Cited by 6Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Active reinforcement learning versus action bias and hysteresis: control with a mixture of experts and nonexperts

Open access
Colas, Jaron T., O’Doherty, John P., Grafton, Scott T.·2024·PLOS Computational Biology

Abstract

Active reinforcement learning enables dynamic prediction and control, where one should not only maximize rewards but also minimize costs such as of inference, decisions, actions, and time. For an embodied agent such as a human, decisions are also shaped by physical aspects of actions. Beyond the effects of reward outcomes on learning processes, to what extent can modeling of behavior in a reinforcement-learning task be complicated by other sources of variance in sequential action choices? What of the effects of action bias (for actions per se) and action hysteresis determined by the history of actions chosen previously? The present study addressed these questions with incremental assembly of models for the sequential choice data from a task with hierarchical structure for additional complexity in learning. With systematic comparison and falsification of computational models, human choices were tested for signatures of parallel modules representing not only an enhanced form of generalized reinforcement learning but also action bias and hysteresis. We found evidence for substantial differences in bias and hysteresis across participants—even comparable in magnitude to the individual differences in learning. Individuals who did not learn well revealed the greatest biases, but those who did learn accurately were also significantly biased. The direction of hysteresis varied among individuals as repetition or, more commonly, alternation biases persisting from multiple previous actions. Considering that these actions were button presses with trivial motor demands, the idiosyncratic forces biasing sequences of action choices were robust enough to suggest ubiquity across individuals and across tasks requiring various actions. In light of how bias and hysteresis function as a heuristic for efficient control that adapts to uncertainty or low motivation by minimizing the cost of effort, these phenomena broaden the consilient theory of a mixture of experts to encompass a mixture of expert and nonexpert controllers of behavior.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011950

Cites

450 of 450 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?

  • Higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type.

    “Interestingly, higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type (SI Appendix, Figs. S8–S10) which suggests: 1) the existence of a carryover effect (61–63) from the previous to the current trial independent of the cue, or 2) a general learning of stimulus history.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [34]Katahira K, Oba T, Toyama A. Can reliability of computational models be truly improved by placing priors on parameters? PsyArXiv. 2022; 4e2d9. 10.31234/osf.io/4e2d9 · DOI
  2. [135]Banavar NV, Bornstein AM. Multi-plasticities: distinguishing context-specific habits from complex perseverations. In: Vandaele Y, editor. Habits: their definition, neurobiology and role in addiction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2024.
  3. [178]Greenstreet F, Vergara HM, Pati S, Schwarz L, Wisdom M, Marbach F, Johansson Y, Rollik L, Moskovitz T, Clopath C, Stephenson-Jones M. Action prediction error: a value-free dopaminergic teaching signal that drives stable learning. bioRxiv. 2022; 507572. 10.1101/2022.09.12.507572 · DOI
  4. [249]Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2016.
  5. [277]Tuzsus D, Pappas I, Peters J. Human-level reinforcement learning performance of recurrent neural networks is linked to hyperperseveration, not directed exploration. bioRxiv. 2023; 538570. 10.1101/2023.04.27.538570 · DOI
  6. [289]Chen Z, Deng Y, Wu Y, Gu Q, Li Y. Towards understanding the mixture-of-experts layer in deep learning. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2022; 35.
  7. [410]Sutton RS. Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning [Doctoral dissertation]. Amherst (MA): University of Massachusetts, Amherst; 1984.
  8. [414]Watkins CJ. Learning from delayed rewards [Doctoral dissertation]. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge; 1989.
  9. [416]Rummery GA, Niranjan M. On-line Q-learning using connectionist systems. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge; 1994. Technical Report No.: CUED/F-INFENG/TR 166.
  10. [427]Klopf AH. Brain function and adaptive systems—a heterostatic theory. Bedford (MA): Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories; 1972. Technical Report No.: AFCRL-72-0164.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Colas, J. T., O’Doherty, J. P., & Grafton, S. T.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Colas, Jaron T.
Venue
PLOS Computational Biology
Published
2024-03-29
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
e1011950
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W4393304821
Cited by
6
References
450
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Army Research Office (W911NF‑19‑2‑0026, W911NF‑16‑1‑0474)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA040011)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50 MH094258)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
action bias, mixture of experts, computational modeling of behavior, individual differences in learning, embodied agents, effort cost
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Bias, Problem-Based Learning

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