Back

Deep Learning Improves Parameter Estimation in Reinforcement Learning Models

Xiong, H.-D.; Ji-An, L.; Mattar, M. G.; Wilson, R. C.

2025-03-24 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2025.03.21.644663 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWCognitive models are widely used in psychology and neuroscience to formulate and test hypotheses about cognitive processes. These processes are characterized by model parameters, which are then used for scientific inference. The reliability of scientific conclusions from cognitive modeling depends critically on the reliability of parameter estimation, yet estimating parameters remains a universal challenge particularly when data are too limited to constrain them. In such cases, multiple sets of parameters may explain the experimental data equally well within the same model, raising the question of which parameters are scientifically meaningful. We refer to this problem as parameter ambiguity. In this paper, we investigate parameter ambiguity in reinforcement learning under two optimization methods. We employ the de facto Nelder-Mead method (fminsearch) and a neural network trained to estimate parameters using a modern deep learning pipeline, which has seen limited application in cognitive modeling. Across ten decision-making datasets, we consistently find that the two methods produce substantially different parameter estimates despite achieving nearly identical fitting performance. To address this ambiguity, we introduce a systematic evaluation framework that goes beyond predictive accuracy to assess generalizability, robustness, identifiability, and test-retest reliability, thereby offering principled guidance on which parameter estimates should inform scientific inference. Applying this framework reveals that the neural network with a deep learning pipeline outperforms across these metrics. Our study establishes parameter ambiguity as an underappreciated challenge with significant implications for scientific replicability, highlighting that the choice of optimization method is a critical factor shaping scientific conclusions. We advocate for our multi-faceted evaluation approach to ensure reliable scientific inference and for broader integration of modern deep learning pipelines into cognitive modeling.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
26.0%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.2%
3
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
4
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 20%
3.6%
7
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
10
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
13
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
14
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.5%
15
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
19
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
24
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
25
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
26
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
27
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
28
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
29
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%