ArticleBasic and clinical neuroscience2025
Better Than Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Model-based and Model-free Learning Styles.
Article in Basic and clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Various decision-making systems collaborate to shape human behavior. Goal-directed and habitual systems are the two primary systems studied by reinforcement learning (RL), with model-based (MB) and model-free (MF) learning styles, respectively. Human behavior can be viewed as a combination of these two decision-making paradigms, achieved by the weighted sum of the action values of these two styles within an RL framework. The weighting parameter is often assessed using the maximum likelihood (ML) or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation method. Methods: In this study, we employ RL agents that use a combination of MB and MF decision-making to perform the well-known Daw two-stage task. ML and MAP methods yield less reliable estimates of the weighting parameter, often exhibiting a large bias toward extreme values. We propose the knearest neighbor as an alternative nonparametric estimate to improve the estimation error, where we devise a set of 20 features extracted from the behavior of the RL agent. Simulated experiments examine the proposed method. Results: Our method reduces the bias and variance of the estimation error, as demonstrated by the obtained results. Human behavior data from previous studies are also investigated. The proposed method enables the prediction of indices such as age, gender, IQ, dwell time of gaze, and psychiatric disorder indices, which are not captured by the traditional method. Conclusion: In brief, the proposed method increases the reliability of the estimated parameters and enhances the applicability of RL paradigms in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.