SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2404.04406

Optimality-based reward learning with applications to toxicology

Abstract

In toxicology research, experiments are often conducted to determine the effect of toxicant exposure on the behavior of mice, where mice are randomized to receive the toxicant or not. In particular, in fixed interval experiments, one provides a mouse reinforcers (e.g., a food pellet), contingent upon some action taken by the mouse (e.g., a press of a lever), but the reinforcers are only provided after fixed time intervals. Often, to analyze fixed interval experiments, one specifies and then estimates the conditional state-action distribution (e.g., using an ANOVA). This existing approach, which in the reinforcement learning framework would be called modeling the mouse's "behavioral policy," is sensitive to misspecification. It is likely that any model for the behavioral policy is misspecified; a mapping from a mouse's exposure to their actions can be highly complex. In this work, we avoid specifying the behavioral policy by instead learning the mouse's reward function. Specifying a reward function is as challenging as specifying a behavioral policy, but we propose a novel approach that incorporates knowledge of the optimal behavior, which is often known to the experimenter, to avoid specifying the reward function itself. In particular, we define the reward as a divergence of the mouse's actions from optimality, where the representations of the action and optimality can be arbitrarily complex. The parameters of the reward function then serve as a measure of the mouse's tolerance for divergence from optimality, which is a novel summary of the impact of the exposure. The parameter itself is scalar, and the proposed objective function is differentiable, allowing us to benefit from typical results on consistency of parametric estimators while making very few assumptions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Samuel J. Weisenthal, Matthew Eckard, Askhan Ertefaie, Marissa Sobolewski, Sally W. Thurston. 2024-04-05. Optimality-based reward learning with applications to toxicology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04406

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME