The study tests deliberately biased AI assistants and finds that such bias improves human performance on tasks like misinformation evaluation, financial investment, and graduate education compared to neutral AI. However, participants undervalue biased AI and overvalue neutral AI, even when performance is similar. When two AI biases flank a participant’s perspective, performance gains are maintained while reducing the perceived cost and one‑sided influence.
By Shiyang Lai, Jiwoong Choi, Junsol Kim, Nadav Kunievsky, Yujin Potter, James Evans
arXiv:2607. 11632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality.
By Jiangtao Han, Shoufeng Ma, Shuxian Xu, Geng Li, Shuai Ling, Ning Jia, Zhengbing He
S1CogBench is a new benchmark that evaluates System One decision models—typed decision models like Jev and Laya—on 24 cognitive tasks. It tests whether these models can use evidence, respond to feedback, handle memory load, and anticipate future opportunities, while keeping conditions and scoring separate from any disclosed adaptations. The study finds wide variability in reliability among decision models, shows that good performance does not guarantee human-like predictions, and reveals that speed largely stems from generating decisions without text output.
By Dengzhe Hou, Kazunori D Yamada
arXiv:2608. 14161v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs exhibit social biases that can produce inaccurate and discriminatory inferences, posing risks in high-stakes applications.
By Varsha Ramineni, Hossein A. Rahmani, Jerome Ramos, Karin Sevegnani, Emine Yilmaz
The paper introduces a comprehensive audit protocol for System One decision models, which provide typed, probability‑scored answers without human oversight. Using three adapted benchmarks—BBQ, CrowS‑Pairs, and SilverSpoon—it evaluates twelve models plus a no‑thinking baseline across 1,638,000 decisions, revealing widespread stereotype alignment, order‑dependent responses, and confidence instability. The study demonstrates that swapping answer options and reversing question order significantly alters model outputs, underscoring the need for order‑invariant scoring in procurement.
By Alejandro Mozo Quesada (Universidad de M\'alaga, Spain), Sergio G\'alvez Rojas (Universidad de M\'alaga, Spain), Francisco L\'opez Valverde (Universidad de M\'alaga, Spain)
Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT) has been widely recognized as an effective framework for characterizing such behavioral patterns.
arXiv:2604. 24155v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making?
By Benjamin Minhao Chen, Xinyu Xie
arXiv:2610.35826v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Selection bias in large language models (LLMs) can persist despite instructions to ignore presentation order or prompts that elicit reasoning. Recent e...
By Mingyang Song, Mao Zheng, Zhiyuan Ma, Xinpeng Zhou
TypedBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate system‑one decision models that output calibrated probabilities for typed answers—categorical, ordinal, or binary—using a non‑generative interface. The benchmark assesses models on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality (via selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and calibration error), and the cost of decisions under asymmetric cost matrices, using seven policy‑labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. Experiments on a hosted model, an open encoder, and a range of open decoders (0.8B–9B parameters) reveal that the hosted model is wording‑sensitive and underconfident, while decoders are slow and less accurate on policy questions, highlighting the need for joint evaluation across multiple dimensions.
By Rahul Sharma, Andrew B. Ducan, Ga\'etan Marceau Caron, Sebastian J. Vollmer
Random selection is widely used in resource allocation and auditing, making reliable implementation essential for AI-agent systems. Behavioural tests across six reasoning models uncovered threshold an...
JevOut demonstrates that natural, short additions to the context of decision models can flip their outputs from correct to incorrect, even when the correct answer remains unchanged. By optimizing context additions while keeping the source, question, choices, and gold answer fixed, the study found that 61.4% of initially correct decisions were redirected to a wrong option, with 45% receiving high confidence. Similar fragility was observed across three other decision systems on seven datasets, with flip rates between 64.9% and 73.2%.
By Zixiang Xu
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) make decisions in ways that mirror human cognition. Using a new 140,000-trial product choice benchmark, the authors test 12 open‑source and commercial LLMs to see if their context sensitivity aligns with a cognitive economic theory that relies on problem categorization and attention allocation. While context prompts human‑like shifts in choice and problem categorization, it does not consistently reweight attention between features such as price and quality, and neither scaling nor chain‑of‑thought reasoning produces human‑like behavior. The findings indicate that LLM decision mechanisms differ from those of humans.
By Johnathan Sun, Andrei Shleifer, Yonatan Belinkov