A low dimensional manifold of human exploratory behavior reveals opposing roles for apathy and anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploration-exploitation decision-making is a feature of daily life that is altered in a number of neuropsychiatric conditions. Humans display a range of exploration and exploitation behaviors, which can be affected by apathy and anxiety. It remains unknown how factors underlying decision-making generate the spectrum of observed exploration-exploitation behavior and how they relate to states of anxiety and apathy. Here, we report a latent structure underlying sequential exploration and exploitation decisions that explains variation in anxiety and apathy. 1001 participants in a gender-balanced sample completed a three-armed restless bandit task along with psychiatric symptom surveys. Using dimensionality reduction methods, we found that decision sequences reduced to a low-dimensional manifold. The axes of this manifold explained individual differences in the balance between states of exploration and exploitation and the stability of those states, as determined by a statistical mechanics model of decision-making. Position along the balance axis was correlated with opposing symptoms of behavioral apathy and anxiety, while position along the stability axis correlated with the level of emotional apathy. This result resolves a paradox over how these symptoms can be correlated in samples but have opposite effects on behavior. Furthermore, this work provides a basis for using behavioral manifolds to reveal relationships between behavioral dynamics and affective states, with important implications for behavioral measurement approaches to neuropsychiatric conditions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".