Bernoulli, D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk (original 1738). Econometrica 22, 23–36 (1954).
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992).
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979).
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, 1947).
Erev, I., Ert, E., Plonsky, O., Cohen, D. & Cohen, O. From anomalies to forecasts: toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience. Psychol. Rev. 124, 369–409 (2017).
Google Scholar
He, L., Analytis, P. P. & Bhatia, S. The wisdom of model crowds. Manag. Sci. 68, 3635–3659 (2022).
Peterson, J. C., Bourgin, D. D., Agrawal, M., Reichman, D. & Griffiths, T. L. Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science 372, 1209–1214 (2021).
Google Scholar
Altman, A., Bercovici-Boden, A. & Tennenholtz, M. Learning in one-shot strategic form games. In European Conference on Machine Learning (eds Fürnkranz, J. et al.) 6–17 (Springer, 2006).
Hartford, J. S., Wright, J. R. & Leyton-Brown, K. Deep learning for predicting human strategic behavior. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Lee, D. et al.) 2424–2432 (2016).
Halevy, A., Norvig, P. & Pereira, F. The unreasonable effectiveness of data. IEEE Intell. Syst. 24, 8–12 (2009).
Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 484 (2016).
Google Scholar
Peysakhovich, A. & Naecker, J. Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 133, 373–384 (2017).
Fudenberg, D. & Liang, A. Predicting and understanding initial play. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 4112–4141 (2019).
Fudenberg, D., Kleinberg, J., Liang, A. & Mullainathan, S. Measuring the completeness of economic models. J. Polit. Econ. 130, 956–990 (2022).
Agrawal, M., Peterson, J. C. & Griffiths, T. L. Scaling up psychology via scientific regret minimization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8825–8835 (2020).
Google Scholar
Plonsky, O., Erev, I., Hazan, T. & Tennenholtz, M. Psychological forest: predicting human behavior. In The Thirty-FirstAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Vol. 31, 656–662 (AAAI Press, 2017).
Bourgin, D. D., Peterson, J. C., Reichman, D., Russell, S. J. & Griffiths, T. L. Cognitive model priors for predicting human decisions. In International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Chaudhuri, K. & Salakhutdinov, R.) 5133–5141 (PMLR, 2019).
Plonsky, O., Apel, R., Erev, I., Ert, E. & Tennenholtz, M. When and how can social scientists add value to data scientists? A choice prediction competition for human decision making. Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2X3VT (2018).
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 785–794 (ACM, 2016).
Zhou, K., Liu, Z., Qiao, Y., Xiang, T. & Loy, C. C. Domain generalization: a survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45, 4396–4415 (2022).
Savage, L. J. The Foundations of Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, 1954).
Allais, M. Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 21, 503–546 (1953).
Ellsberg, D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961).
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D. & Meehl, P. E. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243, 1668–1674 (1989).
Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. Expert measurement and mechanical combination. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 7, 86–106 (1972).
Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S.-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 4765–4774 (2017).
Thomas, T. et al. Modelling dataset bias in machine-learned theories of economic decision-making. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01784-6 (2024).
Shoshan, V., Hazan, T. & Plonsky, O. BEAST-Net: Learning novel behavioral insights using a neural network adaptation of a behavioral model. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kaeny/ (2023).
Stewart, N., Reimers, S. & Harris, A. J. L. On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: how they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Manag. Sci. 61, 687–705 (2015).
Spektor, M. S., Bhatia, S. & Gluth, S. The elusiveness of context effects in decision making. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 843–854 (2021).
Google Scholar
Heilprin, E. & Erev, I. The relative importance of the contrast and assimilation effects in decisions under risk. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 37, e2408 (2024).
Blanchard, G., Deshmukh, A. A., Dogan, U., Lee, G. & Scott, C. Domain generalization by marginal transfer learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 1–55 (2021).
Andrews, I., Fudenberg, D., Liang, A. & Wu, C. The transfer performance of economic models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04796 (2022).
Dwork, C. et al. The reusable holdout: preserving validity in adaptive data analysis. Science 349, 636–638 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hofman, J. M. et al. Integrating explanation and prediction in computational social science. Nature 595, 181–188 (2021).
Google Scholar
Agassi, O. D. & Plonsky, O. The importance of non-analytic models in decision making research: an empirical analysis using BEAST. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (eds Goldwater, M. et al.) 45 (2023).
Yarkoni, T. & Westfall, J. Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: lessons from machine learning. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1100–1122 (2017).
Google Scholar
Shafir, S., Reich, T., Tsur, E., Erev, I. & Lotem, A. Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour. Nature 453, 917–920 (2008).
Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S. & Blais, A.-R. Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychol. Rev. 111, 430 (2004).
Google Scholar
Plonsky, O. & Erev, I. Prediction oriented behavioral research and its relationship to classical decision research. Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7uha4 (2021).
d’Eon, G., Greenwood, S., Leyton-Brown, K. & Wright, J. R. How to evaluate behavioral models. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Vol. 38, 9636–9644 (AAAI Press, 2024).
Agassi, O. D. & Plonsky, O. Beyond analytic bounds: re-evaluating predictive power in risky decision models. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 19, e35 (2024).
Erev, I., Ert, E., Plonsky, O. & Roth, Y. Contradictory deviations from maximization: environment-specific biases, or reflections of basic properties of human learning? Psychol. Rev. 130, 640–676 (2023).
Google Scholar
Plonsky, O., Teodorescu, K. & Erev, I. Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning. Psychol. Rev. 122, 621–647 (2015).
Google Scholar
Erev, I. & Marx, A. Humans as intuitive classifiers. Front. Psychol. 13, 1041737 (2023).
Google Scholar
Liu, Y. & Just, A. SHAPforxgboost: SHAP Plots for ‘XGBoost’. R Package Version 0.1.3 (CRAN, 2023).
Ert, E. & Erev, I. On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: six clarifications. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8, 214–235 (2013).
Thaler, R. H. & Johnson, E. J. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manag. Sci. 36, 643–660 (1990).
Payne, J. W. It is whether you win or lose: the importance of the overall probabilities of winning or losing in risky choice. J. Risk Uncertain. 30, 5–19 (2005).
Birnbaum, M. H. New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychol. Rev. 115, 463–501 (2008).
Google Scholar
Barron, G. & Erev, I. Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 16, 215–233 (2003).
Busemeyer, J. R. & Townsend, J. T. Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol. Rev. 100, 432–459 (1993).
Google Scholar
Diederich, A. & Busemeyer, J. R. Conflict and the stochastic-dominance principle of decision making. Psychol. Sci. 10, 353–359 (1999).
Canty, A. & Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R Package Version 1.3-28.1 (CRAN, 2022).
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G. & Hertwig, R. The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. Psychol. Rev. 113, 409–432 (2006).
Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N. & Brown, G. D. A. Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol. 53, 1–26 (2006).
Google Scholar
Fiedler, S. & Glöckner, A. The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: an eye-tracking analysis. Front. Psychol. 3, 335 (2012).
Google Scholar
Rieskamp, J. The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34, 1446–1465 (2008).
Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Hermens, F. & Matthews, W. J. Eye movements in risky choice. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29, 116–136 (2016).
Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R. O. & Hertwig, R. Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 147–169 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Mata, R. & Hertwig, R. Who dares, who errs? Disentangling cognitive and motivational roots of age differences in decisions under risk. Psychol. Sci. 28, 504–518 (2017).
Google Scholar
