arXiv:2606. 18005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that make consumption decisions on behalf of users.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
The study investigates how large language models (LLMs) perform in a double auction market, a common economic mechanism. By replacing human participants with LLM agents, the authors find that markets with LLMs converge more slowly or not at all, leading to less efficient resource allocations. Analysis of trading decisions reveals significant variation across model families and roles, and a lexical study of Chain-of-Thought traces links trade execution to a shift from strategic thinking to urgency.
The study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) acting as surrogate consumers are influenced by marketing pricing cues such as just‑below pricing and promotional framing. Using a tool called "Tool‑Lab" to trace information acquisition, the researchers found that when no cost is imposed, pricing cues rarely mislead LLMs, but when acquisition costs are introduced under a vague goal prompt, LLMs tend to omit important diagnostic attributes and make suboptimal choices similar to human heuristics. The findings suggest that marketing heuristics in AI‑driven shopping are shaped more by storefront information architecture than by inherent LLM limitations.
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:2607. 11632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality.
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.
The paper evaluates how Large Language Models generate preference distributions for air travel, restaurants, and consumer products. It finds that while each model produces self-coherent outcomes that stabilize quickly, there is significant disagreement across different model families and scales, with little consensus even on the most probable preferences. These discrepancies persist across various decoding strategies, temperature settings, and prompt variations, indicating that the model choice itself has a larger impact than prompt wording.