Limits...
The role of inertia in modeling decisions from experience with instance-based learning.

Dutt V, Gonzalez C - Front Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: One form of inertia is the tendency to repeat the last decision irrespective of the obtained outcomes while making decisions from experience (DFE).This paper demonstrates the predictive benefits of incorporating one particular implementation of inertia in an existing IBL model.The generalization process demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of including inertia in an IBL model.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Computing and Electrical Engineering and School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, India.

ABSTRACT
One form of inertia is the tendency to repeat the last decision irrespective of the obtained outcomes while making decisions from experience (DFE). A number of computational models based upon the Instance-Based Learning Theory, a theory of DFE, have included different inertia implementations and have shown to simultaneously account for both risk-taking and alternations between alternatives. The role that inertia plays in these models, however, is unclear as the same model without inertia is also able to account for observed risk-taking quite well. This paper demonstrates the predictive benefits of incorporating one particular implementation of inertia in an existing IBL model. We use two large datasets, estimation and competition, from the Technion Prediction Tournament involving a repeated binary-choice task to show that incorporating an inertia mechanism in an IBL model enables it to account for the observed average risk-taking and alternations. Including inertia, however, does not help the model to account for the trends in risk-taking and alternations over trials compared to the IBL model without the inertia mechanism. We generalize the two IBL models, with and without inertia, to the competition set by using the parameters determined in the estimation set. The generalization process demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of including inertia in an IBL model.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3368322&req=5

Figure 2: The R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set.

Mentions: Figure 2 presents the R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the calibrated IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set. In general, these results reveal that both models generate good accounts for both observed risk-taking and alternation behaviors. The IBL model is able to capture the gradual decreasing trend in the A-rate as well as the slightly decreasing trend in risk-taking across trials. However, the model’s account for the R-rate exhibit as lightly greater decrease compared with that observed in human data across increasing number of trials. Also, the model’s account for the A-rate shows more alternations during about the first half of the trials than that observed in human data. This latter observation is likely due to the +30 pre-populated instances initially put in model’s memory, which make it explore both options for a longer time and causes a higher A-rate in the first few trials. However, with increasing trials, the activation of these pre-populated instances becomes weak (as these values are not observed in the problems) and their influence on the A-rate diminishes, causing the A-rate to decrease sharply and meet the human data.


The role of inertia in modeling decisions from experience with instance-based learning.

Dutt V, Gonzalez C - Front Psychol (2012)

The R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3368322&req=5

Figure 2: The R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set.
Mentions: Figure 2 presents the R-rate and A-rate across trials predicted by the calibrated IBL and IBL-Inertia models and that observed in human data in the TPT’s estimation set. In general, these results reveal that both models generate good accounts for both observed risk-taking and alternation behaviors. The IBL model is able to capture the gradual decreasing trend in the A-rate as well as the slightly decreasing trend in risk-taking across trials. However, the model’s account for the R-rate exhibit as lightly greater decrease compared with that observed in human data across increasing number of trials. Also, the model’s account for the A-rate shows more alternations during about the first half of the trials than that observed in human data. This latter observation is likely due to the +30 pre-populated instances initially put in model’s memory, which make it explore both options for a longer time and causes a higher A-rate in the first few trials. However, with increasing trials, the activation of these pre-populated instances becomes weak (as these values are not observed in the problems) and their influence on the A-rate diminishes, causing the A-rate to decrease sharply and meet the human data.

Bottom Line: One form of inertia is the tendency to repeat the last decision irrespective of the obtained outcomes while making decisions from experience (DFE).This paper demonstrates the predictive benefits of incorporating one particular implementation of inertia in an existing IBL model.The generalization process demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of including inertia in an IBL model.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Computing and Electrical Engineering and School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, India.

ABSTRACT
One form of inertia is the tendency to repeat the last decision irrespective of the obtained outcomes while making decisions from experience (DFE). A number of computational models based upon the Instance-Based Learning Theory, a theory of DFE, have included different inertia implementations and have shown to simultaneously account for both risk-taking and alternations between alternatives. The role that inertia plays in these models, however, is unclear as the same model without inertia is also able to account for observed risk-taking quite well. This paper demonstrates the predictive benefits of incorporating one particular implementation of inertia in an existing IBL model. We use two large datasets, estimation and competition, from the Technion Prediction Tournament involving a repeated binary-choice task to show that incorporating an inertia mechanism in an IBL model enables it to account for the observed average risk-taking and alternations. Including inertia, however, does not help the model to account for the trends in risk-taking and alternations over trials compared to the IBL model without the inertia mechanism. We generalize the two IBL models, with and without inertia, to the competition set by using the parameters determined in the estimation set. The generalization process demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of including inertia in an IBL model.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus