MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111525525 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2009.2025588

Simple Artificial Neural Networks That Match Probability and Exploit and Explore When Confronting a Multiarmed Bandit

2009· article· en· W2111525525 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptronArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceReinforcement learningMulti-armed banditMatching (statistics)Matching lawExploitSimple (philosophy)Machine learningContingencyOperant conditioningReinforcementMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The matching law (Herrnstein 1961) states that response rates become proportional to reinforcement rates; this is related to the empirical phenomenon called probability matching (Vulkan 2000). Here, we show that a simple artificial neural network generates responses consistent with probability matching. This behavior was then used to create an operant procedure for network learning. We use the multiarmed bandit (Gittins 1989), a classic problem of choice behavior, to illustrate that operant training balances exploiting the bandit arm expected to pay off most frequently with exploring other arms. Perceptrons provide a medium for relating results from neural networks, genetic algorithms, animal learning, contingency theory, reinforcement learning, and theories of choice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it