Designing optimal behavioral experiments using machine learning
Open accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2024-01-23
- Volume
- 13
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10805374
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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