Mice exhibit stochastic and efficient action switching during probabilistic decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In probabilistic and nonstationary environments, individuals must use internal and external cues to flexibly make decisions that lead to desirable outcomes. To gain insight into the process by which animals choose between actions, we trained mice in a task with time-varying reward probabilities. In our implementation of such a two-armed bandit task, thirsty mice use information about recent action and action–outcome histories to choose between two ports that deliver water probabilistically. Here we comprehensively modeled choice behavior in this task, including the trial-to-trial changes in port selection, i.e., action switching behavior. We find that mouse behavior is, at times, deterministic and, at others, apparently stochastic. The behavior deviates from that of a theoretically optimal agent performing Bayesian inference in a hidden Markov model (HMM). We formulate a set of models based on logistic regression, reinforcement learning, and sticky Bayesian inference that we demonstrate are mathematically equivalent and that accurately describe mouse behavior. The switching behavior of mice in the task is captured in each model by a stochastic action policy, a history-dependent representation of action value, and a tendency to repeat actions despite incoming evidence. The models parsimoniously capture behavior across different environmental conditionals by varying the stickiness parameter, and like the mice, they achieve nearly maximal reward rates. These results indicate that mouse behavior reaches near-maximal performance with reduced action switching and can be described by a set of equivalent models with a small number of relatively fixed parameters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".