fit-drift-diffusion-model
Über
Diese Fähigkeit passt Ratcliff Drift-Diffusionsmodelle (DDM) an binäre Entscheidungsdaten an und schätzt kognitive Parameter wie Driftrate und Grenzenseparation aus Reaktionszeit- und Genauigkeitsdaten. Sie ermöglicht Modellvergleiche, Validierung der Parameterrückgewinnung und Zerlegung von Geschwindigkeits-Genauigkeits-Kompromissen in latente Komponenten. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Sie experimentelle Daten mit sequentiellen Stichprobenmodellen analysieren oder zugrundeliegende kognitive Prozesse schätzen müssen.
Schnellinstallation
Claude Code
Empfohlennpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/fit-drift-diffusion-modelKopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren
Dokumentation
Fit a Drift-Diffusion Model
Estimate DDM params from RT + accuracy, eval fit vs observed quantiles, compare variants, validate via parameter recovery.
Use When
- Binary decision-making w/ RT data
- Estimate cognitive params (drift, boundary, non-decision) from exp
- Compare sequential sampling variants
- Validate DDM pipeline recovers known params
- Decompose speed-accuracy tradeoff → latent cognitive components
In
- Required: RT data w/ accuracy (correct/error) per trial
- Required: Subject + condition IDs
- Required: DDM variant (basic 3-param, full 7-param, hierarchical)
- Optional: Prior distributions Bayesian (default weakly informative)
- Optional: N simulated datasets for recovery (default 100)
- Optional: RT filter bounds s (default 0.1 to 5.0)
Do
Step 1: Prepare Data
Clean + format raw behavioral for DDM.
- Load + inspect columns:
import pandas as pd
data = pd.read_csv("behavioral_data.csv")
required_columns = ["subject_id", "condition", "rt", "accuracy"]
assert all(col in data.columns for col in required_columns), \
f"Missing columns: {set(required_columns) - set(data.columns)}"
- Filter outlier RTs:
rt_lower = 0.1 # seconds
rt_upper = 5.0 # seconds
n_before = len(data)
data = data[(data["rt"] >= rt_lower) & (data["rt"] <= rt_upper)]
n_removed = n_before - len(data)
print(f"Removed {n_removed} trials ({100*n_removed/n_before:.1f}%) outside [{rt_lower}, {rt_upper}]s")
- Summary stats per subject + condition:
summary = data.groupby(["subject_id", "condition"]).agg(
n_trials=("rt", "count"),
mean_rt=("rt", "mean"),
accuracy=("accuracy", "mean")
).reset_index()
print(summary.describe())
- Verify min trial counts (DDM needs data per cell):
min_trials = summary["n_trials"].min()
assert min_trials >= 40, f"Minimum trials per cell is {min_trials}; need at least 40 for stable estimation"
→ Cleaned df, no outliers, ≥40 trials/cell, accuracy 0.50-0.99.
If err: low trial counts → collapse conditions or remove subjects w/ excessive missing. Accuracy ceiling (>0.99) or floor (<0.55) → DDM may not be identifiable, check task difficulty.
Step 2: Select Variant
Complexity based on research q.
- Candidate variants:
model_variants = {
"basic": {
"params": ["v", "a", "t"],
"description": "Drift rate, boundary separation, non-decision time",
"free_params": 3
},
"full": {
"params": ["v", "a", "t", "z", "sv", "sz", "st"],
"description": "Basic + starting point bias, cross-trial variability",
"free_params": 7
},
"hddm": {
"params": ["v", "a", "t", "z"],
"description": "Hierarchical with group-level and subject-level parameters",
"free_params": "4 per subject + 8 group-level"
}
}
- Select on data chars:
| Criterion | Basic (3-param) | Full (7-param) | Hierarchical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trials per cell | 40-100 | 200+ | 40+ (pooled) |
| Subjects | Any | Any | 10+ |
| Research goal | Group effects | Individual fits | Both levels |
| Error RT shape | Symmetric | Asymmetric | Either |
- Configure:
selected_variant = "basic" # adjust based on criteria above
model_config = model_variants[selected_variant]
print(f"Selected: {selected_variant} ({model_config['free_params']} free parameters)")
print(f"Parameters: {', '.join(model_config['params'])}")
→ Variant selected w/ justification based trial counts, subjects, research q.
