If you use these materials for teaching or research, please use the following citations:
Rhoads, S. A. (2023). pyEM: Expectation Maximization with MAP estimation in Python. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10415396
Rhoads, S. A., Gan, L., Berluti, K., O'Connell, K., Cutler, J., Lockwood, P. L., & Marsh, A. A. (2025). Neurocomputational basis of learning when choices simultaneously affect both oneself and others. In press at Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64424-9
pyEM is a Python implementation of Expectation Maximization with MAP for fitting cognitive computational models to behavioral data. See below for more information on the algorithm.
Every model in pyEM ships as a pair of _sim/_fit functions, plus a ModelSpec object
(<name>_model) that bundles those functions together with the model's identity and description.
Either style works identically — rw1a1b_model.sim is rw1a1b_sim, just accessed through the
bundle:
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.stats import truncnorm, beta as beta_dist
from pyem import EMModel
from pyem.utils import plotting
from pyem.utils.math import norm2beta, norm2alpha
from pyem.models.rl_mf import rw1a1b_model # bundles rw1a1b_sim, rw1a1b_fit, and metadata
from pyem.core.posterior import parameter_recovery
print(rw1a1b_model.id) # 'rw1a1b'
print(rw1a1b_model.desc) # human-readable description
print(rw1a1b_model.spec) # {'rl': {'softmax': ['beta'], 'rw': ['alpha']}}
# Settings
nsubjects, nblocks, ntrials = 100, 4, 24
betamin, betamax = .75, 10 # inverse temperature
alphamin, alphamax = .05, .95 # learning rate
# Generate distribution of parameters within range
beta_rv = truncnorm((betamin-0)/1, (betamax-0)/1, loc=0, scale=2).rvs(nsubjects)
a_lo, a_hi = beta_dist.cdf([alphamin, alphamax], 1.1, 1.1)
alpha_rv = beta_dist.ppf(a_lo + np.random.rand(nsubjects)*(a_hi - a_lo), 1.1, 1.1)
true_params = np.column_stack((beta_rv, alpha_rv))
sim = rw1a1b_model.sim(true_params, nblocks=nblocks, ntrials=ntrials)
all_data = [[c, r] for c, r in zip(sim["choices"], sim["rewards"])]
# Create and fit model
model = EMModel(
all_data=all_data,
fit_func=rw1a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha], # Parameter transformation functions
)
# Fit the model
result = model.fit(verbose=1)
print(f"Convergence: {result.convergence}")
# Access results --> defined from your fit function when `out="all"`
output_dict = model.get_outfit()
estimated_params = output_dict['params'] # Shape: (n_subjects, n_params)
print(f"Estimated parameters shape: {estimated_params.shape}")
print(f"Available outputs: {list(output_dict.keys())}")
# Compare true vs. estimated (matrix)
recovery = parameter_recovery(true_params, estimated_params)
print(f"Correlation per parameter: {recovery.corr}")
print(f"RMSE per parameter: {recovery.rmse}")
# Plot recovery (scatterplot)
for param_idx, param_label in enumerate(['beta','alpha']):
simulated_param = sim['params'][:,param_idx]
estimated_param = output_dict['params'][:,param_idx]
ax = plotting.plot_scatter(simulated_param, f'Simulated {param_label}',
estimated_param, f'Estimated {param_label}')docs/examples/params.py (see Creating Custom Models) provides a
build_params() helper that replaces the hand-rolled truncnorm/beta_dist calls above with one
call — it returns everything EMModel needs (param_names, param_xform, and natural-space
true_params) in one shot, drawn from a shared registry of named, bounded parameters:
import numpy as np
from pyem import EMModel
from pyem.models.rl_mf import rw1a1b_model
from params import build_params # docs/examples/params.py
# Settings
nsubjects, nblocks, ntrials = 100, 4, 24
# Generate "true" parameters from the shared parameter registry
param_names, param_xform, true_params = build_params(["beta", "alpha"], nsubjects)
# Simulate and fit using the ModelSpec's .sim/.fit directly
sim = rw1a1b_model.sim(true_params, nblocks=nblocks, ntrials=ntrials)
all_data = [[c, r] for c, r in zip(sim["choices"], sim["rewards"])]
model = EMModel(
all_data=all_data,
fit_func=rw1a1b_model.fit,
param_names=param_names,
param_xform=param_xform,
)
result = model.fit(verbose=0)
print(f"Convergence: {result.convergence}")We can also use the EMModel.recover() method to package the simulate → fit → compare steps above into one call, if you provide any custom simulation and model fitting functions that match the heuristic below.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.stats import truncnorm, beta as beta_dist
from pyem import EMModel
from pyem.utils import plotting
from pyem.utils.math import norm2beta, norm2alpha
from pyem.models.rl_mf import rw1a1b_model
# Settings
nsubjects, nblocks, ntrials = 100, 4, 24
betamin, betamax = .75, 10
alphamin, alphamax = .05, .95
# Generate distribution of parameters within range
beta_rv = truncnorm((betamin-0)/1, (betamax-0)/1, loc=0, scale=2).rvs(nsubjects)
a_lo, a_hi = beta_dist.cdf([alphamin, alphamax], 1.1, 1.1)
alpha_rv = beta_dist.ppf(a_lo + np.random.rand(nsubjects)*(a_hi - a_lo), 1.1, 1.1)
true_params = np.column_stack((beta_rv, alpha_rv))
# Create model object
model = EMModel(
all_data=None,
fit_func=rw1a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha], # Parameter transformation functions
simulate_func=rw1a1b_model.sim,
)
# Perform parameter recovery
recovery_dict = model.recover(
true_params=true_params,
pr_inputs=["choices", "rewards"], # inputs needed for fit func
nblocks=nblocks, ntrials=ntrials # settings for simulate function
)
# Plot recovery results
fig = model.plot_recovery(recovery_dict, figsize=(10, 4))The returned dictionary includes recovery_dict['correlation'], an array of
Pearson correlations for each parameter.
When we have two different models, we can use the ModelComparison class to compare them using various metrics. The package provides several metrics for model comparison:
- LME (Log Model Evidence): Laplace approximation to marginal likelihood (formally: log probability of the observed data given a model)
- Integrated BIC (Integrated Bayesian Information Criterion): Integrates over the distribution of parameters, which incorporates uncertainty about the parameter values into the model selection process while penalizing model complexity
Note
The example below calls display(comparison_df), a Jupyter/IPython convenience that is
injected automatically into the global namespace inside a notebook. If you run this as a plain
.py script (no IPython), replace it with print(comparison_df).
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import truncnorm, beta as beta_dist
from pyem import EMModel
from pyem.core.compare import ModelComparison
from pyem.models.rl_mf import rw1a1b_model, rw2a1b_model
from pyem.utils.math import norm2alpha, norm2beta
# Settings
nsubjects, nblocks, ntrials = 50, 4, 24
betamin, betamax = .75, 10
alphamin, alphamax = .05, .95
# Generate distribution of parameters within range
beta_rv = truncnorm((betamin-0)/1, (betamax-0)/1, loc=0, scale=2).rvs(nsubjects)
a_lo, a_hi = beta_dist.cdf([alphamin, alphamax], 1.1, 1.1)
alpha_rv = beta_dist.ppf(a_lo + np.random.rand(nsubjects)*(a_hi - a_lo), 1.1, 1.1)
true_params = np.column_stack((beta_rv, alpha_rv))
sim = rw1a1b_model.sim(true_params, nblocks=nblocks, ntrials=ntrials)
rw1a1b_data = [[c, r] for c, r in zip(sim["choices"], sim["rewards"])]
# Create multiple models for comparison
model1 = EMModel(rw1a1b_data, rw1a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha],
simulate_func=rw1a1b_model.sim)
model2 = EMModel(rw1a1b_data, rw2a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha_pos", "alpha_neg"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha, norm2alpha],
simulate_func=rw2a1b_model.sim)
# Fit both models
res1 = model1.fit(verbose=0)
res2 = model2.fit(verbose=0)
# Compare models
mc = ModelComparison([model1, model2], ["RW1", "RW2"])
bicint_kwargs = {"nsamples":1000, "func_output":"all", "nll_key":"nll"}
r2_kwargs = {"ntrials_total":ntrials*nblocks, "noptions": 2} # two-armed bandit has 2 options
comparison_df = mc.compare(bicint_kwargs=bicint_kwargs, r2_kwargs=r2_kwargs)
display(comparison_df)compare() returns a pandas.DataFrame indexed by model name, with columns "LME (largest is best)", "BICint (smallest is best)", and "pseudoR^2 (largest is best)" (columns with no
computable values for any model are dropped).
We can also compute these metrics individually using the EMModel class directly.
# Compute integrated BIC
bicint = model.compute_integrated_bic(nsamples=2000)
# Compute Laplace approximation for Log Model Evidence
lap, lme, good = model.compute_lme()compute_integrated_bic()/calc_BICint() need to know how many trials each subject contributed,
for the complexity-penalty term. By default this is auto-detected from your data (correct for
models like the RW/Bayes families, whose data fields are all trial-aligned with identical shape).
If your data doesn't fit that assumption (e.g. a GLM's [X, Y], where X has an extra
feature-count dimension), pass it explicitly: model.compute_integrated_bic(ntrials_total=ntrials*nblocks).
When fitting multiple candidate models to behavioral data, it is crucial to assess identifiability, whether simulated data from one model are best recovered by the same model when refitted. pyEM provides a convenient interface via the ModelComparison class.
Use the identify() method to:
- Simulate behavior from each model’s
simulate_func - Fit all models to that simulated dataset
- Score each fit using log model evidence (LME), integrated BIC (BICint), and pseudo R²
- Count winning models for each metric across repeated rounds
The result is a pandas.DataFrame with per–Simulated/Estimated model entries and summary columns:
LME,BICint,pseudoR2— mean values across roundsbestlme,bestbic,bestR2— number of rounds (0–N) the Estimated model “won” for that metric
You can visualize these results with plot_identifiability(), which plots an asymmetric matrix (rows = Simulated models, cols = Estimated models) where cell values show the proportion of rounds each Estimated model best fit data from the Simulated model.
Note
identify() draws each round's "true" parameters as raw Gaussian values and maps them into
natural space via each model's param_xform — construct every model with param_xform set (as
shown below), or models with strict natural-space bounds checks (every RW-family model) will
raise on the untransformed values. identify() also requires every model's simulate_func to
return a dict of named arrays (true for the RW and Bayes families) — it is not currently
compatible with the GLM family, whose simulate_func returns an (X, Y) tuple.
from pyem import EMModel
from pyem.core.compare import ModelComparison
from pyem.models.rl_mf import rw1a1b_model, rw2a1b_model
from pyem.utils.math import norm2alpha, norm2beta
# Construct two candidate models
model1 = EMModel(all_data, rw1a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha],
simulate_func=rw1a1b_model.sim)
model2 = EMModel(all_data, rw2a1b_model.fit,
param_names=["beta", "alpha_pos", "alpha_neg"],
param_xform=[norm2beta, norm2alpha, norm2alpha],
simulate_func=rw2a1b_model.sim)
# Run identifiability analysis
mi_df = mc.identify(
mi_inputs=['choices','rewards'], # inputs from sim_func required by fit_func
nrounds=3, # how many rounds to run for MI exercise
nsubjects=50, # how many computer agents are doing the task? (default: 100)
sim_kwargs={"nblocks":nblocks, "ntrials": ntrials}, # args for simulate_func
fit_kwargs={"mstep_maxit": 50},
verbose=1,
)
print(mi_df.head())
# Simulated Estimated LME BICint bestlme bestbic
# 0 RW1 RW1 ...
# 1 RW1 RW2 ...
# 2 RW2 RW1 ...
# 3 RW2 RW2 ...
# Plot results as proportion of rounds won
mc.plot_identifiability(metric="LME")
mc.plot_identifiability(metric="BICint")Many computational models have bounded parameters (e.g., learning rates between 0-1). The package uses transformation functions to map between:
- Normalized space: Unbounded parameters used during optimization (typically in Gaussian space)
- Parameter space: Bounded parameters used in model computations (varies by parameter)
Example:
# Learning rate: 0 ≤ α ≤ 1
alpha_normalized = 0.5 # Unbounded
alpha_natural = norm2alpha(alpha_normalized) # Bounded to [0,1]If you provide function to transform parameters from Gaussian to parameter space (see Daw, 2011), then the following can be used to access them from the EMModel class.
# Access parameter transformations
beta_transform = model.get_param_transform("beta")
alpha_transform = model.get_param_transform("alpha")
# Transform parameters
transformed_beta = beta_transform(0.5) # Convert from normalized to parameter space
transformed_alpha = alpha_transform(0.3)The package includes several pre-implemented models, each described by both its _sim/_fit functions and a ModelSpec (<name>_model) carrying its .id/.desc/.spec.
These built-in model families are included for teaching and demonstrations of this package's flexibility. They can also be used for model fitting in your own research, but please note that they use specific task structures that might not match your own study design or research question. I am happy to chat if you have any questions about this. You can easily create your own custom model by following the custom model template. pyEM also provides utilities for model comparison and parameter recovery, which can be used to evaluate the identifiability of your own models.
glm_sim/fit(id:glm): standard Gaussian linear regression. Free parameters: regression weights (intercept + covariates).glm_decay_sim/fit(id:glm_decay): Gaussian linear regression with exponentially discounted predictors. Free parameters: regression weights,gamma(discount factor, in[0,1]).logit_sim/fit(id:logit): standard logistic regression. Free parameters: regression weights (intercept + covariates).logit_decay_sim/fit(id:logit_decay): logistic regression with exponentially discounted predictors. Free parameters: regression weights,gamma.glm_ar_sim/fit(id:glm_ar): Gaussian linear regression with an AR(1) autoregressive term on the residuals. Free parameters: regression weights,phi(AR(1) coefficient, in(-1,1)).
rw1a1b_sim/fit(id:rw1a1b): Rescorla-Wagner model with a single learning rate. Free parameters:beta,alpha.rw2a1b_sim/fit(id:rw2a1b): Rescorla-Wagner model with separate learning rates for positive vs. negative prediction errors (valence bias). Free parameters:beta,alpha_pos,alpha_neg.rw3a1b_sim/fit(id:rw3a1b): two-option task with three binary outcome channels (self/other/no one); combines self/other/no-one prediction errors into a single expected-value update (Lockwood et al., 2016). Free parameters:beta,alpha_self,alpha_other,alpha_noone.rw4a1b_sim/fit(id:rw4a1b): four-option task where each trial shows a pair of options; one shared inverse temperature and four learning rates split by outcome recipient (self/other) and valence (positive/negative) (Rhoads et al., 2025). Free parameters:beta,alpha_self_pos,alpha_self_neg,alpha_other_pos,alpha_other_neg.
Three learners for the Daw et al. (2011) two-step task (Daw et al., 2011). All fit beta1/beta2 in (0, inf) via exp(x), the learning rates / trace / weight in [0,1], and the first-stage stickiness r in (-inf, inf).
sarsa_lambda_sim/fit(id:sarsa_lambda): model-free SARSA(λ) learner (omega = 0). Free parameters:beta1,beta2,alpha1,alpha2,lambda,r.model_based_sim/fit(id:model_based): model-based Bellman learner (omega = 1;alpha1andlambdadrop out). Free parameters:beta1,beta2,alpha2,r.hybrid_mbmf_sim/fit(id:hybrid_mbmf): hybrid that mixes model-based and model-free first-stage values with weightomega(Daw'sw). Free parameters:beta1,beta2,alpha1,alpha2,lambda,omega,r.
bayes_sim/fit(id:bayes): Bayesian belief-updating over which of three sources (e.g. "ponds") an observation came from, given no feedback. Free parameter:lambda1(belief-update rate, in[0,1]).
Five discounting domains, all sharing the same shape: a block-level discounting variable (social
distance, delay, odds against, or effort level) discounts one option's utility, and choice follows
a logistic rule on the resulting value difference (sigmoid(delta_V)).
sd_hyp_wk_sim/fit(id:sd_hyp_wk): hyperbolic social discounting with a free other-regarding weight,U_other(N) = w_other*r_other / (1 + k*N). Free parameters:w_other,k.sd_hyp_k_sim/fit(id:sd_hyp_k): hyperbolic social discounting with the weight fixed at 1,U_other(N) = r_other / (1 + k*N). Free parameter:k.sd_par_k_sim/fit(id:sd_par_k): parabolic social discounting,U_other(N) = r_other - k*N**2. Free parameter:k.sd_lin_k_sim/fit(id:sd_lin_k): linear social discounting,U_other(N) = r_other - k*N. Free parameter:k.td_hyp_k_sim/fit(id:td_hyp_k): hyperbolic temporal (delay) discounting (Mazur, 1987) in a smaller-sooner vs. larger-later choice. Free parameter:k.prd_hyp_k_sim/fit(id:prd_hyp_k): hyperbolic probability discounting (Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991). Free parameter:k.ed_par_k_sim/fit(id:ed_par_k): parabolic effort discounting (accelerating effort cost). Free parameter:k.ped_par_k_sim/fit(id:ped_par_k): parabolic prosocial effort discounting with a single discount rate shared across self/other. Free parameter:k.ped_par_2k_sim/fit(id:ped_par_2k): parabolic prosocial effort discounting with separate self/other discount rates. Free parameters:k_self,k_other.
See docs/examples/discounting.ipynb for worked examples of all nine variants.
pt_sim/fit(id:pt): Prospect Theory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992) model of choices between a certain amount and a two-outcome gamble; a power value function with separate gain/loss curvature and a loss-aversion multiplier, combined with a one-parameter probability weighting function and a logistic choice rule. Free parameters:alpha(gain curvature),beta(loss curvature),lambda(loss aversion),gamma(probability weighting),mu(choice temperature).
sdt_sim/fit(id:sdt): equal-variance Gaussian signal detection theory model of an old/new recognition memory task. Free parameters:dprime(sensitivity,d' >= 0),criterion(response bias,c).
ddm4_sim/fit(id:ddm4): four-parameter DDM of a HIGH-vs-LOW value choice (two certain amounts per trial, choose the higher); a two-boundary Wiener diffusion (upper = high/correct, lower = low/error) with the Navarro & Fuss (2009) WFPT likelihood; drift v = v_coef*(value_high - value_low). Free parameters:v_coef,a,t0,z. Across-trial variabilitysv,st,sz(drift SD, non-decision-time width, start-point width) are set to 0, marginalized analytically forsv(Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002) and by Gauss-Legendre quadrature forst, `sz.ddm4_lotto_sim/fit(id:ddm4_lotto): four-parameter DDM of a safe-vs-risky GAMBLE (risky gamble EV=ppayoff vs safe certain amount); a two-boundary Wiener diffusion (upper = risky, lower = safe) with the Navarro & Fuss (2009) WFPT likelihood; drift v = v_coef(EV_risky - safe). Free parameters:v_coef,a,t0,z. Across-trial variabilitysv,st,sz(drift SD, non-decision-time width, start-point width) are set to 0, marginalized analytically forsv(Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002) and by Gauss-Legendre quadrature forst, `sz.
Every model above follows the same template: a pair of _sim/_fit functions plus a ModelSpec
that bundles them with a hand-authored id/description/spec. To create a custom model, follow the
same shape:
Note
Both EMModel.fit()'s EM loop and model.recover() always call your _fit function with
prior=... passed as a keyword argument (never positionally). This works whether your
function lists its data arguments explicitly (params, choices, rewards, *, prior=None, output="npl", as below) or captures them variadically (params, *data, prior=None, output="npl" — *data already forces everything after it to be keyword-only, so no extra *
is needed in that case). Either keyword-only style is safe to use with EMModel.fit.
from pyem.core.modelspec import ModelSpec
from pyem.utils.math import norm2alpha, norm2beta, calc_fval
def my_model_fit(params, choices, rewards, *, prior=None, output="npl"):
"""Fit function for your custom model.
Parameters
----------
params : sequence
Parameter values in normalized space.
choices, rewards : sequence
Subject-specific data passed to the model.
prior : object, optional
Prior distribution with ``logpdf`` method.
output : {"npl", "nll", "all"}
Determines the function output.
Returns
-------
float or dict
Objective value or full output when ``output='all'``.
