Comparing Exploration-Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-armed Bandit Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09901v1
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 02:09:18 GMT
• Title: Comparing Exploration-Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-armed Bandit Tasks
• Authors: Ziyuan Zhang, Darcy Wang, Ningyuan Chen, Rodrigo Mansur, Vahid Sarhangian,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in sequential decision-making tasks.<n>We focus on the exploration-exploitation (E&E) tradeoff, a fundamental aspect of dynamic decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We find that reasoning shifts LLMs toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration.
• Score: 6.355245936740126
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in complex sequential decision-making tasks. A natural question is then whether LLMs exhibit similar decision-making behavior to humans, and can achieve comparable (or superior) performance. In this work, we focus on the exploration-exploitation (E&E) tradeoff, a fundamental aspect of dynamic decision-making under uncertainty. We employ canonical multi-armed bandit (MAB) tasks introduced in the cognitive science and psychiatry literature to conduct a comparative study of the E&E strategies of LLMs, humans, and MAB algorithms. We use interpretable choice models to capture the E&E strategies of the agents and investigate how explicit reasoning, through both prompting strategies and reasoning-enhanced models, shapes LLM decision-making. We find that reasoning shifts LLMs toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration. In simple stationary tasks, reasoning-enabled LLMs exhibit similar levels of random and directed exploration compared to humans. However, in more complex, non-stationary environments, LLMs struggle to match human adaptability, particularly in effective directed exploration, despite achieving similar regret in certain scenarios. Our findings highlight both the promise and limits of LLMs as simulators of human behavior and tools for automated decision-making and point to potential areas of improvements.

Related papers

• Beyond Nash Equilibrium: Bounded Rationality of LLMs and humans in Strategic Decision-making [33.2843381902912]
  Large language models are increasingly used in strategic decision-making settings.<n>We compare LLMs and humans using experimental paradigms adapted from behavioral game-theory research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T04:43:54Z)
• LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilities [21.42711537107199]
  We study why Large Language Models (LLMs) perform sub-optimally in decision-making scenarios.<n>We propose mitigation of these shortcomings by fine-tuning via Reinforcement Learning (RL) on self-generated CoT rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T17:57:14Z)
• Scaling Autonomous Agents via Automatic Reward Modeling And Planning [52.39395405893965]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of tasks.<n>However, they still struggle with problems requiring multi-step decision-making and environmental feedback.<n>We propose a framework that can automatically learn a reward model from the environment without human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:49:25Z)
• Large Language Models Think Too Fast To Explore Effectively [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged with many intellectual capacities.<n>This study investigates whether LLMs can surpass humans in exploration during an open-ended task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T21:51:17Z)
• EVOLvE: Evaluating and Optimizing LLMs For Exploration [76.66831821738927]
  Large language models (LLMs) remain under-studied in scenarios requiring optimal decision-making under uncertainty. We measure LLMs' (in)ability to make optimal decisions in bandits, a state-less reinforcement learning setting relevant to many applications. Motivated by the existence of optimal exploration algorithms, we propose efficient ways to integrate this algorithmic knowledge into LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:54:03Z)
• Cognitive LLMs: Towards Integrating Cognitive Architectures and Large Language Models for Manufacturing Decision-making [51.737762570776006]
  LLM-ACTR is a novel neuro-symbolic architecture that provides human-aligned and versatile decision-making. Our framework extracts and embeds knowledge of ACT-R's internal decision-making process as latent neural representations. Our experiments on novel Design for Manufacturing tasks show both improved task performance as well as improved grounded decision-making capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T11:49:53Z)
• Meta Reasoning for Large Language Models [58.87183757029041]
  We introduce Meta-Reasoning Prompting (MRP), a novel and efficient system prompting method for large language models (LLMs) MRP guides LLMs to dynamically select and apply different reasoning methods based on the specific requirements of each task. We evaluate the effectiveness of MRP through comprehensive benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T16:14:11Z)
• 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.<n>Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases.<n>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)
• LanguageMPC: Large Language Models as Decision Makers for Autonomous Driving [84.31119464141631]
  This work employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as a decision-making component for complex autonomous driving scenarios.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that our proposed method not only consistently surpasses baseline approaches in single-vehicle tasks, but also helps handle complex driving behaviors even multi-vehicle coordination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T17:59:49Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.