If err: unsure → start basic, add complexity only if residual diagnostics indicate misfit (err RT distribution mismatch).
Step 3: Estimate
Fit via MLE or Bayesian.
- MLE via
fast-dmor Pythonpyddm:
import pyddm
model = pyddm.Model(
drift=pyddm.DriftConstant(drift=pyddm.Fittable(minval=0, maxval=5)),
bound=pyddm.BoundConstant(B=pyddm.Fittable(minval=0.3, maxval=3.0)),
nondecision=pyddm.NonDecisionConstant(t=pyddm.Fittable(minval=0.1, maxval=0.5)),
overlay=pyddm.OverlayNonDecision(nondectime=pyddm.Fittable(minval=0.1, maxval=0.5)),
T_dur=5.0,
dt=0.001,
dx=0.001
)
- Bayesian via HDDM:
import hddm
hddm_model = hddm.HDDM(data, depends_on={"v": "condition"})
hddm_model.find_starting_values()
hddm_model.sample(5000, burn=1000, thin=2, dbname="traces.db", db="pickle")
- Extract + store:
params = hddm_model.get_group_estimates()
print("Group-level parameter estimates:")
for param_name, stats in params.items():
print(f" {param_name}: {stats['mean']:.3f} [{stats['2.5q']:.3f}, {stats['97.5q']:.3f}]")
- Convergence (Bayesian only):
from kabuki.analyze import gelman_rubin
convergence = gelman_rubin(hddm_model)
max_rhat = max(convergence.values())
print(f"Max Gelman-Rubin R-hat: {max_rhat:.3f}")
assert max_rhat < 1.1, f"Chains have not converged (R-hat = {max_rhat:.3f})"
→ Param estimates w/ SE or CI. Bayesian: R-hat < 1.1 all params. Drift typ 0.5-4.0, boundary 0.5-2.5, non-decision 0.15-0.50s.
If err: no convergence → (a) tighter bounds, (b) better starting via grid search, (c) longer chains + more burn-in. MLE hits boundary → misspecified.
Step 4: Evaluate Fit
Compare predicted + observed RT via quantile.
- Predicted RT quantiles:
import numpy as np
quantiles = [0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9]
predicted_rts = model.simulate(n_trials=10000)
pred_quantiles = np.quantile(predicted_rts[predicted_rts > 0], quantiles) # correct
pred_quantiles_err = np.quantile(np.abs(predicted_rts[predicted_rts < 0]), quantiles) # error
- Observed:
obs_correct = data[data["accuracy"] == 1]["rt"]
obs_error = data[data["accuracy"] == 0]["rt"]
obs_quantiles = np.quantile(obs_correct, quantiles)
obs_quantiles_err = np.quantile(obs_error, quantiles) if len(obs_error) > 10 else None
- QP plot:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1, figsize=(8, 6))
ax.scatter(obs_quantiles, quantiles, marker="o", label="Observed (correct)")
ax.scatter(pred_quantiles, quantiles, marker="x", label="Predicted (correct)")
if obs_quantiles_err is not None:
ax.scatter(obs_quantiles_err, quantiles, marker="o", facecolors="none", label="Observed (error)")
ax.scatter(pred_quantiles_err, quantiles, marker="x", label="Predicted (error)")
ax.set_xlabel("RT (s)")
ax.set_ylabel("Quantile")
ax.legend()
ax.set_title("Quantile-Probability Plot")
fig.savefig("qp_plot.png", dpi=150)
- Fit statistic (chi-square quantile bins):
from scipy.stats import chisquare
observed_proportions = np.diff(np.concatenate([[0], quantiles, [1]]))
predicted_proportions = np.diff(np.concatenate([[0], quantiles, [1]]))
chi2, p_value = chisquare(observed_proportions, predicted_proportions)
print(f"Chi-square fit: chi2={chi2:.3f}, p={p_value:.3f}")
→ QP shows predicted closely tracking observed for both correct + error. Chi-square non-sig (p > 0.05).
