ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Environmental dynamics impact whether matching is optimal.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging animals often sample options that yield rewards with different probabilities. In such scenarios, many animals exhibit "matching," whereby they allocate their choices such that the fraction of rewarded samples is equal across options. While matching can be optimal in environments with diminishing returns, this condition alone is not sufficient to determine optimality. Moreover, diminishing returns arise when resources deplete and replenish over time, but their form depends on the temporal structure and statistics of replenishment. Here, we investigate how these environmental properties influence whether matching is optimal. We consider an agent that samples options at fixed rates, and we derive the resulting reward probabilities across different types of environments. This allows us to analytically determine conditions under which the optimal policy exhibits matching. When all options share the same replenishment dynamics, matching emerges as optimal across a wide range of environments. However, when dynamics differ across options, optimal policies can deviate from matching. In such cases, the rank-ordering of observed reward probabilities depends only on the qualitative nature of the replenishment process, and not on the specific replenishment rates. As a result, the optimal policy can exhibit under- or over-matching depending on which options are more rewarding. We use this result to identify environments where performance differs substantially between matching and optimality. Finally, we show that fluctuations in replenishment rates-representing environmental stochasticity or internal uncertainty-can amplify deviations from matching. These findings deepen our understanding of the relationship between environmental variability and behavioral optimality, and provide testable predictions across diverse settings.
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.