Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

LLM Agents Display Human Biases but Exhibit Distinct Learning Patterns

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.10248 v1 pith:ZBLHLHHG submitted 2025-03-13 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords llmschoicehumanspatternsbehaviorbiaseseventsexhibit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IFScale measures instruction-following at densities from 10 to 500 constraints and finds that even top frontier models satisfy only about two-thirds of 500 simultaneous keyword instructions.

Pith tools