ArticleScientific reports2022
Deep imagination is a close to optimal policy for planning in large decision trees under limited resources.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time Spent Thinking in Online Chess Reflects the Value of Computation.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- Coupling Taguchi experimental designs with deep adaptive learning enhanced AI process models for experimental cost savings in manufacturing process development.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Gaze-centered gating, reactivation, and reevaluation of economic value in orbitofrontal cortex.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Using machine learning-based binary classifiers for predicting organizational members' user satisfaction with collaboration software.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Article
- Decision prioritization and causal reasoning in decision hierarchies.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many decisions involve choosing an uncertain course of action in deep and wide decision trees, as when we plan to visit an exotic country for vacation. In these cases, exhaustive search for the best sequence of actions is not tractable due to the large number of possibilities and limited time or computational resources available to make the decision. Therefore, planning agents need to balance breadth-considering many actions in the first few tree levels-and depth-considering many levels but few actions in each of them-to allocate optimally their finite search capacity. We provide efficient analytical solutions and numerical analysis to the problem of allocating finite sampling capacity in one shot to infinitely large decision trees, both in the time discounted and undiscounted cases. We find that in general the optimal policy is to allocate few samples per level so that deep levels can be reached, thus favoring depth over breadth search. In contrast, in poor environments and at low capacity, it is best to broadly sample branches at the cost of not sampling deeply, although this policy is marginally better than deep allocations. Our results can provide a theoretical foundation for why human reasoning is pervaded by imagination-based processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.