Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261382›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Designing optimal behavioral experiments using machine learning.

Simon Valentin, Steven Kleinegesse, Neil R Bramley, Peggy Seriès, Michael U Gutmann, Christopher G Lucas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Automating the practice of science: Opportunities, challenges, and implications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Actively Learning to Learn Causal Relationships.Computational brain & behavior · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon Valentin *School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2039-8928
Steven Kleinegesse *School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Neil R BramleyDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Peggy SerièsSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Michael U GutmannSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Christopher G LucasSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Data Science EP/L016427/1University of Edinburgh Principal's Career Development Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational models are powerful tools for understanding human cognition and behavior. They let us express our theories clearly and precisely and offer predictions that can be subtle and often counter-intuitive. However, this same richness and ability to surprise means our scientific intuitions and traditional tools are ill-suited to designing experiments to test and compare these models. To avoid these pitfalls and realize the full potential of computational modeling, we require tools to design experiments that provide clear answers about what models explain human behavior and the auxiliary assumptions those models must make. Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) formalizes the search for optimal experimental designs by identifying experiments that are expected to yield informative data. In this work, we provide a tutorial on leveraging recent advances in BOED and machine learning to find optimal experiments for any kind of model that we can simulate data from, and show how by-products of this procedure allow for quick and straightforward evaluation of models and their parameters against real experimental data. As a case study, we consider theories of how people balance exploration and exploitation in multi-armed bandit decision-making tasks. We validate the presented approach using simulations and a real-world experiment. As compared to experimental designs commonly used in the literature, we show that our optimal designs more efficiently determine which of a set of models best account for individual human behavior, and more efficiently characterize behavior given a preferred model. At the same time, formalizing a scientific question such that it can be adequately addressed with BOED can be challenging and we discuss several potential caveats and pitfalls that practitioners should be aware of. We provide code to replicate all analyses as well as tutorial notebooks and pointers to adapt the methodology to different experimental settings.

Indexed as

CognitionMachine LearningAwarenessBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumanscomputational modelingexperimental designmachine learningneuroscience

Identifiers

PMID38261382
PMCPMC10805374
OpenAlexW4391145013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.