A frozen tabular foundation model reveals a common valuation geometry across risk, time and social choice: one estimated utility index on its embeddings predicts diverse MPL decisions and transfers across domains, outperforming population baselines and tuned local learners.

Main Finding

A frozen tabular foundation model (TabFM) can furnish a single, learned choice representation that—combined with one common utility index and one shock law—predicts human decisions across diverse economic domains (risk, time, losses, valuation, social allocation). Estimating one linear valuation map on the foundation representation (a single α + β⊤Πhit → Λ(·) index) recovers most of the prediction gains of the full frozen model, transfers across domains, and reproduces the joint correlation structure of behavioural measures. Shuffling visible choices across people destroys the predictive gain, implicating within-decision-maker coherence rather than marginal task effects.

Key Points

• Architecture (three components)
  • Frozen encoder Φω (TabFM checkpoint) maps (profile, visible choices, task description, labelled peer context) → hit ∈ R^2048.
  • One common valuation index: git = α + β⊤Πhit, µit = Λ(git) ∈ [0,1].
  • Systematic utility on the learned choice domain M = R^p × [0,1]: Vθ(eit(r)) = −|st(r) − µit|.
  • Common shock law: type-I extreme value shocks → conditional logit (softmax) choice probabilities; modal forecast = nearest feasible st(r) to µit.
• Empirical tests (three-part)
• Frozen TabFM must beat a population-median baseline (matched for target/context).
• That advantage must vanish if visible choices are shuffled across participants (marginals preserved but coherence removed).
• The same frozen checkpoint must serve every target (one portable model, not many target-specific fits).
• Predictive performance (selected results)
  • TabFM (frozen) reduces mean absolute switch-row error by 17% vs training-population median.
  • The hybrid (one linear valuation map on TabFM representation) places 65.83% of choices within two rows versus 40.42% for the population median and 71.04% for TabFM’s nonlinear decoder.
  • The common-index hybrid retains ~85% of TabFM’s improvement over the population forecast (normalized error).
  • When every outcome from a target domain is excluded during valuation estimation, accuracy still is 63.16% and the hybrid retains ~78% of the original improvement—evidence of cross-domain transfer.
  • The hybrid reproduces the joint ordering of behavioural constructs: measurement-error-corrected correlation matrix rank-correlation 0.939 with observed matrix (0.935 when estimating valuation excluding the target domain).
• Robustness & benchmarks
  • Reassigning visible choices across decision makers destroys the predictive gain (shows the gain depends on within-person behavioural history).
  • TabFM (frozen) outperforms locally trained learners (Extra Trees, tuned CatBoost) given identical features and context.
  • Replication on the Self Regulation Ontology (37 tasks) yields the same operational conclusion.
• Interpretation: the result separates three objects—(i) a learned, common choice domain (representation), (ii) one systematic utility function mapping that domain to value, and (iii) a random component generating stochastic choice—placing classical random-utility structure on top of a foundation-model embedding.

Data & Methods

• Data
  • Chapman et al. (Econographics) replication: 26 multiple-price-list (MPL) screens, 1,000 U.S. adults (YouGov sample), covering eight operational domains: known risk, ambiguity, compound lotteries, probability weighting, time discounting, valuation (WTA/WTP), gains/losses, and distributional preferences.
  • Each observed outcome Yit = switch row where participant switches to the right-hand option (or never switch).
  • Auxiliary profile covariates available (demographics, cognition, CRT items, metacognition); but core tests separate choices-only and profile-only contributions.
  • Original train/val/test split: 800 / 100 / 100; confirmatory held-out test uses the 100 test participants once with a precommitment protocol.
• Representation & estimation
  • Frozen foundation encoder: TabFM checkpoint (ω), output hit ∈ R^2048 taken immediately before TabFM’s nonlinear decoder; ω is fixed throughout.
  • Fixed random linear projection Π ∈ R^{k×p} (k = 128) with entries N(0,1/k), seed locked; maps 2048 → 128 coordinates.
  • Estimation target: continuous logit-transformed corrected share eyit = log((Cit + 1/2)/(Kt − Cit + 1/2)), where Cit = number of rows with option A chosen.
  • Fit ridge regression (penalized least squares) over (eyit) to find (α, β) (equation (10)), with participant-grouped 4-fold CV for λ selection; intercept unpenalized.
  • Point modal forecast is nearest feasible st(r) to µit (ties to smallest switch code). κ normalized to 1 (so probabilities not calibrated; focus is on modal accuracy).
• Tests performed
  • Full-sample fit and leave-domain-out fit: (i) estimate α,β using all domains, (ii) estimate α,β with one domain’s outcomes removed and then predict that domain.
  • Shuffle test: Independently reassign visible task outcomes across participants (preserving marginals) and re-evaluate predictive performance.
  • Benchmarks: population-median baseline, local nonlinear learners (Extra Trees, CatBoost) trained on the same features and contexts.
  • Cross-task covariance decomposition (equation (9)) to examine whether cross-domain correlations arise from systematic utility variation vs residual shocks.
• Computational & reproducibility notes
  • Foundation weights frozen; the model is not fine-tuned on Econographics.
  • TabFM pretrained on synthetic tables (Kong & Das, 2026).
  • Projection Π and random seeds reported; estimation uses 800 training participants; two-fold participant-grouped outer folds used to keep predictions out-of-sample by person.

Implications for AI Economics

• Practical utility of foundation models
  • Foundation models can provide a portable, rich choice-state embedding that supports a single, simple economic valuation layer (random utility) delivering strong cross-domain predictive performance.
  • This suggests a concrete path for leveraging pretrained encoders to unify modelling across disparate economic choice tasks without crafting separate domain-specific representations.
• Structural interpretation & measurement
  • Behavioral constructs (risk aversion, time preference, loss aversion, inequality aversion) can be reconceptualized as constraints or parametric restrictions on a composite map from primitives → encoder state → common utility, rather than as separate domain-specific utility functions.
  • The approach supports unified measurement and reproduces joint correlation geometry of multiple behavioral measures, aiding comparative and latent-trait analyses.
• Transfer, external validity, and limits
  • The common utility map transfers across domains (even when target-domain outcomes are excluded), but it is estimated from sample data—so current implementation demonstrates portability of an estimated utility map, not a frozen in-context learner that constructs µit purely from context without sample estimation.
  • Policy/counterfactual analysis still needs stability of the learned representation Φω under changes in payoffs or information; the paper flags this as the remaining step (a pre-trained valuation learner Aη that updates θit from context without refitting).
  • The method requires labelled examples of the target task in context (the frozen TabFM still used 100 labelled target examples as context), so it is not pure zero-shot economic valuation.
• Methodological & normative cautions
  • Interpretability: the foundation representation is high-dimensional and opaque; economic interpretation of β, or of behavioural parameters mapped through Φω, may be challenging.
  • Sample dependence and fairness: the valuation map is estimated on a particular human sample; generalization to different populations or incentive/ institutional contexts requires care.
  • Invariance and Lucas-critique issues: fixing α,β after estimation does not guarantee policy invariance; a universal structural model needs an explicit in-context valuation learner that preserves interpretability and causal meaning under counterfactuals.
• Research agenda enabled
  • Develop explicit pre-trained valuation learners (Aη) that infer utility indices from context without refitting, enabling true in-context economic valuation.
  • Use foundation representations to search for parsimonious parametric restrictions that correspond to classical preference parameters (risk curvature, discounting, loss asymmetry).
  • Explore robustness across populations, incentive formats, and structural policy interventions to evaluate representation stability and the welfare interpretability of the learned utility map.

Summary takeaway: A frozen tabular foundation model supplies a rich, shared choice embedding such that a single simple random-utility valuation layer explains and predicts decisions across many economic domains, revealing a promising route toward unified behavioural modelling—while highlighting important gaps (in-context valuation learning, invariance, interpretability) to be addressed before deploying such hybrids for policy or welfare analysis.