Cited by 267Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Deconstructing the human algorithms for exploration

Open access
Gershman, Samuel J.·2018·Cognition

Abstract

The dilemma between information gathering (exploration) and reward seeking (exploitation) is a fundamental problem for reinforcement learning agents. How humans resolve this dilemma is still an open question, because experiments have provided equivocal evidence about the underlying algorithms used by humans. We show that two families of algorithms can be distinguished in terms of how uncertainty affects exploration. Algorithms based on uncertainty bonuses predict a change in response bias as a function of uncertainty, whereas algorithms based on sampling predict a change in response slope. Two experiments provide evidence for both bias and slope changes, and computational modeling confirms that a hybrid model is the best quantitative account of the data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.014

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Srinivas N Krause A Seeger M Kakade SM 2010 Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning 1015 1022

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gershman, S. J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gershman, Samuel J.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
173
Pages
34-42
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2778689844
Cited by
267
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NSF Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience (IIS-120 7833)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
exploration-exploitation balance, human decision-making, uncertainty, exploration algorithms, response bias, reinforcement learning, computational modeling, hybrid model
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Choice Behavior, Exploratory Behavior, Humans, Psychomotor Performance, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review