"""
# ---- EDIT AS NEEDED ----
alpha = norm2alpha(params[0])
beta = norm2beta(params[1])
if not (0 <= alpha <= 1):
return 1e7
if not (0.001 <= beta <= 20):
return 1e7
# -------------------------
# ---- YOUR CODE HERE ----
# Model-specific negative log-likelihood
nll = ...
# -------------------------
if output == "all":
return {"params": [alpha, beta], "choices": choices, "rewards": rewards, "nll": nll} # should have "params" and "nll"
return calc_fval(nll, params, prior=prior, output=output)
def my_model_sim(params, **kwargs):
"""
Simulation function for your custom model.
Args:
params: Parameter values in parameter space (n_subjects x n_params)
**kwargs: Additional simulation parameters
Returns:
Dictionary with keys (CAN BE ANYTHING): "params", "choices", "rewards", etc.
"""
# ---- YOUR CODE HERE ----
# Simulate trials/choices/rewards for your task and populate output arrays
# -------------------------
# (Optional) If you want to compute a likelihood value for debugging, define
# it explicitly here; otherwise remove this line.
# fval = calc_fval(nll, params, output="nll")
return {"params": params, "choices": choices, "rewards": rewards}
# Wrapper metadata, following the same shape as every model in pyem.models.*
my_model_desc = "One-sentence description of what this model does and its free parameters."
my_model_id = "my_model"
my_model_spec = {"rl": {"softmax": ["beta"], "rw": ["alpha"]}} # free-form, hand-authored — no fixed vocabulary to satisfy
my_model = ModelSpec(
id=my_model_id, spec=my_model_spec, desc=my_model_desc,
params=None, sim=my_model_sim, fit=my_model_fit,
)ModelSpec is deliberately a plain, unopinionated container (id, spec, desc, params,
sim, fit) — it imposes no naming scheme on your parameters or spec taxonomy, and nothing in
EMModel/ModelComparison requires you to build one at all; it exists purely so a model can
describe itself.
If you'd like a reusable pattern for generating named, bounded "true" parameters for simulation
(rather than hand-rolling truncnorm/beta_dist calls every time, as the examples above do), see
docs/examples/params.py. It defines a ParamDef/PARAM_REGISTRY pattern
(build_params(["beta", "alpha"], nsubjects) → (param_names, param_xform, true_params)) that the
example notebooks use. This lives in docs/examples/, not the installed package, by design — pyem
itself stays agnostic about what parameters any given model uses, so this is a copyable starting
point for your own model collection rather than a package dependency.
The main interface for model fitting and analysis:
class EMModel:
def __init__(self, all_data, fit_func, param_names, param_xform=None, simulate_func=None)
def fit(self, **kwargs) -> FitResult
def simulate(self, *args, **kwargs)
def recover(self, true_params, pr_inputs, **kwargs) -> dict
def plot_recovery(self, recovery_dict, **kwargs) -> plt.Figure
def subject_params(self) -> np.ndarray
def compute_integrated_bic(self, **kwargs) -> float
def compute_lme(self) -> tuple
def get_outfit(self) -> dictsubject_params() is the recommended way to get each subject's fitted parameters in natural
space — it applies param_xform for you, the same way get_outfit()['params'] does when your fit
function's output="all" branch returns a 'params' key.
A plain dataclass bundling a model's identity with its entry points (see "Creating Custom Models" above):
class ModelSpec:
id: str
spec: dict
desc: str
params: Callable | None
sim: Callable
fit: CallableClass for comparing the performance of different models:
class ModelComparison:
def __init__(self, models, model_names=None)
def compare(self, **kwargs) -> pd.DataFrame
def identify(self, mi_inputs, nrounds=10, nsubjects=100, **kwargs) -> pd.DataFrame
def plot_identifiability(self, **kwargs) -> plt.Figure- Parameter transformations (
pyem.utils.math):norm2alpha(),norm2beta(),alpha2norm(),beta2norm() - Statistics (
pyem.utils.stats):calc_BICint(),calc_LME(),pseudo_r2_from_nll() - Plotting (
pyem.utils.plotting):plot_scatter() - Parameter registry (
docs/examples/params.py, not part of the installed package):ParamDef,PARAM_REGISTRY,build_params(),validate_params()
EMModel.fit() exposes two layers of configuration, matching the two nested loops that make up
hierarchical EM:
- Outer EM loop (
EMConfig): alternates an E-step (fit each subject given the current population-level prior) and an M-step (update the population-level prior from all subjects' fits) until convergence. - Inner per-subject optimizer (
OptimConfig): thescipy.optimize.minimizecall used inside each subject's E-step to find that subject's MAP parameter estimate.
