Plinko: A Theory-Free Behavioral Measure of Priors for Statistical Learning and Mental Model Updating.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probability distributions are central to Bayesian accounts of cognition, but behavioral assessments do not directly measure them. Posterior distributions are typically computed from collections of individual participant actions, yet are used to draw conclusions about the internal structure of participant beliefs. Also not explicitly measured are the prior distributions that distinguish Bayesian models from others by representing initial states of belief. Instead, priors are usually derived from experimenters' intuitions or model assumptions and applied equally to all participants. Here we present three experiments using Plinko, a behavioral task in which participants estimate distributions of ball drops over all available outcomes and where distributions are explicitly measured before any observations. In Experiment 1, we show that participant priors cluster around prototypical probability distributions (Gaussian, bimodal, etc.), and that prior cluster membership may indicate learning ability. In Experiment 2, we highlight participants' ability to update to unannounced changes of presented distributions and how this ability is affected by environmental manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 3, we verify that individual participant priors are reliable representations and that learning is not impeded when faced with a physically implausible ball drop distribution that is dynamically defined according to individual participant input. This task will prove useful in more closely examining mechanisms of statistical learning and mental model updating without requiring many of the assumptions made by more traditional computational modeling methodologies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".