Disentangled behavioral representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individual characteristics in human decision-making are often quantified by fitting a parametric cognitive model to subjects’ behavior and then studying differences between them in the associated parameter space. However, these models often fit behavior more poorly than recurrent neural networks (RNNs), which are more flexible and make fewer assumptions about the underlying decision-making processes. Unfortunately, the parameter and latent activity spaces of RNNs are generally high-dimensional and uninterpretable, making it hard to use them to study individual differences. Here, we show how to benefit from the flexibility of RNNs while representing individual differences in a low-dimensional and interpretable space. To achieve this, we propose a novel end-to-end learning framework in which an encoder is trained to map the behavior of subjects into a low-dimensional latent space. These low-dimensional representations are used to generate the parameters of individual RNNs corresponding to the decision-making process of each subject. We introduce terms into the loss function that ensure that the latent dimensions are informative and disentangled, i.e., encouraged to have distinct effects on behavior. This allows them to align with separate facets of individual differences. We illustrate the performance of our framework on synthetic data as well as a dataset including the behavior of patients with psychiatric disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".