Why is the environment important for decision making? Local reservoir model for choice-based learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision making based on behavioral and neural observations of living systems has been extensively studied in brain science, psychology, neuroeconomics, and other disciplines. Decision-making mechanisms have also been experimentally implemented in physical processes, such as single photons and chaotic lasers. The findings of these experiments suggest that there is a certain common basis in describing decision making, regardless of its physical realizations. In this study, we propose a local reservoir model to account for choice-based learning (CBL). CBL describes decision consistency as a phenomenon where making a certain decision increases the possibility of making that same decision again later. This phenomenon has been intensively investigated in neuroscience, psychology, and other related fields. Our proposed model is inspired by the viewpoint that a decision is affected by its local environment, which is referred to as a local reservoir. If the size of the local reservoir is large enough, consecutive decision making will not be affected by previous decisions, thus showing lower degrees of decision consistency in CBL. In contrast, if the size of the local reservoir decreases, a biased distribution occurs within it, which leads to higher degrees of decision consistency in CBL. In this study, an analytical approach for characterizing local reservoirs is presented, as well as several numerical demonstrations. Furthermore, a physical architecture for CBL based on single photons is discussed, and the effects of local reservoirs are numerically demonstrated. Decision consistency in human decision-making tasks and in recruiting empirical data is evaluated based on the local reservoir. This foundation based on a local reservoir offers further insights into the understanding and design of decision making.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".