Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42702607›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Human learning of probability distributions is biased toward moderate structural complexity.

Tianyuan Teng, Li Kevin Wenliang, Hang Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 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

3 authors.

Tianyuan Teng *Center for Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Li Kevin Wenliang *Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, London, UK. kevinli@gatsby.ucl.ac.uk.
Hang ZhangCenter for Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China. hang.zhang@pku.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9771-0660

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 2022ZD0204800National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 32171095National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 32471152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inferring hidden environmental structures, which commonly involves learning arbitrary probability distributions from limited samples, is essential to optimal and adaptive behaviors across various cognitive domains. However, it remains largely unknown how the internal representations constructed by humans may deviate from actual probabilistic structures, and what computational processes, operated under inherent cognitive limitations, give rise to these representations. We first develop a structured distribution report task to reveal human participants' internal representations, with findings verified in a further distribution recognition task. Across eight behavioral experiments (including one pre-registered study) in two modalities, participants estimate the overall probability density reasonably well, but exhibit a systematic bias toward moderate structural complexity, reporting too many clusters when the true distribution is a single Gaussian and too few when it contains many clusters. We then build a series of learning models in the framework of approximate Bayesian inference fit to our behavioral data. Through model comparisons, we reconstruct the prior beliefs guiding the evolution of participants' internal representations. The best-fitting model for human reports reduces structure growth rate as complexity increases, effectively constraining the complexity of internal representations within memory limitations.

Indexed as

LearningAdultBayes TheoremCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMemoryProbabilityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42702607
PMCPMC13547380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.