Cited by 64Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Discovering cognitive strategies with tiny recurrent neural networks

Open access
Ji-An, Li, Benna, Marcus K., Mattar, Marcelo G.·2025·Nature

Published 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-025-09142-4

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 77 · Cited by 64

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [4]Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. in ACM Turing Award Lectures10.1145/1283920.1283930 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2007).
  2. [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).
  3. [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).
  4. [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).
  5. [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).
  6. [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
  7. [57]Gillan, C. Characterizing a psychiatric symptom dimension related to deficits in goal-directed control. OSFHome https://osf.io/usdgt (2021). PMC4786435 26928075
  8. [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).
  9. [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
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
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