Discovering cognitive strategies with tiny recurrent neural networks
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Understanding how animals and humans learn from experience to make adaptive decisions is a fundamental goal of neuroscience and psychology. Normative modelling frameworks such as Bayesian inference 1 and reinforcement learning 2 provide valuable insights into the principles governing adaptive behaviour. However, the simplicity of these frameworks often limits their ability to capture realistic biological behaviour, leading to cycles of handcrafted adjustments that are prone to researcher subjectivity. Here we present a novel modelling approach that leverages recurrent neural networks to discover the cognitive algorithms governing biological decision-making. We show that neural networks with just one to four units often outperform classical cognitive models and match larger neural networks in predicting the choices of individual animals and humans, across six well-studied reward-learning tasks. Critically, we can interpret the trained networks using dynamical systems concepts, enabling a unified comparison of cognitive models and revealing detailed mechanisms underlying choice behaviour. Our approach also estimates the dimensionality of behaviour 3 and offers insights into algorithms learned by meta-reinforcement learning artificial intelligence agents. Overall, we present a systematic approach for discovering interpretable cognitive strategies in decision-making, offering insights into neural mechanisms and a foundation for studying healthy and dysfunctional cognition.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
ANNs can learn complex mappings from data, vastly expanding the space of candidate functions that can be considered.
“ANNs can learn complex mappings from data, vastly expanding the space of candidate functions that can be considered (Fig. 1b, bottom)15,16.”
From Interpretable abstractions of artificial neural networks predict behavior and neural activity during human information gathering (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 64
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [4]Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. in ACM Turing Award Lectures10.1145/1283920.1283930 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2007).
- [19]Cueva, C. J. & Wei, X.-X. Emergence of grid-like representations by training recurrent neural networks to perform spatial localization. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2018).
- [29]Song, M., Niv, Y., and Cai, M. Using recurrent neural networks to understand human reward learning. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 1388–1394 (eScholarship, 2021).
- [41]Valente, A., Pillow, J. W. & Ostojic, S. Extracting computational mechanisms from neural data using low-rank rnns. Adv Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 24072–24086 (2022).
- [47]Miller, K., Eckstein, M., Botvinick, M. & Kurth-Nelson, Z. Cognitive model discovery via disentangled RNNs. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36, 61377–61394 (2023).
- [52]Miller, K., Brody, C. D. & Botvinick, M. Value representations in the rodent orbitofrontal cortex drive learning, not choice. Figshare10.6084/m9.figshare.20449140.v2 (2022). PMC9462853 35975792
- [57]Gillan, C. Characterizing a psychiatric symptom dimension related to deficits in goal-directed control. OSFHome https://osf.io/usdgt (2021). PMC4786435 26928075
- [59]Linderman, S. et al. Bayesian learning and inference in recurrent switching linear dynamical systems. In Proc. 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (eds Singh, A. & Zhu, J.) 914–922 (PMLR, 2017).
- [60]Wu, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, Y., Bengio, Y. & Salakhutdinov, R. R. On multiplicative integration with recurrent neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 2864–2872 (2016).
- Authors
- Ji-An, L., Benna, M. K., & Mattar, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mattar, Marcelo G.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2025-07-02
- Volume
- 644
- Issue
- 8078
- Pages
- 993-1001
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC12390849
- OpenAlex
- W4411932255
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 30.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1730158, 1540112, 1826967, 2100237, 2112167, 1541349, 2120019)
- University of California, San Diego
- Office of the President, University of California
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Keywords
- cognitive strategies, decision-making, recurrent neural networks, reward learning, choice behavior, cognitive models, interpretability, dynamical systems, meta-reinforcement learning
- MeSH terms
- Recurrent Neural Networks, Algorithms, Animals, Artificial Intelligence, Bayes Theorem, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Neurological, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Neural Networks, Computer
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