Simple learning models can illuminate biased results from choice titration experiments

2013/06/15 by Abran Steele-Feldman, James J. Anderson, Steele-Feldman, Abran +1
Decision Sciences · Neuroscience · Psychology · #91E10 #Behavioral and Psychological Studies #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics #FOS: Biological sciences #J.3 #Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies #Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC) #Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)

paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.3535

openalex publication_date 2013/06/15 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

The choice titration procedure presents a subject with a repeated choice between a standard option that always provides the same reward and an adjusting option for which the reward schedule is adjusted based on the subjects previous choices. The procedure is designed to determine the point of indifference between the two schedules which is then used to estimate a utility equivalence point between the two options. Analyzing the titration procedure as a Markov birth death process, we show that a large class of reinforcement learning models invariably generates a titration bias, and that the bias varies non-linearly with the reward value. We treat several titration procedures, presenting analytic results for some simple learning models and simulation results for more complex models. These results suggest that results from titration experiments are likely to be biased and that inferences based on the titration experiments may need to be reconsidered.

Citations

• Risky Theories—The Effects of Variance on Foraging Decisions

Related

• Choice-confirmation bias and gradual perseveration in human reinforcement learning.
• A model of discrete choice based on reinforcement learning under short-term memory
• On the Feasibility of Learning, Rather than Assuming, Human Biases for Reward Inference
• Learning to Allocate Limited Time to Decisions with Different Expected Outcomes
• Relative Value Biases in Large Language Models