Practical Identifiability of a Minimal Adaptive Learning-Gain Model for Binary Feedback: A Simulation Study
Abstract
Social learning is shaped by distinct computational components--baseline beliefs (prior mean), feedback sensitivity (learning gain), and temporal uncertainty (drift)--that empirical designs rarely disentangle. We evaluate practical identifiability and predictive performance of a parsimonious four-parameter adaptive learning-gain model for binary feedback, where a latent belief about positive-outcome probability updates deterministically between observations and an internal confidence-precision state decays each trial. {sigma}, {omega}, and {lambda} are internal, model-defined variables--not validated psychological constructs. Using fixed-seed simulations, we report four findings. Joint maximum-likelihood recovery is poor: on a 24-condition grid (T=80), {sigma} and {omega} show near-zero tolerance-based recovery ([≤]0.002) across tolerances 0.3-1.0, {lambda} recovers at 0.078-0.263, and longer sequences do not improve recovery. Profile-likelihood and trade-off diagnostics show flat regions for {sigma} and {omega} and an asymmetric {lambda} profile, indicating weak practical (not structural) identifiability. A fitting-parity audit fixed a return-order bug in the fixed-gain candidate. After correction, block-level model discrimination is 0.48 (72/150) under common bounds--above chance (p<0.001)--but is driven almost entirely by Rescorla-Wagner (0.88-0.90); the adaptive filter and its nested fixed-gain restriction remain indistinguishable. Across 50 held-out datasets, the model shows no predictive advantage over an empirical-frequency baseline (paired 95% CIs span zero). Ablations show the added update components provide no consistent benefit. These results caution against interpreting individual parameter estimates from this model class in short binary-feedback designs, and specify that mechanistic claims about clinical group differences in {sigma}, {omega}, or {lambda} require graded responses, manipulated volatility, multi-context sequences, and longitudinal replication.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Joint Modeling of Reaction Times and Choice Improves Parameter Identifiability in Reinforcement Learning Models
Ian C. Ballard, Samuel M. McClure·Journal of Neuroscience MethodsPeer-reviewed·Jan 18, 2019
- Identifiability of Bayesian Models of Cognition
Michael Hahn, Entang Wang, Xue-Xin Wei·bioRxiv·Jun 25, 2025
- A flexible and generalizable model of online latent-state learning
Amy Louise Cochran, Josh M. Cisler·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Sep 16, 2019
- Learning and Forgetting Using Reinforced Bayesian Change Detection
Vincent Moens, Alexandre Zénon·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 17, 2019
- Reliability of decision-making and reinforcement learning computational parameters
Anahit Mkrtchian, Vincent Valton, Jonathan Paul Roiser·Computational PsychiatryPeer-reviewed·Feb 8, 2023
- Inferring the causes of noise from binary outcomes: A normative theory of learning under uncertainty
Xiaotong Fang, Payam Piray·Psychological ReviewPeer-reviewed·Jul 30, 2026