Language Models Trained to do Arithmetic Predict Human Risky and Intertemporal Choice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19313v1
• Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:37:14 GMT
• Title: Language Models Trained to do Arithmetic Predict Human Risky and Intertemporal Choice
• Authors: Jian-Qiao Zhu, Haijiang Yan, Thomas L. Griffiths,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel way to enhance the utility of Large Language Models as cognitive models. We show that an LLM pretrained on an ecologically valid arithmetic dataset, predicts human behavior better than many traditional cognitive models.
• Score: 4.029252551781513
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The observed similarities in the behavior of humans and Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted researchers to consider the potential of using LLMs as models of human cognition. However, several significant challenges must be addressed before LLMs can be legitimately regarded as cognitive models. For instance, LLMs are trained on far more data than humans typically encounter, and may have been directly trained on human data in specific cognitive tasks or aligned with human preferences. Consequently, the origins of these behavioral similarities are not well understood. In this paper, we propose a novel way to enhance the utility of LLMs as cognitive models. This approach involves (i) leveraging computationally equivalent tasks that both an LLM and a rational agent need to master for solving a cognitive problem and (ii) examining the specific task distributions required for an LLM to exhibit human-like behaviors. We apply this approach to decision-making -- specifically risky and intertemporal choice -- where the key computationally equivalent task is the arithmetic of expected value calculations. We show that an LLM pretrained on an ecologically valid arithmetic dataset, which we call Arithmetic-GPT, predicts human behavior better than many traditional cognitive models. Pretraining LLMs on ecologically valid arithmetic datasets is sufficient to produce a strong correspondence between these models and human decision-making. Our results also suggest that LLMs used as cognitive models should be carefully investigated via ablation studies of the pretraining data.

Related papers

• Using Large Language Models for Expert Prior Elicitation in Predictive Modelling [53.54623137152208]
  This study proposes using large language models (LLMs) to elicit expert prior distributions for predictive models. We compare LLM-elicited and uninformative priors, evaluate whether LLMs truthfully generate parameter distributions, and propose a model selection strategy for in-context learning and prior elicitation. Our findings show that LLM-elicited prior parameter distributions significantly reduce predictive error compared to uninformative priors in low-data settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T10:13:39Z)
• Causality for Large Language Models [37.10970529459278]
  Large language models (LLMs) with billions or trillions of parameters are trained on vast datasets, achieving unprecedented success across a series of language tasks. Recent research highlights that LLMs function as causal parrots, capable of reciting causal knowledge without truly understanding or applying it. This survey aims to explore how causality can enhance LLMs at every stage of their lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T07:22:23Z)
• Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their capabilities across various tasks. This paper exploits the reasoning and generative capabilities of the LLMs to predict human behavior in two sequential decision-making tasks. We compare the performance of LLMs with a cognitive instance-based learning model, which imitates human experiential decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T14:13:06Z)
• Bayesian Statistical Modeling with Predictors from LLMs [5.5711773076846365]
  State of the art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on a variety of benchmark tasks. This raises questions about the human-likeness of LLM-derived information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T11:33:30Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• Large Language Model-based Human-Agent Collaboration for Complex Task Solving [94.3914058341565]
  We introduce the problem of Large Language Models (LLMs)-based human-agent collaboration for complex task-solving. We propose a Reinforcement Learning-based Human-Agent Collaboration method, ReHAC. This approach includes a policy model designed to determine the most opportune stages for human intervention within the task-solving process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:03:36Z)
• LLM-driven Imitation of Subrational Behavior : Illusion or Reality? [3.2365468114603937]
  Existing work highlights the ability of Large Language Models to address complex reasoning tasks and mimic human communication. We propose to investigate the use of LLMs to generate synthetic human demonstrations, which are then used to learn subrational agent policies. We experimentally evaluate the ability of our framework to model sub-rationality through four simple scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T19:46:39Z)
• Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates [12.933509143906141]
  We study the limitations of Large Language Models in simulating human interactions. Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases. These results underscore the need for further research to develop methods that help agents overcome these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T14:51:55Z)
• Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgets [56.24971011281947]
  We introduce a latent inference budget model (L-IBM) that models agents' computational constraints explicitly. L-IBMs make it possible to learn agent models using data from diverse populations of suboptimal actors. We show that L-IBMs match or outperform Boltzmann models of decision-making under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T03:55:51Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Localized Debiased Machine Learning: Efficient Inference on Quantile Treatment Effects and Beyond [69.83813153444115]
  We consider an efficient estimating equation for the (local) quantile treatment effect ((L)QTE) in causal inference. Debiased machine learning (DML) is a data-splitting approach to estimating high-dimensional nuisances. We propose localized debiased machine learning (LDML), which avoids this burdensome step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-30T14:42:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.