ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Large language models accurately identify decision reasons in verbal reports.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large language models accurately identify decision reasons in verbal reports.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the reasons behind human choices under risk is a central goal of decision scientists, but traditional methods relying on behavioral data are limited by strict invariance assumptions. We introduce a scalable analytical framework using large language models (LLMs) to analyze verbal reports and identify articulated reasons for choice between monetary lotteries. A validated LLM accurately identified predefined decision reasons in participants' free-text reports, aligning with their actual choices in 95% of trials. Our analysis reveals that the reasons behind people's decisions vary systematically and are driven more by the structure of the choice problem than by individual differences. Crucially, reasons identified from verbal reports yield more parsimonious and informative representations of decision processes compared to those inferred from choices alone; furthermore, problem-specific reason profiles achieve out-of-sample prediction accuracy that is competitive with established computational models. This work demonstrates that verbal reports are a rich data source and our analytical framework can unlock their potential, delivering results that challenge the field's foundational invariance assumptions and pave the way for more context-sensitive and interpretable models of human decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.