You never construct EMConfig/OptimConfig directly — fit() builds them for you from its
keyword arguments:
result = model.fit(
mstep_maxit=200, # EMConfig: max outer EM iterations
convergence_method="sum", # EMConfig: "sum" | "mean" | "median" aggregation of per-subject deltas
convergence_custom=None, # EMConfig: None | "relative_npl" | "running_average"
convergence_crit=1e-3, # EMConfig: convergence threshold
convergence_precision=6, # EMConfig: decimal precision for convergence comparisons
njobs=-2, # EMConfig: parallel jobs (joblib) across subjects within an E-step
seed=None, # EMConfig: RNG seed for the EM loop / optimizer restarts
mstep="gaussian", # EMConfig: population-distribution family fit by the M-step
optim_method="BFGS", # OptimConfig: scipy.optimize.minimize method for each subject
optim_options=None, # OptimConfig: extra options merged into {"gtol": 1e-4, "eps": 1e-4}
max_restarts=2, # OptimConfig: extra random-restart attempts if not successful
)Note
OptimConfig also has an x_scale field (scale of the random initial guess drawn for each
optimizer attempt; default 0.1), but fit() does not currently expose a matching keyword for
it — its default always applies when fitting through EMModel.
By default the M-step fits a Gaussian population distribution per parameter (mstep="gaussian"),
matching the classic Huys/Daw hierarchical EM formulation. Heavier-tailed alternatives can improve
robustness to outlier subjects:
result = model.fit(mstep="laplace")"gaussian"(default): Normal population distribution."laplace": Laplace (double-exponential) distribution — heavier tails than Gaussian."student_t": Student's t distribution (default 8 degrees of freedom) — heavier tails still."cauchy": Cauchy distribution (Student's t with 1 degree of freedom) — very heavy tails.
git clone https://github.com/shawnrhoads/pyEM.git
cd pyEM
conda env create --file environment.ymlpip install git+https://github.com/shawnrhoads/pyEM.gitgit clone https://github.com/shawnrhoads/pyEM.git
cd pyEM
pip install -e .Core (installed automatically with pip install pyem or pip install -e .):
- Python >= 3.10
- numpy >= 1.22
- scipy >= 1.10
- pandas >= 1.5
- matplotlib
- joblib >= 1.3
- typing-extensions >= 4.6
Optional extras (installed via pip install's extras syntax):
pyem[viz]:seaborn— used by some plotting helpers (imported lazily; not required for coreEMModel/ModelComparisonusage).pyem[extras]:statsmodels,scikit-learn,tqdm— used by some example notebooks.pyem[dev]:pytest— for running the test suite.
To install everything needed to run the example notebooks:
pip install 'pyem[viz,extras]'See the docs/examples/ directory for detailed tutorials:
docs/examples/rl_mf.ipynb: Model-Free Reinforcement Learning — free paramsbeta,alpha(and variants:alpha_pos/alpha_neg,alpha_self/alpha_other/alpha_noone,alpha_self_pos/alpha_self_neg/alpha_other_pos/alpha_other_neg)docs/examples/rl_mb.ipynb: Model-Based Reinforcement Learning — Daw two-step task, three models (sarsa_lambda,model_based,hybrid_mbmf), free paramsbeta1,beta2,alpha1,alpha2,lambda,omega,rdocs/examples/bayes.ipynb: Bayesian Inference — free paramlambda1docs/examples/glm.ipynb: Simple linear modeling — free params: regression weights (plusgammafor*_decayvariants,phiforglm_ar)docs/examples/discounting.ipynb: Social/temporal/probability/effort discounting — free paramsw_other,k(ork_self/k_otherfor the prosocial-effort model), see Discounting Modelsdocs/examples/pt.ipynb: Prospect Theory — free paramsalpha,beta,lambda,gamma,mudocs/examples/sdt.ipynb: Signal Detection Theory — free paramsdprime,criteriondocs/examples/ddm.ipynb: Drift-Diffusion Models — high-vs-low value and safe-vs-risky gamble tasks, four models (ddm4/ddm4_lotto), parameter recovery + across-trial-variability visualizations
The full documentation site — API reference, guides, and the rendered example notebooks — is built with MkDocs and the Material theme, and is published at https://shawnrhoadsphd.com/pyEM/.
From the repository root:
# 1) Install the package (so the API reference can import pyem) + the doc toolchain
pip install -e .
pip install -r requirements-docs.txt
# 2) Live preview with auto-reload — open the URL it prints (default http://127.0.0.1:8000/)
mkdocs serve
# 3) …or build the static site into ./site/ (this is what CI runs;
# --strict turns any warning into an error)
mkdocs build --strictThe doc dependencies are version-pinned in requirements-docs.txt for reproducible
builds, and the notebooks under docs/examples/ are rendered directly by
mkdocs-jupyter.
Run the test suite:
pytest tests/This is meant to be a basic implementation of hierarchical EM with MAP estimation, but I invite other researchers and educators to help improve and expand the code here!
Here are some ways you can help!
- If you spot an error (e.g., typo, bug, inaccurate descriptions, etc.), please open a new issue on GitHub by clicking on the GitHub Icon in the top right corner on any page and selecting "open issue". Alternatively, you can open a new issue directly through GitHub.
- If there is inadvertently omitted credit for any content that was generated by others, please also open a new issue directly through GitHub.
- If you have an idea for a new example tutorial or a new module to include, please either open a new issue and/or submit a pull request directly to the repository on GitHub.
The algorithm fits models using a hierarchical approach where:
- E-step: Estimates subject-specific parameters given population-level priors
- M-step: Updates population-level priors given subject-specific parameters
- MAP estimation: Incorporates prior beliefs into likelihood to regularize parameter estimates
Negative Log-Likelihood
The negative log-likelihood is a measure of how well the model fits the observed data. It is obtained by taking the negative natural logarithm of the likelihood function. The goal of MLE is to find the parameter values that minimize the negative log-likelihood, effectively maximizing the likelihood of the observed data given the model.
Prior Probability
The prior probability represents our knowledge or belief about the parameters before observing the data. It is typically based on some prior information or assumptions. In this case, we are using a normal distribution to represent our prior beliefs about the parameters, with mean
MAP Estimation
In MAP estimation, we are incorporating the prior probability into the estimation process. Instead of only maximizing the likelihood (as in MLE), we are maximizing the posterior probability, which combines the likelihood and the prior. Mathematically, MAP estimation can be expressed as:
where
We are effectively combining the likelihood and the prior in a way that biases the parameter estimation towards the prior beliefs. Since we are maximizing this combined term, we are seeking parameter values that not only fit the data well (as indicated by the likelihood) but also align with the prior probability distribution.
Code originally adapted for Python from:
Wittmann, M. K., Fouragnan, E., Folloni, D., Klein-Flügge, M. C., Chau, B. K., Khamassi, M., & Rushworth, M. F. (2020). Global reward state affects learning and activity in raphe nucleus and anterior insula in monkeys. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17343-w
Cutler, J., Wittmann, M. K., Abdurahman, A., Hargitai, L. D., Drew, D., Husain, M., & Lockwood, P. L. (2021). Ageing is associated with disrupted reinforcement learning whilst learning to help others is preserved. Nature Communications, 12(1), 4440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24576-w
Rhoads, S. A., Gan, L., Berluti, K., O'Connell, K., Cutler, J., Lockwood, P. L., & Marsh, A. A. (2025). Neurocomputational basis of learning when choices simultaneously affect both oneself and others. Nature Communications. 16, 9350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64424-9
See also:
Daw, N. D. (2009). Trial-by-trial data analysis using computational models. Decision making, affect, and learning: Attention and performance XXIII, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199600434.003.0001 [pdf]
Huys, Q. J., Cools, R., Gölzer, M., Friedel, E., Heinz, A., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2011). Disentangling the roles of approach, activation and valence in instrumental and pavlovian responding. PLoS computational biology, 7(4), e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002028
For MATLAB flavors of this algorithm: