Differentiating Bayesian model updating and model revision based on their prediction error dynamics
Danaja RutariD, Olympia ColizoliiD, Luc P. J. SeleniD, Lukas SpießiD, Johan KwisthoutiD, Sabine HunniusiD
Abstract
Within predictive processing learning is construed as Bayesian model updating with the degree of certainty for different existing hypotheses changing in light of new evidence. Bayesian model updating, however, cannot explain how new hypotheses are added to a model. Model revision, unlike model updating, makes structural changes to a generative model by altering its causal connections or adding or removing hypotheses. Whilst model updating and model revision have recently been formally differentiated, they have not been empirically distinguished. The aim of this research was to empirically differentiate between model updating and revision on the basis of how they affect prediction errors and predictions over time. To study this, participants took part in a within-subject computer-based learning experiment with two phases: updating and revision. In the updating phase, participants had to predict the relationship between cues and target stimuli and in the revision phase, they had to correctly predict a change in the said relationship. Based on previous research, phasic pupil dilation was taken as a proxy for prediction error. During model updating, we expected that the prediction errors over trials would be gradually decreasing as a reflection of the continuous integration of new evidence. During model revision, in contrast, prediction errors over trials were expected to show an abrupt decrease following the successful integration of a new hypothesis within the existing model. The opposite results were expected for predictions. Our results show that the learning dynamics as reflected in pupil and accuracy data are indeed qualitatively different between the revision and the updating phase, however in the opposite direction as expected. Participants were learning more gradually in the revision phase compared to the updating phase. This could imply that participants first built multiple models from scratch in the updating phase and updated them in the revision phase.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility 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
- Capturing learning on the fly: an eye-tracking method to quantify prediction errors and updating the prior
Flóra Hann, Cintia Anna Nagy, … Orsolya Pesthy·bioRxiv·Mar 31, 2026
- The unique value of zero prediction errors in reinforcement learning
Beth Lloyd, Atsushi Kikumoto, … Marc–Lluís Vives·bioRxiv·Aug 9, 2026
- The P3b differentiates parallel physical and rule-based updating of a sensory model
Michael Schwartze, Francesca Iris Bellotti, Sonja A. Kotz·bioRxiv·Feb 17, 2021
- Demystifying excessively volatile human learning: A Bayesian persistent prior and a neural approximation
Chaitanya K. Ryali, Gautam Reddy, Angela J. Yu·bioRxiv·Aug 7, 2018
- Pupil dilation offers a time-window on prediction error
Olympia Colizoli, Tessa Marije van Leeuwen, … Harold Bekkering A·eLifePeer-reviewed·Jan 8, 2026
- Belief updating in uncertain environments are differentially sensitive to reward and punishment learning: Evidence from ERP
Lingyun Xiang, Meng Liu, Weijun Li·bioRxiv·Oct 9, 2025