Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context (2406.05972v2)

Published 10 Jun 2024 in cs.AI, cs.CY, cs.HC, cs.LG, and econ.TH

Abstract: When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from rational behavior, which can be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion. Given the widespread use of LLMs in decision-making processes, it is crucial to assess whether their behavior aligns with human norms and ethical expectations or exhibits potential biases. Several empirical studies have investigated the rationality and social behavior performance of LLMs, yet their internal decision-making tendencies and capabilities remain inadequately understood. This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of LLMs. Through a multiple-choice-list experiment, we estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities. However, there are significant variations in the degree to which these behaviors are expressed across different LLMs. We also explore their behavior when embedded with socio-demographic features, uncovering significant disparities. For instance, when modeled with attributes of sexual minority groups or physical disabilities, Claude-3-Opus displays increased risk aversion, leading to more conservative choices. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and potential biases in deploying LLMs in decision-making scenarios. Therefore, this study advocates for developing standards and guidelines to ensure that LLMs operate within ethical boundaries while enhancing their utility in complex decision-making environments.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Jingru Jia (3 papers)
  2. Zehua Yuan (3 papers)
  3. Junhao Pan (5 papers)
  4. Deming Chen (62 papers)
  5. Paul E. McNamara (2 papers)
Citations (3)
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com