Performance-gated deliberation: A context-adapted strategy in which urgency is opportunity cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding the right amount of deliberation, between insufficient and excessive, is a hard decision making problem that depends on the value we place on our time. Average-reward, putatively encoded by tonic dopamine, serves in existing reinforcement learning theory as the opportunity cost of time, including deliberation time. Importantly, this cost can itself vary with the environmental context and is not trivial to estimate. Here, we propose how the opportunity cost of deliberation can be estimated adaptively on multiple timescales to account for non-stationary contextual factors. We use it in a simple decision-making heuristic based on average-reward reinforcement learning (AR-RL) that we call Performance-Gated Deliberation (PGD). We propose PGD as a strategy used by animals wherein deliberation cost is implemented directly as urgency, a previously characterized neural signal effectively controlling the speed of the decision-making process. We show PGD outperforms AR-RL solutions in explaining behaviour and urgency of non-human primates in a context-varying random walk prediction task and is consistent with relative performance and urgency in a context-varying random dot motion task. We make readily testable predictions for both neural activity and behaviour.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".