Action chunking as conditional policy compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many skills in our everyday lives are learned by sequencing actions towards a desired goal. The action sequence can become a ``chunk'' when individual actions are grouped together and executed as one unit, making them more efficient to store and execute. While chunking has been studied extensively across various domains, a puzzle remains as to why and under what conditions action chunking occurs. To tackle these questions, we develop a model of conditional policy compression—the reduction in cognitive cost by conditioning on an additional source of information—to explain the origin of chunking. We argue that chunking is a result of optimizing the trade-off between reward and conditional policy complexity. Chunking compresses policies when there is temporal structure in the environment that can be leveraged for action selection, reducing the amount of memory necessary to encode the policy. We experimentally confirm our model's predictions, showing that chunking reduces conditional policy complexity and reaction times. Chunking also increases with working memory load, consistent with the hypothesis that the degree of policy compression scales with the scarcity of cognitive resources. Finally, chunking also reduces overall working memory load, freeing cognitive resources for the benefit of other, not-chunked information.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".