Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09281v1
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:13:06 GMT
- Title: Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning
- Authors: Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Kasturi Jamale, Cleotilde Gonzalez,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their capabilities across various tasks, from language translation to complex reasoning. Understanding and predicting human behavior and biases are crucial for artificial intelligence (AI) assisted systems to provide useful assistance, yet it remains an open question whether these models can achieve this. This paper addresses this gap by leveraging the reasoning and generative capabilities of the LLMs to predict human behavior in two sequential decision-making tasks. These tasks involve balancing between exploitative and exploratory actions and handling delayed feedback, both essential for simulating real-life decision processes. We compare the performance of LLMs with a cognitive instance-based learning (IBL) model, which imitates human experiential decision-making. Our findings indicate that LLMs excel at rapidly incorporating feedback to enhance prediction accuracy. In contrast, the cognitive IBL model better accounts for human exploratory behaviors and effectively captures loss aversion bias, i.e., the tendency to choose a sub-optimal goal with fewer step-cost penalties rather than exploring to find the optimal choice, even with limited experience. The results highlight the benefits of integrating LLMs with cognitive architectures, suggesting that this synergy could enhance the modeling and understanding of complex human decision-making patterns.
Related papers
- Language Models Trained to do Arithmetic Predict Human Risky and Intertemporal Choice [4.029252551781513]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-29T17:37:14Z) - Enhancing Q-Learning with Large Language Model Heuristics [0.0]
Large language models (LLMs) can achieve zero-shot learning for simpler tasks, but they suffer from low inference speeds and occasional hallucinations.
We propose textbfLLM-guided Q-learning, a framework that leverages LLMs as hallucinations to aid in learning the Q-function for reinforcement learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-06T10:42:28Z) - Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system.
We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.
We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z) - Comparing Rationality Between Large Language Models and Humans: Insights and Open Questions [6.201550639431176]
This paper focuses on the burgeoning prominence of large language models (LLMs)
We underscore the pivotal role of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in augmenting LLMs' rationality and decision-making prowess.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-14T18:36:04Z) - 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) - From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for
Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions.
Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z) - SALMON: Self-Alignment with Instructable Reward Models [80.83323636730341]
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON, to align base language models with minimal human supervision.
We develop an AI assistant named Dromedary-2 with only 6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-09T17:56:53Z) - A Novel Neural-symbolic System under Statistical Relational Learning [50.747658038910565]
We propose a general bi-level probabilistic graphical reasoning framework called GBPGR.
In GBPGR, the results of symbolic reasoning are utilized to refine and correct the predictions made by the deep learning models.
Our approach achieves high performance and exhibits effective generalization in both transductive and inductive tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-16T09:15:37Z) - Credit Assignment: Challenges and Opportunities in Developing Human-like
AI Agents [0.0]
Temporal credit assignment is crucial for learning and skill development in natural and artificial intelligence.
We use a cognitive model based on a theory of decisions from experience to test different credit assignment mechanisms in a goal-seeking navigation task.
We found that an IBL model that gives equal credit assignment to all decisions is able to match human performance better than other models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-16T23:11:26Z) - Post Hoc Explanations of Language Models Can Improve Language Models [43.2109029463221]
We present a novel framework, Amplifying Model Performance by Leveraging In-Context Learning with Post Hoc Explanations (AMPLIFY)
We leverage post hoc explanation methods which output attribution scores (explanations) capturing the influence of each of the input features on model predictions.
Our framework, AMPLIFY, leads to prediction accuracy improvements of about 10-25% over a wide range of tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-19T04:46:04Z) - Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap.
We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert.
Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
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.