If err: systematically misses fast/slow quantiles → add cross-trial variability (sv, st). Err RT shape wrong → add starting point variability (sz). Refit extended.
Step 5: Compare Models
Information criteria for variant selection.
- Fit each + collect stats:
model_results = {}
for variant_name in ["basic", "full"]:
fitted_model = fit_ddm(data, variant=variant_name)
model_results[variant_name] = {
"log_likelihood": fitted_model.log_likelihood,
"n_params": fitted_model.n_free_params,
"bic": fitted_model.bic,
"aic": fitted_model.aic
}
- Compute + compare BIC:
print("Model Comparison (BIC):")
print(f"{'Model':<15} {'LL':>10} {'k':>5} {'BIC':>12} {'delta_BIC':>12}")
print("-" * 55)
best_bic = min(r["bic"] for r in model_results.values())
for name, result in sorted(model_results.items(), key=lambda x: x[1]["bic"]):
delta = result["bic"] - best_bic
print(f"{name:<15} {result['log_likelihood']:>10.1f} {result['n_params']:>5} "
f"{result['bic']:>12.1f} {delta:>12.1f}")
- Interpret BIC (Kass & Raftery, 1995):
# BIC difference interpretation (Kass & Raftery, 1995):
# 0-2: Not worth mentioning
# 2-6: Positive evidence
# 6-10: Strong evidence
# >10: Very strong evidence
- Bayesian → DIC or WAIC:
dic = hddm_model.dic
print(f"DIC: {dic:.1f}")
→ Clear winner w/ BIC diff >6, or justified retain simpler when <2.
If err: indistinguishable (BIC diff <2) → simpler model (parsimony). Full wins big → ensure basic not misspecified due to data issues.
Step 6: Parameter Recovery
Verify pipeline recovers known params from simulated.
- Ground-truth grid:
true_params = {
"v": [0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0],
"a": [0.6, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0],
"t": [0.2, 0.3, 0.4]
}
- Simulate + re-estimate:
from itertools import product
recovery_results = []
n_simulated_trials = 500 # match empirical trial count
for v_true, a_true, t_true in product(true_params["v"], true_params["a"], true_params["t"]):
simulated_data = simulate_ddm(v=v_true, a=a_true, t=t_true, n=n_simulated_trials)
fitted = fit_ddm(simulated_data, variant="basic")
recovery_results.append({
"v_true": v_true, "v_est": fitted.params["v"],
"a_true": a_true, "a_est": fitted.params["a"],
"t_true": t_true, "t_est": fitted.params["t"]
})
- Recovery stats:
recovery_df = pd.DataFrame(recovery_results)
for param in ["v", "a", "t"]:
correlation = recovery_df[f"{param}_true"].corr(recovery_df[f"{param}_est"])
bias = (recovery_df[f"{param}_est"] - recovery_df[f"{param}_true"]).mean()
rmse = np.sqrt(((recovery_df[f"{param}_est"] - recovery_df[f"{param}_true"])**2).mean())
print(f"{param}: r={correlation:.3f}, bias={bias:.4f}, RMSE={rmse:.4f}")
- Recovery scatter plots:
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 5))
for idx, param in enumerate(["v", "a", "t"]):
ax = axes[idx]
ax.scatter(recovery_df[f"{param}_true"], recovery_df[f"{param}_est"], alpha=0.5)
lims = [recovery_df[f"{param}_true"].min(), recovery_df[f"{param}_true"].max()]
ax.plot(lims, lims, "k--", label="Identity")
ax.set_xlabel(f"True {param}")
ax.set_ylabel(f"Estimated {param}")
ax.set_title(f"Recovery: {param} (r={recovery_df[f'{param}_true'].corr(recovery_df[f'{param}_est']):.3f})")
ax.legend()
fig.tight_layout()
fig.savefig("parameter_recovery.png", dpi=150)
→ Recovery correlations r > 0.85 all, bias near zero (< 5% range), RMSE acceptable.
If err: low recovery specific param → (a) insufficient trials → increase n_simulated_trials, (b) param tradeoffs — drift + boundary can trade off, fix one to test recoverability, (c) flat likelihood surface → reparameterize or Bayesian w/ informative priors.
Check
- Input has RT + accuracy correct types
- Outlier filter removed <10%
- Every subject-condition cell ≥40 trials
- Param estimates plausible (v: 0-5, a: 0.3-3.0, t: 0.1-0.6)
- Convergence pass (R-hat < 1.1 Bayesian, gradient ~0 MLE)
- QP within 50ms of observed
- Comparison clear rank or justified parsimony
- Recovery correlations > 0.85 all free
- Recovery bias < 5% range
Traps
- Insufficient trials: DDM data-hungry. <40 per cell → unstable + poor recovery. Always verify before fitting.
- Ignore error RTs: DDM jointly models correct + error. Discard err trials throws away boundary + starting point bias info.
- No filter fast guesses: <100ms likely anticipatory contaminants. Include → distort non-decision time.
- Confuse variants: Basic assumes no cross-trial variability. Err RTs systematically faster than correct → need full w/ sv + sz.
- Overfit full: 7-param can overfit sparse. Use BIC (penalizes complexity) not AIC for DDM selection.
- Skip recovery: W/o recovery validation → can't distinguish estimation bias from true exp effects. Always run before interpreting condition diffs.
→
analyze-diffusion-dynamics— mathematical analysis diffusion processimplement-diffusion-network— generative diffusion sharing forward-process frameworkdesign-experiment— experimental design for DDM-quality datawrite-testthat-tests— testing estimation pipelines in R
GitHub Repository
Verwandte Skills
evaluating-llms-harness
TestenDiese Claude Skill führt den lm-evaluation-harness aus, um LLMs über 60+ standardisierte akademische Aufgaben wie MMLU und GSM8K zu benchmarken. Sie wurde für Entwickler entwickelt, um Modellqualität zu vergleichen, Trainingsfortschritt zu verfolgen oder akademische Ergebnisse zu berichten. Das Tool unterstützt verschiedene Backends, einschließlich HuggingFace- und vLLM-Modelle.
cloudflare-cron-triggers
TestenDiese Fähigkeit bietet umfassendes Wissen zur Implementierung von Cloudflare Cron Triggers, um Workers mithilfe von Cron-Ausdrücken zu planen. Sie behandelt das Einrichten periodischer Aufgaben, Wartungsjobs und automatisierter Workflows, während häufige Probleme wie ungültige Cron-Ausdrücke und Zeitzonenprobleme behandelt werden. Entwickler können sie zum Konfigurieren geplanter Handler, zum Testen von Cron-Triggers und zur Integration mit Workflows und Green Compute verwenden.
webapp-testing
TestenDiese Claude Skill bietet ein Playwright-basiertes Toolkit zum Testen lokaler Webanwendungen durch Python-Skripte. Es ermöglicht Frontend-Verifizierung, UI-Debugging, Screenshot-Aufnahme und Log-Einblick bei gleichzeitiger Verwaltung von Server-Lebenszyklen. Nutzen Sie es für Browser-Automatisierungsaufgaben, führen Sie Skripte jedoch direkt aus, anstatt deren Quellcode zu lesen, um Kontextverschmutzung zu vermeiden.
finishing-a-development-branch
TestenDiese Fähigkeit unterstützt Entwickler dabei, abgeschlossene Arbeiten zu finalisieren, indem sie testet, ob Tests bestehen, und dann strukturierte Integrationsoptionen präsentiert. Sie leitet den Workflow für das Zusammenführen von Code, das Erstellen von PRs oder das Bereinigen von Branches nach Abschluss der Implementierung. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Ihr Code bereit und getestet ist, um den Entwicklungsprozess systematisch abzuschließen.
