ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Surprise-minimization as a solution to the structural credit assignment problem.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction, syntax and semantic grounding in the brain and large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Contribution of amygdala to dynamic model arbitration under uncertainty.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Right but Still Lousy: Correct Responses With an Unfavorable Outcome Elicit an Error Positivity.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The structural credit assignment problem arises when the causal structure between actions and subsequent outcomes is hidden from direct observation. To solve this problem and enable goal-directed behavior, an agent has to infer structure and form a representation thereof. In the scope of this study, we investigate a possible solution in the human brain. We recorded behavioral and electrophysiological data from human participants in a novel variant of the bandit task, where multiple actions lead to multiple outcomes. Crucially, the mapping between actions and outcomes was hidden and not instructed to the participants. Human choice behavior revealed clear hallmarks of credit assignment and learning. Moreover, a computational model which formalizes action selection as the competition between multiple representations of the hidden structure was fit to account for participants data. Starting in a state of uncertainty about the correct representation, the central mechanism of this model is the arbitration of action control towards the representation which minimizes surprise about outcomes. Crucially, single-trial latent-variable analysis reveals that the neural patterns clearly support central quantitative predictions of this surprise minimization model. The results suggest that neural activity is not only related to reinforcement learning under correct as well as incorrect task representations but also reflects central mechanisms of credit assignment and behavioral arbitration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.