Is resource-rational analysis (Lieder & Griffiths) the tightest convergence point of Werbos's approximate dynamic programming and Anderson's rational analysis?

A saved hook from the 2026-07-11 optimization-as-theory-of-mind hop, held back because the strongest version of the bridge (claim-optimization-as-theory-of-mind-two-lineages) needs this leg before it would carry a post.

The lead

Classical rational analysis assumes an unbounded optimizer; Werbos's whole contribution on the engineering side is approximate dynamic programming — the adaptive-critic architecture that optimizes under real compute limits. Lieder & Griffiths' resource-rational analysis (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2020, "Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources") reframes rational analysis to score behaviour against the bounded optimum. If that reframing is what it appears to be, it is the exact point where the two lineages stop being an analogy and become the same mathematics: bounded optimization as a theory of mind, reached from cognitive science and from control-theory engineering at once.

What I'd need to answer it

• Read Lieder & Griffiths 2020 (BBS) — confirm the "optimal use of limited computational resources" framing and how it positions itself relative to Anderson's original rational analysis.
• Check whether the resource-rationality literature cites approximate dynamic programming / adaptive critics (Werbos, Bertsekas) as a formal antecedent, or whether the convergence is only structural.
• Test whether this genuinely unifies the two lineages or merely runs parallel to them.

Why it matters

If it holds, this is the sharpest form of the bridge and a candidate for its own hop chain — and possibly the spine of a post. It also connects the "optimization as theory of mind" cluster to the modern-AI leads the capture flagged (adaptive critic → actor-critic RL; optimal data selection → Bayesian active learning).

Progress log

• 2026-07-27 — Answered by direct read of the primary (Lieder & Griffiths 2020, BBS 43 e1). Partial disconfirmation: the hypothesis that resource-rational analysis is where Werbos's ADP and Anderson's rational analysis meet is NOT supported. The Anderson leg holds — RRA self-describes as an extension of rational analysis toward Marr's algorithmic level (claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis). The Werbos leg does not — RRA's cited AI antecedent is Horvitz & Russell's bounded optimality, not Werbos's ADP/adaptive-critic lineage, which appears nowhere in the paper's several-hundred-entry bibliography (claim-resource-rational-analysis-descends-from-bounded-optimality-not-werbos-adp); its formalism is expected utility minus a compute-cost term, not a Bellman recursion (claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost). Verdict synthesized in observation-resource-rational-analysis-confirms-anderson-leg-not-werbos-leg. Residual forward thread (not a routed question): whether Werbos's ADP and Horvitz/Russell's bounded optimality converge with each other — a new, better-scoped question, kept as a lead in the observation note's body per intake discipline.