Imagine you're at a buffet with twenty dishes, but you can only try five before the line closes. You taste one — it's fine, not great. You taste another — worse. Now here's the twist: you don't just compare the dishes to each other. You compare them all to a mental image of what dinner should taste like — a target you haven't hit yet. The dishes you skipped? Your brain doesn't freeze their ratings at 'unknown.' Instead, it slowly drifts their estimated value toward that imagined ideal. You're not forgetting — you're letting your goal rewrite what you expect from things you haven't tried recently. That's the core mechanism of this paper. Shinriki, Kono, and Takahashi take Risk-sensitive Satisficing (RS) — a known bandit learning rule where each arm is valued by how often it's been picked times its surplus or shortfall against an aspiration level — and prove it can be exactly rewritten as Attention Competitive Bayes (ACB). In ACB, the aspiration level is the prior mean for every arm, and the finite trial budget acts as a precision constraint on how much evidence can override that prior. The rewrite is exact, not approximate: RS is ACB under relabeling. The first consequence is what the authors call 'pseudo-forgetting.' When an arm stops being sampled, its estimate doesn't stay frozen at the last observed value (as in standard Bayesian updating). Instead, the aspiration-as-prior gradually overrides old data — the estimate drifts back toward the goal. No data is discarded; the prior just reasserts itself in the absence of fresh evidence. This is structurally different from models with an explicit forgetting or decay rate, because the drift target is the goal itself, not zero or some neutral baseline. The second consequence is perpetual exploration under unattainable aspirations. In Bernoulli bandit simulations, when the aspiration level exceeds what any arm can deliver, the agent never fully commits to one arm. It keeps searching. The authors show this isn't pathological — adjusting the aspiration based on evidence actually reduced cumulative regret compared to fixed aspirations. The goal doesn't need to be achievable to be useful; it needs to be constraining. The philosophical framing draws on Deacon's (2012) concept of 'ententional' organization — systems organized by what is absent rather than what is present — and García-Valdecasas and Deacon's (2024) argument that ends are constraints, not target states. ACB gives this idea a concrete, minimal mathematical embodiment. The aspiration level is not a reward signal in the RL sense; it's a structural constraint that shapes the geometry of the estimation problem. The formal setting is deliberately minimal: multi-armed bandits with Bernoulli rewards, a single scalar aspiration level, finite trial budgets. The paper does not claim to model full cognitive or biological decision-making. What it does is establish an exact equivalence (RS = ACB), derive two qualitative phenomena (pseudo-forgetting and perpetual exploration), and verify them in simulation. The regret comparisons use adaptive aspiration levels against fixed ones across 10,000-trial runs. The real value here is conceptual: a proof that satisficing — choosing relative to a goal rather than maximizing expected value — can be understood as a form of Bayesian inference where the goal sets the prior. This bridges two traditions (behavioral satisficing and Bayesian decision theory) that usually talk past each other. The testable predictions — about how organisms revalue abandoned options and about exploration under unattainable goals — are concrete enough to be falsifiable in behavioral experiments.
