Back

Generalizing to generalize: humans flexibly switch between compositional and conjunctive structures during reinforcement learning

Franklin, N. T.; Frank, M. J.

2019-07-18 neuroscience
10.1101/547406 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Humans routinely face novel environments in which they have to generalize in order toact adaptively. However, doing so involves the non-trivial challenge of deciding which aspects of a task domain to generalize. While it is sometimes appropriate to simply re-use a learned behavior, often adaptive generalization entails recombining distinct components of knowledge acquired across multiple contexts. Theoretical work has suggested a computational trade-off in which it can be more or less useful to learn and generalize aspects of task structure jointly or compositionally, depending on previous task statistics, but empirical studies are lacking. Here we develop a series of navigation tasks which manipulate the statistics of goal values ("what to do") and state transitions ("how to do it") across contexts, and assess whether human subjects generalize these task components separately or conjunctively. We find that human generalization is sensitive to the statistics of the previously experienced task domain, favoring compositional or conjunctive generalization when the task statistics are indicative of such structures, and a mixture of the two when they are more ambiguous. These results support the predictions of a normative "meta-generalization learning" agent that does not only generalize previous knowledge but also generalizes the statistical structure most likely to support generalization. Author NoteThis work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Proposal 1460604 "How Prefrontal Cortex Augments Reinforcement Learning" to MJF. We thank Mark Ho for providing code used in the behavioral task. We thank Matt Nassar for helpful discussions. Correspondence should be addressed to Nicholas T. Franklin (nfranklin@fas.harvard.edu) or Michael J. Frank (michael_frank@brown.edu).

Matching journals

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

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 1%
17.3%
2
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.2%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.0%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.8%
5
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 23%
3.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
8
Hippocampus
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
11
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.6%
12
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.3%
13
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.8%
15
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
18
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%