Sequential decision problems distill important challenges frequently faced by humans. Through repeated interactions with an uncertain world, unknown statistics need to be learned while balancing exploration and exploitation. Reinforcement learning is a prominent method for modeling such behaviour, with a prevalent application being the two-step task. However, recent studies indicate that the standard reinforcement learning model sometimes describes features of human task behaviour inaccurately and incompletely. We investigated whether active inference, a framework proposing a trade-off to the exploration-exploitation dilemma, could better describe human behaviour. Therefore, we re-analysed four publicly available datasets of the two-step task, performed Bayesian model selection, and compared behavioural model predictions. Two datasets, which revealed more model-based inference and behaviour indicative of directed exploration, were better described by active inference, while the models scored similarly for the remaining datasets. Learning using probability distributions appears to contribute to the improved model fits. Further, approximately half of all participants showed sensitivity to information gain as formulated under active inference, although behavioural exploration effects were not fully captured. These results contribute to the empirical validation of active inference as a model of human behaviour and the study of alternative models for the influential two-step task.
