ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024
A Workflow for Building Computationally Rational Models of Human Behavior.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational rationality explains human behavior as arising due to the maximization of expected utility under the constraints imposed by the environment and limited cognitive resources. This simple assumption, when instantiated via partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs), gives rise to a powerful approach for modeling human adaptive behavior, within which a variety of internal models of cognition can be embedded. In particular, such an instantiation enables the use of methods from reinforcement learning (RL) to approximate the optimal policy solution to the sequential decision-making problems posed to the cognitive system in any given setting; this stands in contrast to requiring ad hoc hand-crafted rules for capturing adaptive behavior in more traditional cognitive architectures. However, despite their successes and promise for modeling human adaptive behavior across everyday tasks, computationally rational models that use RL are not easy to build. Being a hybrid of theoretical cognitive models and machine learning (ML) necessitates that model building take into account appropriate practices from both cognitive science and ML. The design of psychological assumptions and machine learning decisions concerning reward specification, policy optimization, parameter inference, and model selection are all tangled processes rife with pitfalls that can hinder the development of valid and effective models. Drawing from a decade of work on this approach, a workflow is outlined for tackling this challenge and is accompanied by a detailed discussion of the pros and cons at key decision points.
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.