Comparing Exploration–Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in complex sequential decision-making settings. 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 multiarmed bandit (MAB) experiments 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 enabling thinking traces, through both prompting strategies and thinking models, shapes LLM decision-making. We find that enabling thinking in LLMs shifts their behavior toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration. In a simple stationary setting, thinking-enabled LLMs exhibit similar levels of random and directed exploration compared with humans. However, in more complex, nonstationary 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 for improvement. History: This paper has been accepted by Yu Ding for the Virtual Special Issue on GenAI etc. for Business Analytics. Funding: The research of N. Chen was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2020-04038], and the research of V. Sarhangian was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2025-06550]. Data Ethics & Reproducibility Note: The code capsule is available at https://github.com/zzy620/LLM-exploration-exploitation and in the Supplemental Material to this article (available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijds.2025.0113 ).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
INFORMS Journal on Data Science
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1287/ijds.2025.0113
Primary Topic
Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Exploration–Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments

Rodrigo B. Mansur, Vahid Sarhangian, Ningyuan Chen, Ziyuan Zhang et al.
INFORMS Journal on Data Science
Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
article

Comparing Exploration–Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments

Rodrigo B. Mansur, Vahid Sarhangian, Ningyuan Chen, Ziyuan Zhang, Darcy Wang
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in complex sequential decision-making settings. 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 multiarmed bandit (MAB) experiments 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 enabling thinking traces, through both prompting strategies and thinking models, shapes LLM decision-making. We find that enabling thinking in LLMs shifts their behavior toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration. In a simple stationary setting, thinking-enabled LLMs exhibit similar levels of random and directed exploration compared with humans. However, in more complex, nonstationary 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 for improvement. History: This paper has been accepted by Yu Ding for the Virtual Special Issue on GenAI etc. for Business Analytics. Funding: The research of N. Chen was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2020-04038], and the research of V. Sarhangian was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2025-06550]. Data Ethics & Reproducibility Note: The code capsule is available at https://github.com/zzy620/LLM-exploration-exploitation and in the Supplemental Material to this article (available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijds.2025.0113 ).

INFORMS Journal on Data Science
University of Toronto (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.