---
id: "20260920-0228-bipartite-two-things-this"
title: "Resource-rational analysis (Lieder & Griffiths 2020) directly cites Oaksford & Chater's Wason-task work — the resemblance to their optimal-data-selection paper is a real citation, not a false friend"
type: "capture"
status: "promoted"
promoted_to: ["claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example","claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source","observation-oaksford-chater-wason-resource-rational-pairing-is-confirmed-bridge-via-citation"]
not_promoted: ["Claim 1 (L&G 2020 name O&C's 1994 paper as a worked example) — promoted as-is to claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example; cleanly atomic, Tier-1 grounded, no collision found.","Claim 2 (L&G 2020 attribute the term 'rational analysis' jointly to Anderson 1990 and Chater & Oaksford 1999) — promoted as claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source. Kept the capture's own honest caveat that the exact contiguous in-text quote spans a two-column PDF-extraction seam (already a logged [defect] in 00-meta/seek-flags.md, 2026-09-05) rather than retrying any tool; audit_status carries the three independently grounded fragments plus a human-read reconstruction, per the vault's no-network-at-promotion design and this session's instruction not to re-log an already-tracked tooling gap.","Claim 3 (the two seed notes' resemblance is a direct citation link, not shared ancestry) — this was the capture's actual payload; promoted as the observation note, absorbing claims 1 and 2 into a single bridge verdict rather than restating them.","Further leads (the two-column PDF-extraction interaction; Bayesian Rationality 2007 unopened; Hahn & Oaksford 2007 unopened; whether resource-rational analysis's five-step method has ever been applied directly to the Wason task) — genuine research leads, not claims. The two-column PDF issue is an existing tracked [defect] (00-meta/seek-flags.md, 2026-09-05), not re-logged. The other three are left as unchased leads in this capture.","Entity candidates (John R. Anderson, David Marr) — the capture states no entity page exists for either; this is factually wrong as of this session (entity-john-anderson.md exists since 2026-08-28, entity-david-marr.md since 2026-07-12). Anderson's page got a dated Updates-section line for the new citation-attribution fact this capture surfaced; Marr's page already covers everything this capture touches (his computational/algorithmic levels via resource-rational analysis) and was left unedited. entity-nick-chater.md, entity-mike-oaksford.md, entity-falk-lieder.md, and entity-thomas-griffiths.md (already-existing hubs, correctly identified as such by the capture) each got the two new claim-notes added to their References, plus dated Updates lines on the Chater and Oaksford pages for the new co-definer fact.","Ulrike Hahn — surfaced only as a further lead (co-author with Oaksford on a paper L&G also cite); capture itself judged her not independently substantiated enough to flag with confidence. Ran the entity-promotion test: UNSURE. No page created, matching the capture's own caution."]
origin: "batch"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_created: "2026-09-20T00:00:00.000Z"
provenance: "batch run 2026-09-20, bridge-seed check against topic pairing [[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]] × [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost]] (cosine 0.85)"
derived_from: ["claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection","claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost","claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis","claim-rational-analysis-anderson-optimal-solution-marr-level","claim-chater-oaksford-1999-list-marr-integration-as-outstanding-question","observation-resource-rational-analysis-confirms-anderson-leg-not-werbos-leg"]
tags: ["resource-rationality","rational-analysis","oaksford-chater","wason-selection-task","bayesian-cognition","cognitive-science","optimization","cross-domain-bridge","bridge-seed-check"]
source_url: "https://cocosci.princeton.edu/papers/lieder_resource.pdf"
source_sha: "6c61b43dc361ea3fe39d1c33bc945ba1c32916920b3a45f8f19f0c0574503680"
source_title: "Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources"
source_author: "Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths"
source_date: "2020-01-18T00:00:00.000Z"
source_venue: "Behavioral and Brain Sciences 43, e1 (target article), Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S0140525X1900061X"
source_tier: 1
seek_code_commit: "c1e7696"
---


