We extend the multinomial logit model to represent some of the empirical phenomena that are frequently observed in the choices made by humans. These phenomena include the similarity effect, the attraction effect, and the compromise effect. We formally quantify the strength of these phenomena that can be represented by our choice model, which illuminates the flexibility of our choice model. We then show that our choice model can be represented as a restricted Boltzmann machine and that its parameters can be learned effectively from data. Our numerical experiments with real data of human choices suggest that we can train our choice model in such a way that it represents the typical phenomena of choice.

We investigate the choice patterns of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of Decisions from Experience tasks that involve repeated choice and learning from feedback, and compare their behavior to human participants. We find that on the aggregate, LLMs appear to display behavioral biases similar to humans: both exhibit underweighting rare events and correlation effects. However, more nuanced analyses of the choice patterns reveal that this happens for very different reasons. LLMs exhibit strong recency biases, unlike humans, who appear to respond in more sophisticated ways. While these different processes may lead to similar behavior on average, choice patterns contingent on recent events differ vastly between the two groups. Specifically, phenomena such as ``surprise triggers change" and the ``wavy recency effect of rare events" are robustly observed in humans, but entirely absent in LLMs. Our findings provide insights into the limitations of using LLMs to simulate and predict humans in learning environments and highlight the need for refined analyses of their behavior when investigating whether they replicate human decision making tendencies.

We extend the multinomial logit model to represent some of the empirical phenomena that are frequently observed in the choices made by humans. These phenomena include the similarity effect, the attraction effect, and the compromise effect. We formally quantify the strength of these phenomena that can be represented by our choice model, which illuminates the flexibility of our choice model. We then show that our choice model can be represented as a restricted Boltzmann machine and that its parameters can be learned effectively from data. Our numerical experiments with real data of human choices suggest that we can train our choice model in such a way that it represents the typical phenomena of choice.

In-context learning enables large language models (LLMs) to perform a variety of tasks, including learning to make reward-maximizing choices in simple bandit tasks. Given their potential use as (autonomous) decision-making agents, it is important to understand how these models perform such reinforcement learning (RL) tasks and the extent to which they are susceptible to biases. Motivated by the fact that, in humans, it has been widely documented that the value of an outcome depends on how it compares to other local outcomes, the present study focuses on whether similar value encoding biases apply to how LLMs encode rewarding outcomes. Results from experiments with multiple bandit tasks and models show that LLMs exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias. Adding explicit outcome comparisons to the prompt produces opposing effects on performance, enhancing maximization in trained choice sets but impairing generalization to new choice sets. Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm that incorporates relative values at the outcome encoding stage. Lastly, we present preliminary evidence that the observed biases are not limited to fine-tuned LLMs, and that relative value processing is detectable in the final hidden layer activations of a raw, pretrained model. These findings have important implications for the use of LLMs in decision-making applications.

We extend the multinomial logit model to represent some of the empirical phenomena that are frequently observed in the choices made by humans. These phenomena include the similarity effect, the attraction effect, and the compromise effect. We formally quantify the strength of these phenomena that can be represented by our choice model, which illuminates the flexibility of our choice model. We then show that our choice model can be represented as a restricted Boltzmann machine and that its parameters can be learned effectively from data. Our numerical experiments with real data of human choices suggest that we can train our choice model in such a way that it represents the typical phenomena of choice.

Studies of reinforcement learning in humans and animals have demonstrated a preference for options that yielded relatively better outcomes in the past, even when those options are associated with lower absolute reward. The present study tested whether large language models would exhibit a similar bias. We had gpt-4-1106-preview (GPT-4 Turbo) and Llama-2-70B make repeated choices between pairs of options with the goal of maximizing payoffs. A complete record of previous outcomes was included in each prompt. Both models exhibited relative value decision biases similar to those observed in humans and animals. Making relative comparisons among outcomes more explicit magnified the bias, whereas prompting the models to estimate expected outcomes caused the bias to disappear. These results have implications for the potential mechanisms that contribute to context-dependent choice in human agents.

Sender-receiver interactions, and specifically persuasion games, are widely researched in economic modeling and artificial intelligence, and serve as a solid foundation for powerful applications. However, in the classic persuasion games setting, the messages sent from the expert to the decision-maker are abstract or well-structured application-specific signals rather than natural (human) language messages, although natural language is a very common communication signal in real-world persuasion setups. This paper addresses the use of natural language in persuasion games, exploring its impact on the decisions made by the players and aiming to construct effective models for the prediction of these decisions. For this purpose, we conduct an online repeated interaction experiment. At each trial of the interaction, an informed expert aims to sell an uninformed decision-maker a vacation in a hotel, by sending her a review that describes the hotel. While the expert is exposed to several scored reviews, the decision-maker observes only the single review sent by the expert, and her payoff in case she chooses to take the hotel is a random draw from the review score distribution available to the expert only. The expert’s payoff, in turn, depends on the number of times the decision-maker chooses the hotel. We also compare the behavioral patterns in this experiment to the equivalent patterns in similar experiments where the communication is based on the numerical values of the reviews rather than the reviews’ text, and observe substantial differences which can be explained through an equilibrium analysis of the game. We consider a number of modeling approaches for our verbal communication setup, differing from each other in the model type (deep neural network (DNN) vs. linear classifier), the type of features used by the model (textual, behavioral or both) and the source of the textual features (DNN-based vs. hand-crafted). Our results demonstrate that given a prefix of the interaction sequence, our models can predict the future decisions of the decision-maker, particularly when a sequential modeling approach and hand-crafted textual features are applied. Further analysis of the hand-crafted textual features allows us to make initial observations about the aspects of text that drive decision making in our setup.

Sender-receiver interactions, and specifically persuasion games, are widely researched in economic modeling and artificial intelligence, and serve as a solid foundation for powerful applications. However, in the classic persuasion games setting, the messages sent from the expert to the decision-maker are abstract or well-structured application-specific signals rather than natural (human) language messages, although natural language is a very common communication signal in real-world persuasion setups. This paper addresses the use of natural language in persuasion games, exploring its impact on the decisions made by the players and aiming to construct effective models for the prediction of these decisions. For this purpose, we conduct an online repeated interaction experiment. At each trial of the interaction, an informed expert aims to sell an uninformed decision-maker a vacation in a hotel, by sending her a review that describes the hotel. While the expert is exposed to several scored reviews, the decision-maker observes only the single review sent by the expert, and her payoff in case she chooses to take the hotel is a random draw from the review score distribution available to the expert only. The expert's payoff, in turn, depends on the number of times the decision-maker chooses the hotel. We consider a number of modeling approaches for this setup, differing from each other in the model type (deep neural network (DNN) vs. linear classifier), the type of features used by the model (textual, behavioral or both) and the source of the textual features (DNN-based vs. hand-crafted). Our results demonstrate that given a prefix of the interaction sequence, our models can predict the future decisions of the decision-maker, particularly when a sequential modeling approach and hand-crafted textual features are applied.

We extend the multinomial logit model to represent some of the empirical phenomena that are frequently observed in the choices made by humans. These phenomena include the similarity effect, the attraction effect, and the compromise effect. We formally quantify the strength of these phenomena that can be represented by our choice model, which illuminates the flexibility of our choice model. We then show that our choice model can be represented as a restricted Boltzmann machine and that its parameters can be learned effectively from data. Our numerical experiments with real data of human choices suggest that we can train our choice model in such a way that it represents the typical phenomena of choice.