Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42726657›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Identifiability of Bayesian models of perception.

Michael Hahn, Entang Wang, Xue-Xin Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael HahnDepartment of Language Science and Technology, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarland University, Saarbrücken 66123, Germany.
Entang WangDepartment of Language Science and Technology, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarland University, Saarbrücken 66123, Germany.
Xue-Xin WeiDepartment of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.ORCID 0000-0002-2761-477X

Funding

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (APSF) Sloan Research FellowshipUniversität des Saarlandes (Saarland University) startup funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inferring the underlying computational processes from behavioral measurements is a fundamental approach in cognitive science and neuroscience. Although Bayesian decision theory has become a major normative framework for modeling perception and cognition, it is unclear to what extent its modeling components (i.e., prior belief, likelihood function, and loss function) can be recovered from behavioral data. Here, we systematically investigated the problem of inferring such Bayesian models from behavioral tasks. We determined the situations under which some components of Bayesian models are systematically confounded, as well as the practical choices in experimental design that can resolve such ambiguity. Overall, our analytical results guarantee in-principle identifiability under broadly applicable conditions, without any a priori knowledge of prior or encoding. Simulations and applications on the basis of behavioral datasets validate that the predictions of this theory apply in realistic settings. Importantly, our results demonstrate that reliable recovery of the model often requires having data from multiple noise levels. This is a crucial insight that will guide future experimental design.

Indexed as

CognitionPerceptionAnimalsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansBayesian modelbehaviorcognitionexperimental designmodel identifiability

Identifiers

PMID42726657
PMCPMC13578815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.