Forgetting Enhances Episodic Control With Structured Memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forgetting is a normal process in healthy brains, and evidence suggests that the mammalian brain forgets more than is required based on limitations of mnemonic capacity. Episodic memories, in particular, are liable to be forgotten over time. Researchers have hypothesized that it may be beneficial for decision making to forget episodic memories over time. Reinforcement learning offers a normative framework in which to test such hypotheses. Here, we show that a reinforcement learning agent that uses an episodic memory cache to find rewards in maze environments can forget a large percentage of older memories without any performance impairments, if they utilize mnemonic representations that contain structural information about space. Moreover, we show that some forgetting can actually provide a benefit in performance compared to agents with unbounded memories. Our analyses of the agents show that forgetting reduces the influence of outdated information and states which are not frequently visited on the policies produced by the episodic control system. These results support the hypothesis that some degree of forgetting can be beneficial for decision making, which can help to explain why the brain forgets more than is required by capacity limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".