Using recurrent neural network to estimate irreducible stochasticity in human choice behavior

IF 6.4 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Yoav Ger, Moni Shahar, Nitzan Shahar
{"title":"Using recurrent neural network to estimate irreducible stochasticity in human choice behavior","authors":"Yoav Ger, Moni Shahar, Nitzan Shahar","doi":"https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.90082.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theoretical computational models are widely used to describe latent cognitive processes. However, these models do not equally explain data across participants, with some individuals showing a bigger predictive gap than others. In the current study, we examined the use of theory-independent models, specifically recurrent neural networks (RNNs), to classify the source of a predictive gap in the observed data of a single individual. This approach aims to identify whether the low predictability of behavioral data is mainly due to noisy decision-making or misspecification of the theoretical model. First, we used computer simulation in the context of reinforcement learning to demonstrate that RNNs can be used to identify model misspecification in simulated agents with varying degrees of behavioral noise. Specifically, both prediction performance and the number of RNN training epochs (i.e., the point of early stopping) can be used to estimate the amount of stochasticity in the data. Second, we applied our approach to an empirical dataset where the actions of low IQ participants, compared with high IQ participants, showed lower predictability by a well-known theoretical model (i.e., Daw’s hybrid model for the two-step task). Both the predictive gap and the point of early stopping of the RNN suggested that model misspecification is similar across individuals. This led us to a provisional conclusion that low IQ subjects are mostly noisier compared to their high IQ peers, rather than being more misspecified by the theoretical model. We discuss the implications and limitations of this approach, considering the growing literature in both theoretical and data-driven computational modeling in decision-making science.","PeriodicalId":11640,"journal":{"name":"eLife","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eLife","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.90082.3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theoretical computational models are widely used to describe latent cognitive processes. However, these models do not equally explain data across participants, with some individuals showing a bigger predictive gap than others. In the current study, we examined the use of theory-independent models, specifically recurrent neural networks (RNNs), to classify the source of a predictive gap in the observed data of a single individual. This approach aims to identify whether the low predictability of behavioral data is mainly due to noisy decision-making or misspecification of the theoretical model. First, we used computer simulation in the context of reinforcement learning to demonstrate that RNNs can be used to identify model misspecification in simulated agents with varying degrees of behavioral noise. Specifically, both prediction performance and the number of RNN training epochs (i.e., the point of early stopping) can be used to estimate the amount of stochasticity in the data. Second, we applied our approach to an empirical dataset where the actions of low IQ participants, compared with high IQ participants, showed lower predictability by a well-known theoretical model (i.e., Daw’s hybrid model for the two-step task). Both the predictive gap and the point of early stopping of the RNN suggested that model misspecification is similar across individuals. This led us to a provisional conclusion that low IQ subjects are mostly noisier compared to their high IQ peers, rather than being more misspecified by the theoretical model. We discuss the implications and limitations of this approach, considering the growing literature in both theoretical and data-driven computational modeling in decision-making science.
利用递归神经网络估算人类选择行为中的不可还原随机性
理论计算模型被广泛用于描述潜在的认知过程。然而,这些模型并不能平等地解释不同参与者的数据,有些人比其他人显示出更大的预测差距。在本研究中,我们考察了与理论无关的模型,特别是递归神经网络(RNN)的使用情况,以对单个个体观测数据中预测差距的来源进行分类。这种方法旨在确定行为数据可预测性低的主要原因是决策噪声还是理论模型的错误规范。首先,我们在强化学习的背景下使用计算机模拟来证明,RNN 可用于识别具有不同程度行为噪声的模拟代理中的模型错误规范。具体来说,预测性能和 RNN 训练历元数(即早期停止点)都可以用来估计数据的随机性。其次,我们将我们的方法应用于一个经验数据集,与高智商参与者相比,低智商参与者的行动在一个著名的理论模型(即道的两步任务混合模型)中显示出较低的可预测性。RNN 的预测差距和早期停止点都表明,不同个体对模型的错误定义是相似的。这使我们得出一个临时结论,即与高智商的同龄人相比,低智商的受试者大多更嘈杂,而不是更容易被理论模型错误地指定。考虑到决策科学中理论建模和数据驱动计算建模的文献日益增多,我们讨论了这种方法的意义和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
eLife
eLife BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
12.90
自引率
3.90%
发文量
3122
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: eLife is a distinguished, not-for-profit, peer-reviewed open access scientific journal that specializes in the fields of biomedical and life sciences. eLife is known for its selective publication process, which includes a variety of article types such as: Research Articles: Detailed reports of original research findings. Short Reports: Concise presentations of significant findings that do not warrant a full-length research article. Tools and Resources: Descriptions of new tools, technologies, or resources that facilitate scientific research. Research Advances: Brief reports on significant scientific advancements that have immediate implications for the field. Scientific Correspondence: Short communications that comment on or provide additional information related to published articles. Review Articles: Comprehensive overviews of a specific topic or field within the life sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信