Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40316521›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Behavior engineering using quantitative reinforcement learning models.

Ohad Dan, Ori Plonsky, Yonatan Loewenstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ohad DanDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. ohad.dan@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7707-1665
Ori PlonskyFaculty of Data and Decision Sciences, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1619-4482
Yonatan LoewensteinThe Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. yonatan.loewenstein@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2577-2317

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effectively shaping human and animal behavior is of great practical and theoretical importance. Here we ask whether quantitative models of choice can be used to achieve this goal more effectively than qualitative psychological principles. We term this approach, which is motivated by the effectiveness of engineering in the natural sciences, 'choice engineering'. To address this question, we launched an academic competition, in which teams of academic competitors used either quantitative models or qualitative principles to design reward schedules that would maximally bias the choices of experimental participants in a repeated, two-alternative task. We found that a choice engineering approach is the most successful method for shaping behavior in our task. This is a proof of concept that quantitative models are ripe to be used in order to engineer behavior. Finally, we show that choice engineering can be effectively used to compare models in the cognitive sciences, thus providing an alternative to the standard statistical methods of model comparison that are based on likelihood or explained variance.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorLearningModels, PsychologicalReinforcement, PsychologyHumansReward

Identifiers

PMID40316521
PMCPMC12048583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.