Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of elifeeLifeRecent contentAbout eLifeFor authorsSign up for alerts
eLife. 2017; 6: e26157.
PMCID: PMC5406203

Neural networks subtract and conquer


Two theoretical studies reveal how networks of neurons may behave during reward-based learning.

Research Organism: None

Related research articles Miconi T. 2017. Biologically plausible learning in recurrent neural networks reproduces neural dynamics observed during cognitive tasks. eLife 6:e20899. doi: 10.7554/eLife.20899

Song HF, Yang GR, Wang XJ. 2017. Reward-based training of recurrent neural networks for cognitive and value-based tasks. eLife 6:e21492. doi: 10.7554/eLife.21492

To thrive in their environments, animals must learn how to process lots of inputs and take appropriate actions (Figure 1A). This sort of learning is thought to involve changes in the ability of synapses (the junctions between neurons) to transmit signals, with these changes being facilitated by rewards such as food. However, reward-based learning is difficult because reward signals do not provide specific instructions for individual synapses on how they should change. Moreover, while the latest algorithms for reinforcement learning achieve human-level performance on many problems (see, for example, Mnih et al., 2015), we still do not fully understand how brains learn from rewards. Now, in eLife, two independent theoretical studies shed new light on the neural mechanisms of learning.

Figure 1.
Models for reward-based learning in neural networks.

The studies address two complementary aspects of reward-based learning in recurrent neuronal networks – artificial networks of neurons that exhibit dynamic, temporally-varying activity. In both studies, actions are generated by a recurrent network (the “decision network”) that is composed of hundreds of interconnected neurons that continuously influence each others’ activity (Figure 1). The decision network integrates sensory information about the state of the environment and responds with an action that may or may not result in a reward. The network can also change the ability of individual synapses to transmit signals, referred to as synapse strength. Over a period of time, increasing the strength of synapses that promote an action associated with a reward leads to the network choosing actions that receive rewards more often, which results in learning.

At the core of both studies lies a classic algorithm for reinforcement learning known as REINFORCE, which aims to maximize the expected reward in such scenarios (Figure 1A; Williams, 1992). In this algorithm, the strength of a synapse that connects neuron j to neuron i, Wij, changes to Wij + αEij(t) x (R(t) − Rb), where α is a constant, Eij is a quantity called the eligibility, t is time, R is the reward and Rb is a quantity called the reward baseline. The eligibility Eij(t) expresses how much a small change of Wij affects the action taken by the decision network at time t.

The conceptual simplicity of REINFORCE and the fact that it can be applied to the tasks commonly studied in neuroscience labs make it an attractive starting point to study the neural mechanisms of reward-based learning. Yet, this algorithm raises two fundamental questions. Firstly, how can a synapse estimate its own eligibility, using only locally-available information? Indeed, in a recurrent network, a change in synapse strength can influence a third neuron, implying that the eligibility depends on the activity of that third neuron, which the synapse will have never seen. Perhaps more importantly, in scenarios where the reward arrives after the network has produced long sequences of actions, the synapse must search the stream of recently experienced electrical signals for those that significantly influenced the action choice, so that the corresponding synapses can be reinforced. Secondly, how can the network com- pute an adequate reward baseline Rb?

In one of the papers Thomas Miconi of the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla reports, somewhat surprisingly, that simply accumulating over time a superlinear function (such as f(x) = x3) of the product of the electrical signals on both sides of the synapse, returns a substitute for the optimal synapse eligibility that works well in practice (Miconi, 2017). This form of eligibility turns REINFORCE into a rule for the ability of synapses to strengthen or weaken (a property known as synaptic plasticity) that is more biologically realistic than the original optimal REINFORCE algorithm (Figure 1B) and is similar in spirit to models of synaptic plasticity involving neuromodulators such as dopamine or acetylcholine (Frémaux and Gerstner, 2016).

Miconi’s practical use of a superlinear function seems key to successful learning in the presence of delayed rewards. This nonlinearity tends to discard small (and likely inconsequential) co-fluctuations in electrical activity on both sides of the synapse, while amplifying the larger ones. While a full understanding of the success of this rule will require more analysis, Miconi convincingly demonstrates successful training of recurrent networks on a variety of tasks known to rely on complex internal dynamics. Learning also promotes the emergence of collective dynamics similar to those observed in real neural circuits (for example, Stokes et al., 2013; Mante et al., 2013).

As predicted by the theory of REINFORCE (Peters and Schaal, 2008), Miconi found it essential to subtract a baseline reward (Rb) from the actual reward (R) obtained at the end of the trial. While Miconi simply assumes that such predictions are available, Francis Song, Guangyu Yang and Xiao-Jing Wang of New York University and NYU Shanghai wondered how the brain could explicitly learn such detailed, dynamic reward predictions (Song et al., 2017). Alongside the main decision network, they trained a second recurrent network, called the “value network”, to continuously predict the total future reward on the basis of past activity in the decision network (including past actions; Figure 1C). These reward predictions were then subtracted from the true reward to guide learning in the decision network. Song et al. were also able to train networks on an impressive array of diverse cognitive tasks, and found compelling similarities between the dynamics of their decision networks and neural recordings.

Importantly, although Song et al. used synapse eligibilities (with a few other machine learning tricks) that are not biologically plausible to train both networks optimally, their setup now makes it possible to ask other questions related to how neurons represent uncertainty and value. For example, when it is only possible to observe part of the surrounding environment, optimal behavior often requires individuals to take their own internal uncertainty about the state of the world into account (e.g. allowing an animal to opt for lower, but more certain rewards). Networks trained in such contexts are indeed found to select actions on the basis of an internal sense of uncertainty on each trial. Song et al. tested their model in a simple economic decision-making task where in each trial the network is offered a choice of two alternatives carrying different amounts of rewards. They found that there are neurons in the value network that exhibit selectivity to offer value, choice and value, or choice alone. This is in agreement with recordings from the brains of monkeys performing the same task.

The complementary findings of these two studies could be combined into a unified model of reward-based learning in recurrent networks. To be able to build networks that not only behave, but also learn, like animals promises to bring us closer to understanding the neural basis of behavior. However, progress from there will rely critically on our ability to analyze the time-dependent strategies used by trained networks (Sussillo and Barak, 2013), and to identify neural signatures of such strategies.


GH would like to thank Virginia Rutten for helpful comments.

Competing interests

The author declares that no competing interests exist.


  • Frémaux N, Gerstner W. Neuromodulated spike-timing-dependent plasticity, and theory of three-factor learning rules. Frontiers in Neural Circuits. 2016;9:1–19. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2015.00085. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Mante V, Sussillo D, Shenoy KV, Newsome WT. Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature. 2013;503:78–84. doi: 10.1038/nature12742. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Miconi T. Biologically plausible learning in recurrent neural networks reproduces neural dynamics observed during cognitive tasks. eLife. 2017;6:e20899 doi: 10.7554/eLife.20899. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Mnih V, Kavukcuoglu K, Silver D, Rusu AA, Veness J, Bellemare MG, Graves A, Riedmiller M, Fidjeland AK, Ostrovski G, Petersen S, Beattie C, Sadik A, Antonoglou I, King H, Kumaran D, Wierstra D, Legg S, Hassabis D. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature. 2015;518:529–533. doi: 10.1038/nature14236. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Peters J, Schaal S. Reinforcement learning of motor skills with policy gradients. Neural Networks. 2008;21:682–697. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2008.02.003. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Song HF, Yang GR, Wang XJ. Reward-based training of recurrent neural networks for cognitive and value-based tasks. eLife. 2017;6:e21492 doi: 10.7554/eLife.21492. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Stokes MG, Kusunoki M, Sigala N, Nili H, Gaffan D, Duncan J. Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron. 2013;78:364–375. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.039. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Sussillo D, Barak O. Opening the black box: low-dimensional dynamics in high-dimensional recurrent neural networks. Neural Computation. 2013;25:626–649. doi: 10.1162/NECO_a_00409. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Williams RJ. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine Learning. 1992;8:229–256. doi: 10.1007/BF00992696. [Cross Ref]

Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd