Cited by 27Neural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural MechanismsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Rational thoughts in neural codes

Open access
Wu, Zhengwei, Kwon, Minhae, Daptardar, Saurabh, Schrater, Paul, Pitkow, Xaq·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Complex behaviors are often driven by an internal model, which integrates sensory information over time and facilitates long-term planning to reach subjective goals. A fundamental challenge in neuroscience is, How can we use behavior and neural activity to understand this internal model and its dynamic latent variables? Here we interpret behavioral data by assuming an agent behaves rationally—that is, it takes actions that optimize its subjective reward according to its understanding of the task and its relevant causal variables. We apply a method, inverse rational control (IRC), to learn an agent’s internal model and reward function by maximizing the likelihood of its measured sensory observations and actions. This thereby extracts rational and interpretable thoughts of the agent from its behavior. We also provide a framework for interpreting encoding, recoding, and decoding of neural data in light of this rational model for behavior. When applied to behavioral and neural data from simulated agents performing suboptimally on a naturalistic foraging task, this method successfully recovers their internal model and reward function, as well as the Markovian computational dynamics within the neural manifold that represent the task. This work lays a foundation for discovering how the brain represents and computes with dynamic latent variables.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1912336117

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Using an RNN resolves the problem of how to compute belief states, by replacing the finetuned Bayesian machinery needed for beliefs with a more general learned function approximator.

    “From a theoretical perspective, using an RNN resolves the problem of how to compute belief states, by replacing the finetuned Bayesian machinery needed for beliefs with a more general learned function approximator (e.g., a recurrent neural network) [32,34,37].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, Z., Kwon, M., Daptardar, S., Schrater, P., & Pitkow, X.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Pitkow, Xaq
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-11-23
Volume
117
Issue
47
Pages
29311-29320
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W3107207547
Cited by
27
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • HHS | National Institutes of Health (5U01NS094368)
  • Simons Foundation (SCGB 324143)
  • National Science Foundation (1450923 BRAIN 43092, CAREER Award IOS-1552868)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
internal models, reward function estimation, latent variables, neural coding, neural decoding, foraging task, computational dynamics, rational action, neural manifolds
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Feeding Behavior, Markov Chains, Models, Psychological, Rationalization, Reward, Neural Networks, Computer, 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