How humans make repeated choices among options with imperfectly known reward outcomes is an important problem in psychology and neuroscience. This is often studied using multi-armed bandits, which is also frequently studied in machine learning. We present data from a human stationary bandit experiment, in which we vary the average abundance and variability of reward availability (mean and variance of reward rate distributions). Surprisingly, we find subjects significantly underestimate prior mean of reward rates -- based on their self-report, at the end of a game, on their reward expectation of non-chosen arms. Previously, human learning in the bandit task was found to be well captured by a Bayesian ideal learning model, the Dynamic Belief Model (DBM), albeit under an incorrect generative assumption of the temporal structure - humans assume reward rates can change over time even though they are actually fixed. We find that the pessimism bias in the bandit task is well captured by the prior mean of DBM when fitted to human choices; but it is poorly captured by the prior mean of the Fixed Belief Model (FBM), an alternative Bayesian model that (correctly) assumes reward rates to be constants. This pessimism bias is also incompletely captured by a simple reinforcement learning model (RL) commonly used in neuroscience and psychology, in terms of fitted initial Q-values. While it seems sub-optimal, and thus mysterious, that humans have an underestimated prior reward expectation, our simulations show that an underestimated prior mean helps to maximize long-term gain, if the observer assumes volatility when reward rates are stable and utilizes a softmax decision policy instead of the optimal one (obtainable by dynamic programming). This raises the intriguing possibility that the brain underestimates reward rates to compensate for the incorrect non-stationarity assumption in the generative model and a simplified decision policy.

In everyday conversations, humans can take on different roles and adapt their vocabulary to their chosen roles. We explore whether LLMs can take on, that is impersonate, different roles when they generate text in-context.

Hierarchical Bayesian bandit refers to the multi-task bandit problem in which bandit tasks are assumed to be drawn from the same distribution.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

How humans make repeated choices among options with imperfectly known reward outcomes is an important problem in psychology and neuroscience. This is often studied using multi-armed bandits, which is also frequently studied in machine learning. We present data from a human stationary bandit experiment, in which we vary the average abundance and variability of reward availability (mean and variance of reward rate distributions). Surprisingly, we find subjects significantly underestimate prior mean of reward rates -- based on their self-report, at the end of a game, on their reward expectation of non-chosen arms. Previously, human learning in the bandit task was found to be well captured by a Bayesian ideal learning model, the Dynamic Belief Model (DBM), albeit under an incorrect generative assumption of the temporal structure - humans assume reward rates can change over time even though they are actually fixed. We find that the pessimism bias in the bandit task is well captured by the prior mean of DBM when fitted to human choices; but it is poorly captured by the prior mean of the Fixed Belief Model (FBM), an alternative Bayesian model that (correctly) assumes reward rates to be constants. This pessimism bias is also incompletely captured by a simple reinforcement learning model (RL) commonly used in neuroscience and psychology, in terms of fitted initial Q-values. While it seems sub-optimal, and thus mysterious, that humans have an underestimated prior reward expectation, our simulations show that an underestimated prior mean helps to maximize long-term gain, if the observer assumes volatility when reward rates are stable and utilizes a softmax decision policy instead of the optimal one (obtainable by dynamic programming). This raises the intriguing possibility that the brain underestimates reward rates to compensate for the incorrect non-stationarity assumption in the generative model and a simplified decision policy.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Learning a compact representation of history is critical for planning and generalization in partially observable environments. While meta-reinforcement learning (RL) agents can attain near Bayes-optimal policies, they often fail to learn the compact, interpretable Bayes-optimal belief states. This representational inefficiency potentially limits the agent's adaptability and generalization capacity. Inspired by predictive coding in neuroscience--which suggests that the brain predicts sensory inputs as a neural implementation of Bayesian inference--and by auxiliary predictive objectives in deep RL, we investigate whether integrating self-supervised predictive coding modules into meta-RL can facilitate learning of Bayes-optimal representations. Through state machine simulation, we show that meta-RL with predictive modules consistently generates more interpretable representations that better approximate Bayes-optimal belief states compared to conventional meta-RL across a wide variety of tasks, even when both achieve optimal policies. In challenging tasks requiring active information seeking, only meta-RL with predictive modules successfully learns optimal representations and policies, whereas conventional meta-RL struggles with inadequate representation learning. Finally, we demonstrate that better representation learning leads to improved generalization. Our results strongly suggest the role of predictive learning as a guiding principle for effective representation learning in agents navigating partial observability.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown to be increasingly capable of performing reasoning tasks, but their ability to make sequential decisions under uncertainty only using natural language remains underexplored. We introduce a novel benchmark in which LLMs interact with multi-armed bandit environments using purely textual feedback, "you earned a token", without access to numerical cues or explicit probabilities, resulting in the model to infer latent reward structures purely off linguistic cues and to adapt accordingly. We evaluated the performance of four open-source LLMs and compare their performance to standard decision-making algorithms such as Thompson Sampling, Epsilon Greedy, Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), and random choice. While most of the LLMs underperformed compared to the baselines, Qwen3-4B, achieved the best-arm selection rate of 89.2% , which significantly outperformed both the larger LLMs and traditional methods. Our findings suggest that probabilistic reasoning is able to emerge from language alone, and we present this benchmark as a step towards evaluating decision-making capabilities in naturalistic, non-numeric contexts.