Abstract:Numerous studies have found that the Bayesian framework, which formulates the optimal integration of the knowledge of the world (i.e. prior) and current sensory evidence (i.e. likelihood), captures human behaviours sufficiently well. However, there are debates regarding whether humans use precise but cognitively demanding Bayesian computations for behaviours. Across two studies, we trained participants to estimate hidden locations of a target drawn from priors with different levels of uncertainty. In each trial, scattered dots provided noisy likelihood information about the target location. Participants showed that they learned the priors and combined prior and likelihood information to infer target locations in a Bayes fashion. We then introduced a transfer condition presenting a trained prior and a likelihood that has never been put together during training. How well participants integrate this novel likelihood with their learned prior is an indicator of whether participants perform Bayesian computations. In one study, participants experienced the newly introduced likelihood, which was paired with a different prior, during training. Participants changed likelihood weighting following expected directions although the degrees of change were significantly lower than Bayes-optimal predictions. In another group, the novel likelihoods were never used during training. We found people integrated a new likelihood within (interpolation) better than the one outside (extrapolation) the range of their previous learning experience and they were quantitatively Bayes-suboptimal in both. We replicated the findings of both studies in a validation dataset. Our results showed that Bayesian behaviours may not always be achieved by a full Bayesian computation. Future studies can apply our approach to different tasks to enhance the understanding of decision-making mechanisms. Bayesian decision theory has emerged as a unified approach for capturing a wide range of behaviours under uncertainty. However, behavioural evidence supporting that humans use explicit Bayesian computation is scarce. While it has been argued that knowledge generalization should be treated as hard evidence of the use of Bayesian strategies, results from previous work were inconclusive. Here, we develop a marker that effectively quantifies how well humans transfer learned priors to a new scenario. Our marker can be applied to various tasks and thus can provide a path forwarding the understanding of psychological and biological underpinnings of inferential behaviours.

Bayesian reasoning and the prior in court: not legally normative but unavoidable

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.

Bayesian Reasoning and Evidence Communication

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

A Bayesian Model of the Litigation Game

Bayesian persuasion in lawyer-client communication

The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence

The prior can generally only be understood in the context of the likelihood

Are we really Bayesian? Probabilistic inference shows sub-optimal knowledge transfer

A Bayesian Approach to Forward and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Reconciling Bayesian Epistemology and Narration-based Approaches to Judiciary Fact-finding

Bayesian Models and Methods in Public Policy and Government Settings

Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data

Learning from conditional probabilities

New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

Bayesian inference: More than Bayes's theorem

Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.