Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research,University College London,London WC1B 5EH,United
Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology,University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf,20246 Hamburg,
Behav Brain Sci. 2018 Jan;41:e237. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X18001449.
We show that the benchmark Bayesian framework that Rahnev & Denison (R&D) used to assess optimality is actually suboptimal under realistic assumptions about how noise corrupts decision making in biological brains. This model is therefore invalid qua normative standard. We advise against generally forsaking optimality and argue that a biologically constrained definition of optimality could serve as an important driver for scientific progress.
我们表明，Rahnev 和 Denison（R&D）用于评估最优性的基准贝叶斯框架在关于噪声如何在生物大脑中干扰决策的现实假设下实际上是次优的。因此，该模型作为规范标准是无效的。我们不建议普遍放弃最优性，并认为受生物学约束的最优性定义可以成为推动科学进步的重要动力。
