Signal detection models as contextual bandits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signal detection theory (SDT) has been widely applied to identify the optimal discriminative decisions of receivers under uncertainty. However, the approach assumes that decision-makers immediately adopt the appropriate acceptance threshold, even though the optimal response must often be learned. Here we recast the classical normal-normal (and power-law) signal detection model as a contextual multi-armed bandit (CMAB). Thus, rather than starting with complete information, decision-makers must infer how the magnitude of a continuous cue is related to the probability that a signaller is desirable, while simultaneously seeking to exploit the information they acquire. We explain how various CMAB heuristics resolve the trade-off between better estimating the underlying relationship and exploiting it. Next, we determined how naive human volunteers resolve signal detection problems with a continuous cue. As anticipated, a model of choice (accept/reject) that assumed volunteers immediately adopted the SDT-predicted acceptance threshold did not predict volunteer behaviour well. The Softmax rule for solving CMABs, with choices based on a logistic function of the expected payoffs, best explained the decisions of our volunteers but a simple midpoint algorithm also predicted decisions well under some conditions. CMABs offer principled parametric solutions to solving many classical SDT problems when decision-makers start with incomplete information.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it