Back

Decision Confidence and Outcome Variability Optimally Regulate Separate Aspects of Hyperparameter Setting

Desender, K.; Verguts, T.

2024-10-04 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.10.03.616475 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reinforcement learning models describe how agents learn about the world (value learning), and how they interact with their environment based on the learned information (decision policy). As in any optimization problem, it is important to set the process hyperparameters, a process which also is thought to be learned (meta-learning). Here, we test a key prediction of meta-learning frameworks, namely that there exist one or more meta-signals that govern hyperparameter setting. Specifically, we test whether decision confidence, in a context of varying outcome variability, informs hyperparameter setting. Participants performed a 2-armed bandit task with confidence ratings. Model comparison shows that confidence and outcome variability are differentially involved in hyperparameter setting. A high level of confidence in the previous choice decreased hyperparameter setting of decision noise on the current trial: when a trial was made with low confidence, the choice on the next trial tended to be more explorative (i.e. high decision noise). Outcome variability influenced another hyperparameter, the learning rate for positive prediction errors (thus affecting value learning). Both strategies are rational approaches that maximize earnings at different temporal loci: the modulation by confidence causes more frequent exploration early after a change point, the modulation by outcome variability is advantageous late after a change point. Finally, we show that (reported) confidence in value-based choices reflects the action value of the chosen option (irrespective of the unchosen value). In sum, decision confidence and outcome variability reflect distinct signals that optimally guide the setting of hyperparameters in decision policy and value learning, respectively.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
26.5%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.3%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 9%
7.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
5
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.5%
7
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
9
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
15
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
16
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
19
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
21
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Network Neuroscience
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%