arXiv AI By Manon Reusens, Sofie Goethals, Toon Calders, David Martens

Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2602. 09802v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications such as travel assistance and purchasing support, they are often required to make subjective choices on behalf of users in settings where no objectively correct answer exists.

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.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Do LLMs Choose Like Humans? Using Cognitive Theory to Evaluate LLM Decision-Making

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
arXiv AI
Jul 28

Rethinking Prospect Theory for LLMs: Revealing the Instability of Decision-Making under Epistemic Uncertainty

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