The Nature of Decision-Making: Human Behavior vs. Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial agents have often been compared to humans in their ability to categorize images or play strategic games. However, comparisons between human and artificial agents are frequently based on the overall performance on a particular task, and not necessarily on the specifics of how each agent behaves. In this study, we directly compared human behaviour with a reinforcement learning (RL) model. Human participants and an RL agent navigated through different grid world environments with high- and low- value targets. The artificial agent consisted of a deep neural network trained to map pixel input of a 27x27 grid world into cardinal directions using RL. An epsilon greedy policy was used to maximize reward. Behaviour of both agents was evaluated on four different conditions. Results showed both humans and RL agents consistently chose the higher reward over a lower reward, demonstrating an understanding of the task. Though both humans and RL agents consider movement cost for reward, the machine agent considers the movement costs more, trading off the effort with reward differently than humans. We found humans and RL agents both consider long-term rewards as they navigate through the world, yet unlike humans, the RL model completely disregards limitations in movements (e.g. how many total moves received). Finally, we rotated pseudorandom grid arrangements to study how decisions change with visual differences. We unexpectedly found that the RL agent changed its behaviour due to visual rotations, yet remained less variable than humans. Overall, the similarities between humans and the RL agent shows the potential RL agents have of being an adequate model of human behaviour. Additionally, the differences between human and RL agents suggest improvements to RL methods that may improve their performance. This research compares the human mind with artificial intelligence, creating the opportunity for future innovation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".