基于参数空间划分的爱荷华赌博任务强化学习模型比较

H. Steingroever, Ruud Wetzels, E. Wagenmakers
{"title":"基于参数空间划分的爱荷华赌博任务强化学习模型比较","authors":"H. Steingroever, Ruud Wetzels, E. Wagenmakers","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is one of the most popular tasks used to study decisionmaking deficits in clinical populations. In order to decompose performance on the IGT in its constituent psychological processes, several cognitive models have been proposed (e.g., the Expectancy Valence (EV) and Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) models). Here we present a comparison of three models—the EV and PVL models, and a combination of these models (EV-PU)—based on the method of parameter space partitioning. This method allows us to assess the choice patterns predicted by the models across their entire parameter space. Our results show that the EV model is unable to account for a frequency-of-losses effect, whereas the PVL and EV-PU models are unable to account for a pronounced preference for the bad decks with many switches. All three models underrepresent pronounced choice patterns that are frequently seen in experiments. Overall, our results suggest that the search of an appropriate IGT model has not yet come to an end.","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Reinforcement Learning Models for the Iowa Gambling Task Using Parameter Space Partitioning\",\"authors\":\"H. Steingroever, Ruud Wetzels, E. Wagenmakers\",\"doi\":\"10.7771/1932-6246.1150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is one of the most popular tasks used to study decisionmaking deficits in clinical populations. In order to decompose performance on the IGT in its constituent psychological processes, several cognitive models have been proposed (e.g., the Expectancy Valence (EV) and Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) models). Here we present a comparison of three models—the EV and PVL models, and a combination of these models (EV-PU)—based on the method of parameter space partitioning. This method allows us to assess the choice patterns predicted by the models across their entire parameter space. Our results show that the EV model is unable to account for a frequency-of-losses effect, whereas the PVL and EV-PU models are unable to account for a pronounced preference for the bad decks with many switches. All three models underrepresent pronounced choice patterns that are frequently seen in experiments. Overall, our results suggest that the search of an appropriate IGT model has not yet come to an end.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

摘要

爱荷华赌博任务(IGT)是用于研究临床人群决策缺陷的最受欢迎的任务之一。为了将IGT上的表现分解为其组成的心理过程,人们提出了几个认知模型,如期望效价(EV)和期望效价学习(PVL)模型。本文提出了EV和PVL三种模型的比较,以及基于参数空间划分方法的EV- pu模型组合。这种方法使我们能够评估模型在整个参数空间中预测的选择模式。我们的结果表明,EV模型无法解释频率损耗效应,而PVL和EV- pu模型无法解释对具有许多开关的坏套牌的明显偏好。所有这三个模型都没有充分代表在实验中经常看到的明显的选择模式。总的来说,我们的结果表明,寻找合适的IGT模型还没有结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Reinforcement Learning Models for the Iowa Gambling Task Using Parameter Space Partitioning
The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is one of the most popular tasks used to study decisionmaking deficits in clinical populations. In order to decompose performance on the IGT in its constituent psychological processes, several cognitive models have been proposed (e.g., the Expectancy Valence (EV) and Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) models). Here we present a comparison of three models—the EV and PVL models, and a combination of these models (EV-PU)—based on the method of parameter space partitioning. This method allows us to assess the choice patterns predicted by the models across their entire parameter space. Our results show that the EV model is unable to account for a frequency-of-losses effect, whereas the PVL and EV-PU models are unable to account for a pronounced preference for the bad decks with many switches. All three models underrepresent pronounced choice patterns that are frequently seen in experiments. Overall, our results suggest that the search of an appropriate IGT model has not yet come to an end.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信