MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206371203 · doi:10.1101/2021.10.13.464279

Novelty and uncertainty interact to regulate the balance between exploration and exploitation in the human brain

2021· preprint· en· W3206371203 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Cockburn, Vincent Man, William A. Cunningham, John P. O’Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoveltyVentromedial prefrontal cortexComputer scienceExploitLeverage (statistics)Stimulus (psychology)Ventral striatumPrefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningCognitionNeuroscienceStriatumSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent evidence suggests that both novelty and uncertainty act as potent features guiding exploration. However, these variables are often conflated with each other experimentally, and an understanding of how these attributes interact to regulate the balance between exploration and exploitation has proved elusive. Using a novel task designed to decouple stimulus novelty and estimation uncertainty, we identify separable behavioral and neural mechanisms by which exploration is colored. We show that uncertainty was avoided except when the information gained through exploration could be reliably exploited in the future. In contrast, and contrary to existing theory, novel options grew increasingly attractive relative to familiar counterparts irrespective of the opportunity to leverage their consequences and despite the uncertainty inherent to novel options. These findings led us to develop a formal computational framework in which uncertainty directed choice adapts to the prospective utility of exploration, while novel stimuli persistently draw favor as a result of inflated reward expectations biasing an exploitative strategy. Crucially, novelty is proposed to actively modulate uncertainty processing, effectively blunting the influence of uncertainty in shaping the subjective utility ascribed to novel stimuli. Both behavioral data and fMRI activity sampled from the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, frontopolar cortex and ventral striatum validate this model, thereby establishing a computational account that can not only explain behavior but also shed light on the functional contribution of these key brain regions to the exploration/exploitation trade-off. Our results point to multiple strategies and neural substrates charged with balancing the explore/exploit dilemma, with each targeting distinct aspects of the decision problem to foster a manageable decomposition of an otherwise intractable task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207