fit-drift-diffusion-model
정보
이 스킬은 Ratcliff 드리프트-확산 모델(DDM)을 이진 의사결정 데이터에 적합시켜, 반응 시간과 정확도 입력으로부터 드리프트 속도와 경계 분리 같은 인지 매개변수를 추정합니다. 모델 비교, 매개변수 복원 검증, 그리고 속도-정확도 상충 관계를 잠재 구성 요소로 분해하는 기능을 제공합니다. 순차 샘플링 모델로 실험 데이터를 분석하거나 기저 인지 과정을 추정해야 할 때 사용하세요.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx 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-modelClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
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 저장소
연관 스킬
evaluating-llms-harness
테스팅이 Claude Skill은 MMLU, GSM8K를 포함한 60개 이상의 표준화된 학술 과제에서 LLM 성능을 벤치마크하기 위해 lm-evaluation-harness를 실행합니다. 개발자들이 모델 품질을 비교하고, 학습 진행 상황을 추적하거나 학술 결과를 보고할 수 있도록 설계되었습니다. 이 도구는 HuggingFace와 vLLM 모델을 포함한 다양한 백엔드를 지원합니다.
cloudflare-cron-triggers
테스팅이 스킬은 cron 표현식을 사용하여 Worker를 스케줄링하기 위한 Cloudflare Cron Triggers 구현에 관한 포괄적인 지식을 제공합니다. 주기적 작업, 유지보수 작업, 자동화된 워크플로우 설정 방법을 다루며, 잘못된 cron 표현식이나 시간대 문제 같은 일반적인 이슈들을 해결하는 방법을 포함합니다. 개발자들은 이를 통해 스케줄된 핸들러 구성, cron 트리거 테스트, Workflows 및 Green Compute와의 연동 작업을 수행할 수 있습니다.
webapp-testing
테스팅이 Claude Skill은 Python 스크립트를 통해 로컬 웹 애플리케이션을 테스트하기 위한 Playwright 기반 툴킷을 제공합니다. 프론트엔드 검증, UI 디버깅, 스크린샷 캡처, 로그 확인 기능을 지원하며 서버 라이프사이클을 관리합니다. 브라우저 자동화 작업에 사용하되 컨텍스트 오염을 방지하기 위해 소스 코드를 읽지 않고 스크립트를 직접 실행하세요.
finishing-a-development-branch
테스팅이 스킬은 테스트 통과를 확인한 후 체계적인 통합 옵션을 제시하여 개발자가 완성된 작업을 마무리하도록 돕습니다. 구현이 완료된 후 머지, PR 생성, 브랜치 정리와 같은 워크플로우를 안내합니다. 코드가 준비되고 테스트가 완료되었을 때 개발 프로세스를 체계적으로 마무리하기 위해 사용하세요.
