MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409990368 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.28.650827

Is the whole the sum of its parts? Neural computation of consumer bundle valuation in humans

2025· preprint· en· W4409990368 on OpenAlexafffund
Logan Cross, Ryan Webb, John P. O’Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilNational Institute on Drug AbuseSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsValuation (finance)BundleComputationComputer scienceMathematical economicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEconometricsEconomicsAlgorithmFinanceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans are often tasked with making decisions about bundles of multiple items and very little is known about how the human brain aggregates, computes and represents value in such cases. We investigated how the human brain evaluates consumer items, both individually and in bundles, and how this activity relates to choice behavior. Participants underwent a deep-fMRI scanning protocol while we elicited behavioral valuations for single and bundled items. Behaviorally, we find that bundle values are sub-additively discounted compared to the sum of individual item values. Neurally, we find that the same distributed network in pre-frontal cortex computes the value of a bundle and its constituent individual items, but the value representation undergoes a normalization that actively re-scales across bundle and single item contexts. These findings suggest that generalized value regions contextually adapt within a valuation hierarchy, as opposed to utilizing an absolute value code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207