IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i4d10.1038_s41562-023-01784-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling dataset bias in machine-learned theories of economic decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Thomas

    (Technical University of Darmstadt
    Hessian Center for Artificial Intelligence)

  • Dominik Straub

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Fabian Tatai

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Megan Shene

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Tümer Tosik

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Kristian Kersting

    (Hessian Center for Artificial Intelligence
    Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Constantin A. Rothkopf

    (Technical University of Darmstadt
    Hessian Center for Artificial Intelligence)

Abstract

Normative and descriptive models have long vied to explain and predict human risky choices, such as those between goods or gambles. A recent study reported the discovery of a new, more accurate model of human decision-making by training neural networks on a new online large-scale dataset, choices13k. Here we systematically analyse the relationships between several models and datasets using machine-learning methods and find evidence for dataset bias. Because participants’ choices in stochastically dominated gambles were consistently skewed towards equipreference in the choices13k dataset, we hypothesized that this reflected increased decision noise. Indeed, a probabilistic generative model adding structured decision noise to a neural network trained on data from a laboratory study transferred best, that is, outperformed all models apart from those trained on choices13k. We conclude that a careful combination of theory and data analysis is still required to understand the complex interactions of machine-learning models and data of human risky choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Thomas & Dominik Straub & Fabian Tatai & Megan Shene & Tümer Tosik & Kristian Kersting & Constantin A. Rothkopf, 2024. "Modelling dataset bias in machine-learned theories of economic decision-making," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(4), pages 679-691, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-023-01784-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01784-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01784-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-023-01784-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitmore, G A, 1970. "Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 457-459, June.
    2. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," I4R Discussion Paper Series 8, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    3. Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool & Jonas Adler & Zachary Wu & Tim Green & Michal Zielinski & Augustin Žídek & Alex Bridgland & Andrew Cowie & Clemens Meyer & Agata Laydon & Sameer Velankar & Gerard J. Kleywegt, 2021. "Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome," Nature, Nature, vol. 596(7873), pages 590-596, August.
    4. Douglas M. Gale & Shachar Kariv & Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman, 2007. "Revealing Preferences Graphically: An Old Method Gets a New Tool Kit," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 153-158, May.
    5. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    7. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    8. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    9. John Jumper & Richard Evans & Alexander Pritzel & Tim Green & Michael Figurnov & Olaf Ronneberger & Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool & Russ Bates & Augustin Žídek & Anna Potapenko & Alex Bridgland & Clemens Me, 2021. "Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold," Nature, Nature, vol. 596(7873), pages 583-589, August.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    13. Julian Kates-Harbeck & Alexey Svyatkovskiy & William Tang, 2019. "Predicting disruptive instabilities in controlled fusion plasmas through deep learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 568(7753), pages 526-531, April.
    14. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    15. Bawa, Vijay S., 1975. "Optimal rules for ordering uncertain prospects," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 95-121, March.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2007. "Tests of branch splitting and branch-splitting independence in Allais paradoxes with positive and mixed consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 154-173, March.
    17. Sebastian Lapuschkin & Stephan Wäldchen & Alexander Binder & Grégoire Montavon & Wojciech Samek & Klaus-Robert Müller, 2019. "Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    18. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    19. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    20. Berna Devezer & Luis G Nardin & Bert Baumgaertner & Erkan Ozge Buzbas, 2019. "Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    21. Decebal Constantin Mocanu & Elena Mocanu & Peter Stone & Phuong H. Nguyen & Madeleine Gibescu & Antonio Liotta, 2018. "Scalable training of artificial neural networks with adaptive sparse connectivity inspired by network science," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    2. Wakker, Peter P., 2023. "A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Hildebrandt, Patrick & Knoke, Thomas, 2011. "Investment decisions under uncertainty--A methodological review on forest science studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Bernard, Carole & Chen, Jit Seng & Vanduffel, Steven, 2015. "Rationalizing investors’ choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-23.
    5. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Enrico Diecidue & Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2020. "Probability Dominance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1006-1020, December.
    7. Fong, Wai Mun, 2016. "Stochastic dominance and the omega ratio," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 7-9.
    8. Behnam Malakooti & Mohamed Komaki & Camelia Al-Najjar, 2021. "Basic Geometric Dispersion Theory of Decision Making Under Risk: Asymmetric Risk Relativity, New Predictions of Empirical Behaviors, and Risk Triad," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 41-77, March.
    9. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    10. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    11. Fong, Wai Mun & Lean, Hooi Hooi & Wong, Wing Keung, 2008. "Stochastic dominance and behavior towards risk: The market for Internet stocks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 194-208, October.
    12. Courage Ose Eburajolo & Sunday Oseiweh Ogbeide, 2021. "An Empirical Analysis of Stochastic Dominance and Portfolio Selection in the Stock Market: Evidence from Nigeria," Business & Management Compass, University of Economics Varna, issue 4, pages 412-428.
    13. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    14. Giselle Moraes Ramos & Winnie Daamen & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2014. "A State-of-the-Art Review: Developments in Utility Theory, Prospect Theory and Regret Theory to Investigate Travellers' Behaviour in Situations Involving Travel Time Uncertainty," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 46-67, January.
    15. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    16. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    17. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    20. Yudhvir Seetharam, 2013. "Do Mutual Funds Attract the Right Investor? A Stochastic Dominance Approach," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 5(12), pages 905-914.
    21. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-023-01784-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.