IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/122383.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dynamic noise estimation: a generalized method for modeling noise fluctuations in decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Jing Jing
  • Shi, Chengchun
  • Li, Lexin
  • Collins, Anne G.E.

Abstract

Computational cognitive modeling is an important tool for understanding the processes supporting human and animal decision-making. Choice data in decision-making tasks are inherently noisy, and separating noise from signal can improve the quality of computational modeling. Common approaches to model decision noise often assume constant levels of noise or exploration throughout learning (e.g., the ϵ-softmax policy). However, this assumption is not guaranteed to hold – for example, a subject might disengage and lapse into an inattentive phase for a series of trials in the middle of otherwise low-noise performance. Here, we introduce a new, computationally inexpensive method to dynamically estimate the levels of noise fluctuations in choice behavior, under a model assumption that the agent can transition between two discrete latent states (e.g., fully engaged and random). Using simulations, we show that modeling noise levels dynamically instead of statically can substantially improve model fit and parameter estimation, especially in the presence of long periods of noisy behavior, such as prolonged lapses of attention. We further demonstrate the empirical benefits of dynamic noise estimation at the individual and group levels by validating it on four published datasets featuring diverse populations, tasks, and models. Based on the theoretical and empirical evaluation of the method reported in the current work, we expect that dynamic noise estimation will improve modeling in many decision-making paradigms over the static noise estimation method currently used in the modeling literature, while keeping additional model complexity and assumptions minimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Jing Jing & Shi, Chengchun & Li, Lexin & Collins, Anne G.E., 2024. "Dynamic noise estimation: a generalized method for modeling noise fluctuations in decision-making," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122383, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:122383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/122383/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    3. Payam Piray & Amir Dezfouli & Tom Heskes & Michael J Frank & Nathaniel D Daw, 2019. "Hierarchical Bayesian inference for concurrent model fitting and comparison for group studies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-34, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Bennett & Stefan Bode & Maja Brydevall & Hayley Warren & Carsten Murawski, 2016. "Intrinsic Valuation of Information in Decision Making under Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:104-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Farid Anvari & Stephan Billinger & Pantelis P. Analytis & Vithor Rosa Franco & Davide Marchiori, 2024. "Testing the convergent validity, domain generality, and temporal stability of selected measures of people’s tendency to explore," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Gloria W. Feng & Robb B. Rutledge, 2024. "Surprising sounds influence risky decision making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Paul M. Krueger & Robert C. Wilson & Jonathan D. Cohen, 2017. "Strategies for exploration in the domain of losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 104-117, March.
    6. Alina Ferecatu & Arnaud De Bruyn, 2022. "Understanding Managers’ Trade-Offs Between Exploration and Exploitation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 139-165, January.
    7. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    8. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    9. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    10. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    11. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    13. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    14. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    15. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    16. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    18. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    19. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    21. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    attention; cognitive modeling; decision noise; decision-making; hidden Markov model; lapses; reinforcement learning; task-engagement; 1R01MH119383;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:122383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.