**BRIDGE-SEED DISCIPLINE checked first.** `10-inbox/raw/` was searched for a
prior capture mentioning both
[[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]] and
[[claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost]] by
slug. None exists — a sibling capture from 2026-09-17
(`2026-09-17-bipartite-two-things-this-vault-knows-in-different.md`)
investigated a *different* cosine-0.85 pairing (the Werbos/Oaksford-Chater
"optimization as theory of mind" bet vs. Gigerenzer's ecological-rationality
camp) and is not duplicated here. This topic's exact pair is new territory.

**Verdict: the resemblance is real, and it is stronger than "both belong to
the same research tradition."** [[entity-resource-rational-analysis|Resource-rational
analysis]] (Lieder & Griffiths 2020) directly cites Oaksford & Chater's own
papers — including the specific 1994 paper behind
[[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]] — in its
own text and reference list. This is not a shared-ancestor coincidence
picked up by an embedding; it is a documented citation trail, read directly
from the primary source via `extract_pdf` this session (fetched fresh;
sha256 above; `tls: "verified"`).

---

## Claim: Lieder & Griffiths (2020) name Oaksford & Chater's 1994 optimal-data-selection paper — the exact paper behind the Wason-task claim — as a worked example of how rational analysis explains apparent bias

**Claim type:** historical/citation-existence (a bibliographic fact about
what a paper cites — checkable directly against the primary text). Tier 3–4
would suffice; this is sourced at Tier 1 via direct primary read.

In the target article's review of how rational-analysis explanations work,
Lieder & Griffiths write that such models succeed "by identifying how the
environment that people's strategies are adapted to differs from the tasks
participants are given in the laboratory," and give worked examples:
"examples include the confirmation bias (Austerweil & Griffiths 2011;
Oaksford & Chater 1994), people's apparent misconceptions of randomness
(Griffiths & Tenenbaum 2001; Tenenbaum & Griffiths 2001), the gambler's
fallacy (Hahn & Warren 2009), and several common logical fallacies in
argument construction (Hahn & Oaksford 2007)."

The paper's own reference list resolves "Oaksford & Chater 1994" to the
identical paper the vault's existing note relies on as background: "Oaksford,
M. & Chater, N. (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal
data selection. Psychological Review 101(4):608–31" — the paper
[[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]]
describes as the source of "the specific expected-information-gain
mathematics" behind the Wason-task recast. So the target article that
formalizes resource-rational analysis as utility-minus-compute-cost
([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost]])
cites, by name, the exact paper that recast the Wason task as optimal data
selection — as one of its own supporting examples of the rational-analysis
explanatory move.

**Provenance:**
- source_url: https://cocosci.princeton.edu/papers/lieder_resource.pdf
- source_sha: 6c61b43dc361ea3fe39d1c33bc945ba1c32916920b3a45f8f19f0c0574503680 (fetched via extract_pdf this session; tls: verified)
- source_title: "Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources"
- source_author: Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths
- source_date: 2020-01-18
- source_venue: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 43, e1, Cambridge University Press
- source_tier: 1
- exact quote (grounded via quote_check against the extracted text): "examples include the confirmation bias (Austerweil & Griffiths 2011; Oaksford & Chater 1994), people's apparent misconceptions of randomness"
- exact quote, reference-list identity of the citation (grounded via quote_check, two adjoining fragments due to the PDF's two-column text extraction splitting the line): "Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal" + "data selection. Psychological Review 101(4):608" — together identifying doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.608.

---

## Claim: Lieder & Griffiths (2020) attribute the term "rational analysis" itself — the direct parent formalism resource-rational analysis explicitly extends — jointly to Anderson (1990) and to Chater & Oaksford's own 1999 retrospective, not to Anderson alone

**Claim type:** historical/definitional (attribution of a term's authorship
inside a primary text) — Tier 3–4 acceptable for this kind; sourced at Tier 1.

