Cited by 8Advanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchOptimal Experimental Design MethodsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Designing optimal behavioral experiments using machine learning

Open access
Valentin, Simon, Kleinegesse, Steven, Bramley, Neil R, Seriès, Peggy, Gutmann, Michael U, Lucas, Christopher G·2024·eLife

Published version of a preprint

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.86224

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 91 · Cited by 8

Authors
Valentin, S., Kleinegesse, S., Bramley, N. R., Seriès, P., Gutmann, M. U., & Lucas, C. G.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Valentin, Simon
Venue
eLife
Published
2024-01-23
Volume
13
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391145013
Cited by
8
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Edinburgh (Principal's Career Development Scholarship)
  • EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Data Science (EP/L016427/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
Bayesian experimental design, optimal experimental design, cognitive modeling, model comparison, exploration-exploitation balance, multi-armed bandits, human decision-making, model evaluation, parameter estimation, behavioral experiments
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Awareness, Bayes Theorem, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review