The paper introduces a decision‑theoretic framework that elicits both probability judgments and decisions from large language models (LLMs) to test whether their reported beliefs are consistent with their actions. It shows that this framework yields empirically testable conditions without assuming a specific utility function. In clinical diagnosis simulations, the authors find that while LLMs’ reported beliefs are not perfect reflections of the information in their decisions, the discrepancies are small for the strongest models.
By Khurram Yamin, Jingjing Tang, Santiago Cortes-Gomez, Amit Sharma, Eric Horvitz, Bryan Wilder
arXiv:2606. 22974v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure.
By Yujun Zhou, Christopher M. Ackerman
arXiv:2606. 02671v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning predictors have become essential tools for guiding automated decision making.
By Itai Zilberstein, Ioannis Anagnostides, Tuomas Sandholm
arXiv:2601. 17642v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones.
By Zhihao Zhang, Liting Huang, Guanghao Wu, Preslav Nakov, Heng Ji, Usman Naseem
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
By Maryam Tahermazandarani, Adnan Mahmood, Fahmida Islam, Quan Z. Sheng
arXiv:2508. 08992v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty.
By Rui Wang, Qihan Lin, Jiayu Liu, Qing Zong, Tianshi Zheng, Dadi Guo, Haochen Shi, Peixuan Han, Weiqi Wang, Yangqiu Song
arXiv:2506. 21887v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High-stakes decision-making involves navigating multiple competing objectives with expensive evaluations.
By Edward Chen, Sang T. Truong, Natalie Dullerud, Sanmi Koyejo, Carlos Guestrin
The study presents a benchmark of 208 rare‑disease clinical vignettes to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) handle ethically charged decision‑making. Across 11 state‑of‑the‑art LLMs, the models consistently favored justice—specifically equal resource allocation—over other bioethical principles such as beneficence, non‑maleficence, and autonomy. The authors also found that the framing of authority (committee vs. clinician vs. patient) influences which ethical principle the models prioritize, suggesting that institutional pressures may shape LLM decision support in rare‑disease care.
By Minda Zhao, Xu Han, Rishabh Goel, Maya Dagan, Noa Dagan, Adithya Madduri, Payal Chandak, Shilpa Nadimpalli Kobren, Isaac S. Kohane
arXiv:2608.10725v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often rely on shortcuts rather than systematic reasoning, raising safety concerns in medical applications. Allowing mo...
By Uma Ranjan, Kunal Tilaganji, Aditya Koul, Anurag Mahipal, Dashpreet Singh, Hriday Rana, Manan Jain, Sidharth Gupta, Ajo Babu George, Vineeth Balasubramanian, Nagarajan Natarajan, Amit Sharma
The paper introduces P4-DT, a personalized patient preference predictor that uses dilemma training to elicit context‑dependent decision reasoning. In a study of 12 patient‑surrogate pairs, P4‑DT achieved 81.7% accuracy in predicting patient treatment choices, outperforming unassisted surrogates (55.0%) and surrogates aided by a simpler P4 model (61.7%). The authors show that incorporating contextual scenarios and open‑ended text into prompts improves accuracy by 15 percentage points over static value ratings.
By Natasha Ureyang, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Yuxin Liu, Zuriel Hassirim, Melanie Almonte, Wenhao Chen, Joyce Ng, Thant Nay Lin, Aung Thiha, Gerald CH Koh, Brian David Earp, Pin Sym Foong
In serious illness, human surrogates often struggle to accurately predict patient preferences (68% accuracy), causing decision conflict. Personalized Patient Preference Predictor (P4) agents offer a p...
arXiv:2606. 11016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We ask whether large language models (LLMs) merely imitate rationales when choosing between two options, or whether their choices reflect a systematic underlying decision structure.
By Gabriel Freedman, Francesca Toni