler, H., & Homaei, H. (2008). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition: The wisdom of individuals or crowds? Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1133–1147.Google Scholar

Navarro, D. J., & Perfors, A. F. (2011). Hypothesis generation, sparse categories, and the positive test strategy. Psychological Review, 118(1), 120.Google Scholar

Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. (2006). Numerical optimization. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104(2), 266.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101(4), 608.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pezzulo, G., Rigoli, F., & Chersi, F. (2013). The mixed instrumental controller: Using value of information to combine habitual choice and mental simulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 92.Google Scholar

Phillips, J., Morris, A., & Cushman, F. (2019). How we know what not to think. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 1026–1040.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333.Google Scholar

Robert, C. P., & Casella, G. (1999). Monte Carlo statistical methods (Vol. 2). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Rothe, A., Lake, B. M., & Gureckis, T. M. (2018). Do people ask good questions? Computational Brain & Behavior, 1, 69–89.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N. (2017). Types of approximation for probabilistic cognition: Sampling and variational. Brain and Cognition, 112, 98–101.Google Scholar

Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J. (2010). Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1144.Google Scholar

Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Schulz, E., Wu, C. M., Ruggeri, A., & Meder, B. (2019). Searching for rewards like a child means less generalization and more directed exploration. Psychological Science, 30(11), 1561–1572.Google Scholar

Shi, L., Griffiths, T. L., Feldman, N. H., & Sanborn, A. N. (2010). Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 443–464.Google Scholar

Smaldino, P. E., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The origins of options. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 50.Google Scholar

Smith, K., Huber, D. E., & Vul, E. (2013). Multiply-constrained semantic search in the remote associates test. Cognition, 128(1), 64–75.Google Scholar

Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1–26.Google Scholar

Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. R. (1933). On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika, 25(3/4), 285–294.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar

Ullman, T. D., Spelke, E., Battaglia, P., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Mind games: Game engines as an architecture for intuitive physics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 649–665.Google Scholar

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385.Google Scholar

Vul, E., Frank, M. C., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Explaining human multiple object tracking as resource-constrained approximate inference in a dynamic probabilistic model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 22, 1955–1963.Google Scholar

Vul, E., Goodman, N., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Science, 38, 599–637.Google Scholar

Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science, 19, 645–647.Google Scholar

Wald, A., & Wolfowitz, J. (1948). Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 326–339.Google Scholar

Watkins, C. J., & Dayan, P. (1992). Q-learning: Machine learning, 8(3–4), 279–292.Google Scholar

Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2013). Explanation and prior knowledge interact to guide learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 55–84.Google Scholar