MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407099470 · doi:10.7554/elife.105385.1.sa2

eLife Assessment: How relevant is the prior? Bayesian causal inference for dynamic perception in volatile environments

2025· peer-review· en· W4407099470 on OpenAlexaff
Andreea O. Diaconescu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceBayesian probabilityBayesian inferencePerceptionCausal inferenceComputer scienceDynamic Bayesian networkMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpreting sensory prediction errors can be challenging in volatile environments because they can be caused by stochastic noise or by outdated predictions. Noisy signals should be integrated with prior beliefs to improve precision, but the two should be segregated when environmental changes render prior beliefs irrelevant. Bayesian causal inference provides a statistically optimal solution to deal with uncertainty about the causes of prediction errors. However, the method quickly becomes memory intensive and computationally intractable when applied sequentially.Here, we systematically evaluate the predictive performance of Bayesian causal inference for perceptual decisions in a spatial prediction task based on noisy audiovisual sequences with occasional changepoints. We elucidate the simplifying assumptions of a previously proposed reduced Bayesian observer model, and we compare it to an extensive set of models based on alternative simplification strategies.Model-free analyses revealed the hallmarks of Bayesian causal inference: participants seem to have integrated sensory evidence with prior beliefs to improve accuracy when prediction errors were small, but prior influence decreased gradually as prediction errors increased, signalling probable irrelevance of the priors due to changepoints. Model comparison results indicated that participants computed probability-weighted averages over the causal options (noise or changepoint), akin to the reduced Bayesian observer model. However, participants’ reliance on prior beliefs was systematically smaller than expected, and this was best explained by individually fitting lower-than-optimal parameters for the a-priori probability of prior relevance.We conclude that perceptual decision makers utilize priors flexibly to the extent that they are deemed relevant, though also conservatively with a lower tendency to bind than ideal observers. Simplified consecutive Bayesian causal inference predicts key characteristics of belief updating in changepoint environments and forms a suitable foundation for modelling dynamic perception in a changing world.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207