Cited by 583Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain

Open access
Dayan, P., Daw, N. D.·2008·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Decision making is a core competence for animals and humans acting and surviving in environments they only partially comprehend, gaining rewards and punishments for their troubles. Decision-theoretic concepts permeate experiments and computational models in ethology, psychology, and neuroscience. Here, we review a well-known, coherent Bayesian approach to decision making, showing how it unifies issues in Markovian decision problems, signal detection psychophysics, sequential sampling, and optimal exploration and discuss paradigmatic psychological and neural examples of each problem. We discuss computational issues concerning what subjects know about their task and how ambitious they are in seeking optimal solutions; we address algorithmic topics concerning model-based and model-free methods for making choices; and we highlight key aspects of the neural implementation of decision making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/cabn.8.4.429

Cites

126 of 126 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?

  • Bayesian decision theory identifies an optimal action as one that maximizes expected utility, where expected outcomes are weighted by their relative uncertainty.

    “One framework to address this challenge is Bayesian decision theory (Körding, 2007; Dayan and Daw, 2008; Daunizeau et al., 2010). In a nutshell, this identifies an optimal action as one that maximizes the “expected utility” (where “expected” refers to a weighted average; i.e., the predicted outcomes are weighted by their relative uncertainty).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 131 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dayan, P., & Daw, N. D.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dayan, P.
  • Daw, N. D.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
429-453
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2037917209
Cited by
580
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 37
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
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
decision-making, Bayesian decision theory, Markov decision process, signal detection theory, sequential sampling, model-based learning, model-free learning, reinforcement learning, computational models of decision making
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Cognition, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Making, Decision Theory, Exploratory Behavior, Humans, Markov Chains, Models, Psychological, Problem Solving, Reinforcement, Psychology, Models, Statistical, Signal Detection, Psychological, 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