Ori Plonsky

Idan Horowitz, Ori Plonsky

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.

Eyal Marantz, Ori Plonsky

Predicting human decision-making under risk and uncertainty is a long-standing challenge in cognitive science, economics, and AI. While prior research has focused on numerically described lotteries, real-world decisions often rely on textual descriptions. This study conducts the first large-scale exploration of human decision-making in such tasks using a large dataset of one-shot binary choices between textually described lotteries. We evaluate multiple computational approaches, including fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs), leveraging embeddings, and integrating behavioral theories of choice under risk. Our results show that fine-tuned LLMs, specifically GPT-4o, outperform hybrid models that incorporate behavioral theory, challenging established methods in numerical settings. These findings highlight fundamental differences in how textual and numerical information influence decision-making and underscore the need for new modeling strategies to bridge this gap.

Ori Plonsky, Reut Apel, Eyal Ert et al.

Predicting human decisions under risk and uncertainty remains a fundamental challenge across disciplines. Existing models often struggle even in highly stylized tasks like choice between lotteries. We introduce BEAST Gradient Boosting (BEAST-GB), a hybrid model integrating behavioral theory (BEAST) with machine learning. We first present CPC18, a competition for predicting risky choice, in which BEAST-GB won. Then, using two large datasets, we demonstrate BEAST-GB predicts more accurately than neural networks trained on extensive data and dozens of existing behavioral models. BEAST-GB also generalizes robustly across unseen experimental contexts, surpassing direct empirical generalization, and helps refine and improve the behavioral theory itself. Our analyses highlight the potential of anchoring predictions on behavioral theory even in data-rich settings and even when the theory alone falters. Our results underscore how integrating machine learning with theoretical frameworks, especially those-like BEAST-designed for prediction, can improve our ability to predict and understand human behavior.