We tested whether the sign of the fixed-prediction log-loss difference between linear and quadratic choice models could be determined when labels for missing choices were unknown. Using 16 participants and 4,096 trials from OpenNeuro ds000005, 3,942 choices were recorded and 154 were missing. For binary assignments to missing choices, the score difference ranged from -0.014295325334759941 to 0.020972493348555225 nats per trial. For every acceptance count from 4 through 153, explicit assignments produced both positive and negative signs; counts 0, 1, 2, 3, and 154 gave a lower quadratic score for all assignments. These are finite-sample limits for two fixed prediction procedures, not confidence intervals, population effects, or evidence about unrecorded decisions. A known total count from 4 through 153 did not resolve which model scored better in this sample.
Filters: arxiv: econ.EM (Econometrics) ×
A sensitivity analysis of recorded choices from 16 participants in OpenNeuro ds000005 tested five response-time removal rules in ordinary logistic fits. Removing six choices recorded at 0.001 s changed the sub-05 block 01 fit from finite to complete separation; the same change occurred under the two other rules that removed those choices. All 16 combined fits remained finite in every test. The largest combined loss/gain ratio change was for sub-05, from 2.2101398584141605 to 2.665618917963652 (20.608607994442085%) after removing times at or below 0.010 s. The five rules removed 0, 33, 34, 4, and 38 choices, respectively. These are sensitivity results for recorded choices, not rules for determining valid responses. The origin of the 0.001 s values is unresolved. The dataset contains 16 participants and 3,942 recorded choices; no brain images were used. Missing-choice selection, choice history, and small block samples limit interpretation. No biological cause is established.
In 16 participants from OpenNeuro ds000005, the additive quadratic likelihood-ratio test for equal block intercepts gave the same six Holm-adjusted rejections as the linear and full quadratic tests. Its six statistics ranged from 11.3052 to 36.9726. The additive quadratic score test gave five rejections; sub-14 changed decision across the model and statistic. Two full quadratic sub-10 fits were quasi separated and had undefined statistics. Simulation of the additive score statistic gave pointwise Monte Carlo limits that did not resolve sub-14 or sub-01. These asymptotic and plug-in simulation results concern a specified choice function in one session. They do not establish a causal block effect, a value function, or a loss-aversion trait. The source lists differ by block, missing choices remain, and block time order was not checked.
We repeated the reported logistic analyses of the public OpenNeuro ds000005 mixed-gamble choices and tested a separate-intercept model on the same choices. Across 16 participants, the number of Holm-adjusted loss/gain ratio tests below 0.05 changed from 11 to 12; only sub-07 changed its decision. For sub-07, the adjusted p value changed from 0.18454198467168326 with one intercept to 0.03676829930019113 with three block intercepts. Both pointwise 95% profile intervals excluded 1. All 64 sample classifications, 236 likelihood-ratio checks, and 16 pooled profile intervals and adjusted p values matched the computational reference. The data comprise 3,942 recorded choices from 16 participants; 154 missing choices were omitted. This comparison uses the same cohort and choices, assumes independent choices and the stated logistic models, and does not establish that either model is correct or identify learning, fatigue, or biological causality. The versioned dataset DOI could not be confirmed for the pinned source; its Git commit and file hashes are recorded in the package.
An independent numerical calculation recovered the reported results for 59 finite logistic fits and all five separation labels from OpenNeuro ds000005 behavioral tables. It used a different optimizer and a grid-free profile-boundary calculation, while sharing the target's data, model, and numerical libraries. Across 16 pooled participant fits, all profile sets were bounded; the median slope ratio was 1.936628456402048 (range 0.9898413885818523 to 6.753403558707454), and 11 tests rejected a ratio of one after Holm adjustment. Five blocks had complete or quasi separation. Two blocks had bounded profile sets but Fieller sets covering all real values; sub-05/01 had an unbounded profile set and 65 missing choices among 86 trials. These are numerical agreement findings under the stated logistic model. The work does not establish confidence-set coverage, population effects, or biological causality. Samples overlap, and both calculations share methods and libraries. The analyzed files are identified by a pinned Git commit and checksums; its mapping to an immutable OpenNeuro version-specific DOI is not established.
We compared linear, additive, and quadratic logistic models for accept/reject choices in OpenNeuro ds000005. In a nested stimulus-block test of 16 participants, the linear model had mean log loss 0.280780799787260 nats and the quadratic model had 0.281825989803866 nats. The primary difference (linear minus quadratic) was −0.001045190016606 nats, with a descriptive paired participant-bootstrap 95% interval of [−0.023553857376774, 0.019472587222675]. Nine participants had a positive difference and seven had a negative difference. Fixed penalty choices gave differences with both signs. The result does not establish model equivalence or a linear value function. It concerns observed choices from one session, with 154 missing choices, shared stimulus lists, and unresolved block chronology. The data do not identify value curvature as a cause of prediction errors or support claims about brain function.
We tested whether visit 1 response time improves predictions of changed choices at a later visit after recorded choice and fitted difficulty are included. OpenNeuro ds002843 version 1.0.1 supplied 14,044 matched offers from 118 adults, with 2,316 changed choices. All rows from a test person stayed out of logistic model training. Difficulty used a visit 1 hyperbolic discount fit with linear money utility and a fixed 2% lapse term. The base model loss was 0.380830 nats per pair. Adding response time gave loss 0.379641, a gain of 0.001189 (0.31%). The 95% interval from 2,000 person resamples that refit both models was [-0.001205, 0.003087]. The primary interval included zero. This test did not establish a gain from the response time term under the fixed models. It did not establish equal performance. The interval is conditional on five fixed folds and the recorded visits. This is a test of prediction of repeated choices in a selected cohort with training between visits. It does not test a neural cause or a treatment effect. The package contains pinned source files, code, all predictions, all resamples, independent checks, and a complete second run with identical numerical files.
A local reproduction audited ordinary logistic regression fit classes in 16 participants from OpenNeuro ds000005. The analyzed event tables were retrieved from Git commit b094fc2f41487f92d382a1a432165ae58caae386 (tag 00001 at retrieval); their recorded source hashes were verified against a fresh public retrieval. Across pooled choices and three stimulus blocks, the analysis checked 192 samples under three missing-choice rules. Exact rational certificates agreed with all source fit classes: when missing choices were omitted, 59 fits were finite, 4 completely separated, and 1 quasi-separated; assigning all missing choices to reject gave 60, 3, and 1; assigning all to accept gave 60, 3, and 1. New unpenalized coefficient fits for the 179 certified finite samples met the planned tolerances against the target. In the primary scenario, five participant-block samples were separated, while all 16 pooled fits were finite; their ratio median was 1.9366284564022103 and range was 0.9898413885828328 to 6.753403558707107. This result concerns the stated model, source commit, and recorded choices. The scenarios are not bounds for every missing-choice assignment, the searches share SciPy/HiGHS, and finite estimates do not establish recovery of a stable psychological trait or biological causality. The unchanged target run reproduced 13 of 14 output files byte for byte; the remaining SVG differed in date and element identifiers after normalization.