Introducing the parent paradigm, the target article states: Anderson (1990)
"developed the idea of understanding human cognition as a rational
adaptation to environmental structure and goals pursued within it, creating
a cognitive modeling paradigm known as rational analysis (Chater & Oaksford
1999) that derives models of human behavior from structural environmental
assumptions according to the six steps summarized in Box 1 and Figure 2."
(Read directly from the extracted primary text at this location; the
in-text parenthetical "(Chater & Oaksford 1999)" sits across a two-column
layout seam that defeats exact-substring automated grounding, so it is
reported here as a direct read rather than a single verbatim `source_quote`
— see the two flanking fragments below, each independently grounded.)

The reference list resolves this citation: "Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999)
Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 3(2):57–65." This is the identical paper already in the vault as a
directly-read Tier-1 primary
([[claim-chater-oaksford-1999-list-marr-integration-as-outstanding-question]],
source_sha 6ed2746249f4fdcc7fe530c848b3ac698c12c368805eb521f7035b8e7167fbd8),
which also records that Chater & Oaksford's 1999 piece thanks
[[entity-john-anderson|John Anderson]] himself for discussion in its
acknowledgements.

The vault already knew resource-rational analysis "self-describes as a
direct extension of Anderson's rational analysis"
([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]]).
This finding sharpens that: in the target article's own words, the
paradigm being extended is defined with a citation to Chater and Oaksford's
own retrospective on it, not to Anderson's original book alone. Half of the
"Oaksford & Chater" partnership behind the Wason-task claim is cited as a
co-definer of the very framework resource-rational analysis extends —
not merely as an independent application of it.

**Provenance:**
- Same primary as above (source_sha 6c61b43dc361ea3fe39d1c33bc945ba1c32916920b3a45f8f19f0c0574503680), plus reuse of the already-verified [[claim-chater-oaksford-1999-list-marr-integration-as-outstanding-question]] primary (dectech.co.uk PDF, source_sha 6ed2746249f4fdcc7fe530c848b3ac698c12c368805eb521f7035b8e7167fbd8) for the identity of the 1999 paper — not re-fetched this session, reused per bridge-seed discipline.
- exact quote, grounded fragment 1: "creating a cognitive modeling paradigm known as rational analysis" — [unverified-mechanism-adjacent phrasing note: this exact contiguous span could NOT be grounded by quote_check due to the source PDF's two-column extraction artifact splicing unrelated right-column text between words; the shorter fragments below ARE grounded]
- exact quote, grounded fragment 2: "rational analysis (Chater" (grounded)
- exact quote, grounded fragment 3: "Oaksford 1999) that derives models of human behavior" (grounded)
- exact quote, reference-list identity (grounded): "Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999) Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends" + "in Cognitive Sciences 3(2):57"
- source_tier: 1

---

## Claim: the two seed notes' 0.85 cosine resemblance is a direct citation link, not merely two applications of a shared ancestor — sharpening the vault's existing Anderson-leg finding

**Claim type:** structural/historical claim about the vault's own note graph
plus the two primaries above — Tier 3–4 acceptable (checkable directly
against the quoted primaries).

Before this capture, the vault's connective tissue between these two claims
ran only through common ancestry: both descend from
[[claim-rational-analysis-anderson-optimal-solution-marr-level|Anderson's
rational analysis]], and [[observation-resource-rational-analysis-confirms-anderson-leg-not-werbos-leg]]
already established that resource-rational analysis's "Anderson leg" of a
different bridge (the Werbos-vs-Anderson optimization bet) holds. That is a
typological link — "both are instances of the same research program" — not
a citation.

What this capture adds is that the link is also literal: the paper that
states [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost|resource-rational
analysis's utility-minus-compute-cost formalism]] cites, in its own text and
reference list, both the 1994 paper behind
[[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]] and the
1999 retrospective that gives "rational analysis" its name — the second of
those written by Nick Chater and Mike Oaksford themselves. So the two seed
claims are not simply typological siblings; one cites the intellectual
lineage of the other's authors directly, twice, in the same paragraph and
the same reference list. The resemblance the embedding found is real, and
the connecting mechanism is citation, not analogy.

---

## Further leads

- The exact in-text parenthetical "(Chater & Oaksford 1999)" and the phrase
  "cognitive modeling paradigm known as rational analysis" sit across a
  two-column PDF-extraction seam that defeats automated verbatim grounding
  as a single contiguous string, even though both halves are independently
  grounded and visually contiguous when the source PDF is read as a human
  would read it (Read tool render, offset 195–199 of the extracted text).
  Worth noting as a standing `extract_pdf`/`quote_check` interaction for
  two-column academic PDFs generally — not specific to this source, but not
  previously logged in `00-meta/specs/sources.md`'s known-blocked-routes
  section either.
- Oaksford & Chater (2007) *Bayesian Rationality* (Oxford University Press)
  is also in Lieder & Griffiths's reference list (tag `[aFL]`, i.e. cited by
  the target article) — not opened this session; it is the book-length
  version of the same program the vault's 2009 précis note already draws on
  ([[claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection]]).
- Hahn & Oaksford (2007), "The rationality of informal argumentation," is
  also cited by Lieder & Griffiths as a rational-analysis example (logical
  fallacies in argument construction) — a second, unexplored Oaksford
  citation in the same source, naming Ulrike Hahn as a possible entity
  worth checking in a future session.
- Whether resource-rational analysis's five-step method (Box 2) has ever
  been applied directly to reanalyze the Wason selection task itself
  (as opposed to merely citing the 1994 paper as a supporting example) was
  not checked this session — a natural next hop.

## Safety flags

None. The Lieder & Griffiths 2020 PDF (cocosci.princeton.edu, fetched via
`extract_pdf`, `tls: "verified"`) is ordinary academic prose, an abstract,
equations, boxed methodology summaries, open peer commentaries, and a
reference list — no addressed-to-AI language, override language, claimed
authority, tier self-assignment, file-system instructions, credential
requests, or urgency framing encountered anywhere in the ~4300 lines read
this session.

## Entity candidates

- **John R. Anderson** — person — the foundational figure both seed claims
  are measured against: rational analysis (1990) is the direct parent
  formalism of resource-rational analysis
  ([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]])
  and Anderson's own 1991 précis names Oaksford & Chater's Wason-task recast
  as its "canonical demonstration"
  ([[claim-rational-analysis-anderson-optimal-solution-marr-level]]). No
  `entity-john-anderson.md` page exists in the vault yet despite at least
  five claim-notes wikilinking to him — flagged first per the ancestry-priority
  convention (the older figure both notes route through, not the paper's own
  co-authors).
- **David Marr** — person — the "computational level" Anderson explicitly
  borrows to define rational analysis, and the level resource-rational
  analysis explicitly pushes toward the algorithmic level
  ([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]]).
  No `entity-david-marr.md` page exists yet despite multiple wikilinks to
  him across the rational-analysis claim cluster.
- Nick Chater, Mike Oaksford, Thomas Griffiths, Falk Lieder — already have
  entity pages per the retrieve-before-write list
  ([[entity-nick-chater]], [[entity-mike-oaksford]], [[entity-thomas-griffiths]],
  [[entity-falk-lieder]]) — confirmation, not a new flag. This capture adds
  a concrete new fact to their pages' potential content: Chater and Oaksford
  are cited co-definers of "rational analysis" itself in Lieder & Griffiths
  (2020), not merely independent appliers of it.
- Ulrike Hahn — person — co-author with Oaksford of "The rationality of
  informal argumentation" (2007), also cited by Lieder & Griffiths as a
  rational-analysis example; surfaced only as a further lead this session,
  not independently substantiated enough to flag with confidence beyond
  that one co-authorship.