Cited by 195Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The algorithmic anatomy of model-based evaluation

Open access
Daw, Nathaniel D., Dayan, Peter·2014·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Despite many debates in the first half of the twentieth century, it is now largely a truism that humans and other animals build models of their environments and use them for prediction and control. However, model-based (MB) reasoning presents severe computational challenges. Alternative, computationally simpler, model-free (MF) schemes have been suggested in the reinforcement learning literature, and have afforded influential accounts of behavioural and neural data. Here, we study the realization of MB calculations, and the ways that this might be woven together with MF values and evaluation methods. There are as yet mostly only hints in the literature as to the resulting tapestry, so we offer more preview than review.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2013.0478

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • More recent formulations emphasize cooperation, rather than only competition, between behavioural controllers.

    “More recent formulations emphasize cooperation, rather than only competition (Daw and Dayan, 2014, Dolan and Dayan, 2013, Keramati et al., 2011, O’Doherty et al., 2015, Pezzulo et al., 2013; see also Daw et al., 2011, Lee et al., 2014) for relevant empirical evidence that supports an integrative viewpoint.”

    From Active Inference, homeostatic regulation and adaptive behavioural control (2015) · cites this paper as Daw and Dayan, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daw, N. D., & Dayan, P.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Dayan, Peter
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2014-11-05
Volume
369
Issue
1655
Pages
20130478
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2153894094
Cited by
195
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
model-based reasoning, model-free learning, cognitive modeling, reinforcement learning, prediction and control, animal cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Humans, Learning, Markov Chains, Models, Neurological

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