Undermatching is a consequence of policy compression
Abstract
The matching law describes the tendency of agents to match the ratio of choices allocated to the ratio of rewards received when choosing among multiple options (Herrnstein, 1961). Perfect matching, however, is infrequently observed. Instead, agents tend to undermatch, or bias choices towards the poorer option. Overmatching, or the tendency to bias choices towards the richer option, is rarely observed. Despite the ubiquity of undermatching, it has received an inadequate normative justification. Here, we assume agents not only seek to maximize reward, but also seek to minimize cognitive cost, which we formalize as policy complexity (the mutual information between actions and states of the environment). Policy complexity measures the extent to which an agents policy is state-dependent. Our theory states that capacity-constrained agents (i.e., agents that must compress their policies to reduce complexity), can only undermatch or perfectly match, but not overmatch, consistent with the empirical evidence. Moreover, we validate a novel prediction about which task conditions exaggerate undermatching. Finally, we argue that a reduction in undermatching with higher dopamine levels in patients with Parkinsons disease is consistent with an increased policy complexity. Significance statementThe matching law describes the tendency of agents to match the ratio of choices allocated to different options to the ratio of reward received. For example, if option A yields twice as much reward as option B, matching states that agents will choose option A twice as much. However, agents typically undermatch: they choose the poorer option more frequently than expected. Here, we assume that agents seek to simultaneously maximize reward and minimize the complexity of their action policies. We show that this theory explains when and why undermatching occurs. Neurally, we show that policy complexity, and by extension undermatching, is controlled by tonic dopamine, consistent with other evidence that dopamine plays an important role in cognitive resource allocation.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Policy complexity suppresses dopamine responses
Samuel Joseph Gershman, Armin Lak·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 9, 2025
- The reward-complexity trade-off in schizophrenia
Samuel Joseph Gershman, Lucy Lai·Computational PsychiatryPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2021
- Matching provides efficient decisions
Jan Kubanek·bioRxiv·Feb 15, 2024
- Environmental dynamics impact whether matching is optimal
Yipei Guo, Ann M. Hermundstad·PNAS NexusPeer-reviewed·Dec 17, 2025
- Neural and behavioral signatures of policy compression in cognitive control
Shuze Liu, Atsushi Kikumoto, … Samuel Joseph Gershman·Cerebral CortexPeer-reviewed·Jul 23, 2025
- Dopamine promotes instrumental motivation, but reduces reward-related vigour
John P Grogan, Tim Sandhu, … Sanjay Manohar·eLifePeer-reviewed·Oct 1, 2020