ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Action subsampling supports policy compression in large action spaces.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural and behavioral signatures of policy compression in cognitive control.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Neural and behavioral signatures of policy compression in cognitive control.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world decision-making often involves navigating large action spaces with state-dependent action values, taxing the limited cognitive resources at our disposal. While previous studies have explored cognitive constraints on generating action consideration sets or refining state-action mappings (policy complexity), their interplay remains underexplored. In this work, we present a resource-rational framework for policy compression that integrates both constraints, offering a unified perspective on decision-making under cognitive limitations. Through simulations, we characterize the suboptimality arising from reduced action consideration sets and reveal the complex interaction between policy complexity and action consideration set size in mitigating this suboptimality. We then use such normative insight to explain empirically observed phenomena in option generation, including the preferential sampling of generally valuable options and increased correlation in responses across contexts under cognitive load. We further validate the framework's predictions through a contextual multi-armed bandit experiment, showing how humans flexibly adapt their action consideration sets and policy complexity to maintain near-optimality in a task-dependent manner. Our study demonstrates the importance of accounting for fine-grained resource constraints in understanding human cognition, and highlights the presence of adaptive metacognitive strategies even in simple tasks.
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.