ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Sex differences in exploration-exploitation strategies during home-cage decision making.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The exploration-exploitation trade-off refers to the conflict between using known strategies that reliably yield reward (exploitation) and sampling uncertain options that might yield better outcomes (exploration). Dysregulation of this balance is implicated in neuropsychiatric disease, and while sex differences in this balance have been described, the biological bases remain unclear. To quantify sex differences in this trade-off, we tested mice (n=74 male, 62 female) on four home-cage based foraging tasks with an operant pellet dispensing device, Feeding Experimentation Device 3 (FED3). Mice completed the tasks continuously over multiple days and the tasks were their only source of food. Across multiple tasks, males showed higher win-stay behaviour than females, indicating greater exploitation of previously rewarded actions, an effect that was modest in size but highly significant. Power analyses revealed that >30 mice per sex were needed to detect these modest but significant sex differences with 80% power. No consistent sex differences were observed in pellet intake, suggesting that differences in exploitation did not reflect differences in hunger drive or demand for pellets. Exploitation is a more efficient strategy when environmental parameters are fixed, while exploration can be more advantageous when parameters such as reward locations are changing and uncertain. We tested this idea by re-running our mice in a probabilistic foraging task, where actions led to uncertain probabilities of reward. While males continued to show higher levels of win-stay behaviour on this task, this no longer led to increases in accuracy. Behavioural modelling also supported this framework, demonstrating that stronger win-stay behaviour was most advantageous in deterministic models, and less advantageous in probabilistic models. Together, our findings demonstrate that male and female mice have small but significant differences in their exploration-exploitation balance, which leads to more accurate foraging in certain, but not uncertain, environments.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.