ArticleComputational brain & behavior2026
Recurrent Neural Network Exploration Strategies During Reinforcement Learning Depend on Network Capacity.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial neural networks constitute simplified computational models of neural circuits that might help understand how the biological brain solves and represents complex tasks. Previous research revealed that recurrent neural networks (RNNs) with 48 hidden units show human-level performance in restless four-armed bandit tasks but differ from humans with respect to the task strategy employed. Here we systematically examined the impact of network capacity (no. of hidden units) on computational mechanisms and performance. Computational modeling was applied to investigate and compare network behavior between capacity levels as well as between RNNs and human learners. Using a task frequently employed in human cognitive neuroscience work as well as in animal systems neuroscience work, we show that high-capacity networks displayed increased directed exploration and attenuated random exploration relative to low-capacity networks. RNNs with 576 hidden units approached "human-like" exploration strategies, but the overall switch rate and the level of perseveration still deviated from human learners. In the context of the resource-rational framework, which posits a trade-off between reward and policy complexity, human learners may devote more resources to solving the task, albeit without performance benefits over RNNs. Taken together, this work reveals the importance of network capacity on exploration strategies during reinforcement learning and therefore contributes to the goal of building neural networks that behave "human-like" to possibly gain insights into computational mechanisms in human brains. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42113-025-00258-4.
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.