Search alternatives:
largest decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
latest decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search), latency decreased (Expand Search)
task decrease » teer decrease (Expand Search), ash decreased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
largest decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
latest decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search), latency decreased (Expand Search)
task decrease » teer decrease (Expand Search), ash decreased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
Network architectures for multi-agents task.
Published 2025“…The inferences reduction significantly decreases the time and FLOPs required by the <i>LazyAct</i> algorithm to complete tasks. …”
-
11
Time(s) and GFLOPs savings of single-agent tasks.
Published 2025“…The inferences reduction significantly decreases the time and FLOPs required by the <i>LazyAct</i> algorithm to complete tasks. …”
-
12
-
13
Scores vs Skip ratios on single-agent task.
Published 2025“…The inferences reduction significantly decreases the time and FLOPs required by the <i>LazyAct</i> algorithm to complete tasks. …”
-
14
-
15
Win rate vs Skip ratios on multi-agents tasks.
Published 2025“…The inferences reduction significantly decreases the time and FLOPs required by the <i>LazyAct</i> algorithm to complete tasks. …”
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
Single agent and multi-agents tasks for <i>LazyAct</i>.
Published 2025“…The inferences reduction significantly decreases the time and FLOPs required by the <i>LazyAct</i> algorithm to complete tasks. …”
-
20
Model-derived results show increased social following in individuals with disrupted utility-based risky decision-making.
Published 2024“…<p><b>(a)</b> Parameter estimates across all trials showed that individuals with insula or dACC lesions had significantly larger ω<sub>follow</sub> estimates than non-lesioned control participants (NC; NC vs insula: <i>P</i> = 0.036; NC vs dACC: <i>P</i> = 0.025; dACC vs insula: <i>P</i> = 0.89, BF<sub>null</sub> = 2.28), indicating that the lesion participants were more likely to conform with others’ choices during decision-making in a social context. …”