ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Separating random and deterministic sources of computational noise in explore-exploit decisions.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
Human decision making is inherently variable. While this variability is often seen as a sign of suboptimal behavior, both theoretical work in machine learning and empirical human studies suggest that variability can actually be adaptive. An example arises when we must choose between exploring unknown options or exploiting options we know well. A little randomness in these 'explore-exploit' decisions is remarkably effective as it can encourage us to explore options we might otherwise ignore. In line with this idea, several studies have found evidence that people increase their behavioral variability when it is valuable to explore. A key question, however, is whether this variability in so-called 'random exploration' is actually random. That is, is random exploration driven by stochastic processes in the brain or by some unobserved deterministic process that we have failed to account for when measuring behavioral variability? By designing an explore-exploit task in which, unbeknownst to them, participants are presented with the exact same choice twice, we provide a partial answer to this question. By modeling behavior in this task, we were able to estimate a lower bound on the amount of variability that is deterministically driven by the stimulus and an upper bound on the amount of variability that is random. Using this approach, we find evidence that at least 14% of the variability in random exploration in our studied task can be accounted for by deterministic processing of the stimulus. Conversely, this suggests that up to 86% of the variability is truly 'random', although it is still possible that this variability is driven by deterministic factors not related to the stimulus. Finally, our results suggest that both deterministic and random sources of variability change proportionally to each other as the value of exploration increases, suggesting that a common noise gating mechanism may be at play in random exploration.
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.