Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42193693›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Discerning Quantity: Numerosity in Two Embodied Machine Learning Agents.

Niall Donnelly, Edward Keedwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Niall DonnellyFaculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0098-7701
Edward KeedwellFaculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RN, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3650-6487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems continue to overcome evermore challenging tasks, researchers have suggested that the time is ripe to begin evaluating these systems along more psychologically inspired lines. This study seeks to build upon these recommendations by evaluating two machine learning models, A-Learning and Proximal Policy Optimisation, for the cognitive capability known as numerosity. In our experiment, these two models were embodied in a three-dimensional virtual environment, known as Animal-AI, and tested in a psychologically inspired numerosity experiment. In contrast to previous research, A-Learning failed to reliably express numerosity capabilities, as did Proximal Policy Optimisation. Both models displayed a tendency to overfit to the first policy that provided rewarding feedback. These results suggest that predicting the cognitive capabilities of machine learning models once embodied is non-trivial, and confounding factors such as environmental properties and perceptual processes complicate the expression of numerosity capabilities. Building on these findings, it is suggested that future researchers pay greater attention to the influence of environmental factors and perceptual mechanisms on the machine learning models they are developing, especially if such models are to be embodied in a virtual- or real-world environment.

Indexed as

A-LearningAnimal-AIartificial intelligenceembodimentnumerosityPPOreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID42193693
PMCPMC13203123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.