Should I stay or should I go? Generalized marginal value theorem with temporal discounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consider a person in an environment containing patchy rewards. Under what circumstances should they stay in a given reward patch or leave that patch to seek out a new one? In a landmark 1976 study, Charnov derived the action policy that maximizes the expected rate at which this person gathers rewards. This result is called the Marginal Value Theorem (MVT), and decades of study have shown that humans’ and other animals’ behaviors qualitatively follow MVT, but with notable and systematic deviations. These deviations have been hypothesized to arise from the fact that MVT does not incorporate temporal discounting whereas humans and other animals tend to value current rewards more than future ones. Rigorously testing that hypothesis has been challenging because there is no mathematical theory that determines optimal patch foraging decision policies for agents who use temporal discounting. To fill this knowledge gap, I derived the optimal patch foraging policy for agents who exponentially discount future rewards and studied how that optimal policy depends upon their temporal discount rate, and upon the structure of their environment. Notably there are conditions under which the optimal policy with temporal discounting is to leave earlier than is predicted by MVT (under-staying), while under other conditions the optimal policy is to stay longer than is predicted by MVT (over-staying). The theory presented here delineates when each situation arises and may help to interpret the otherwise-puzzling ways in which human and animal behaviors deviate from MVT.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".