Evaluating and Aligning Human Economic Risk Preferences in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06646v1
• Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 14:47:31 GMT
• Title: Evaluating and Aligning Human Economic Risk Preferences in LLMs
• Authors: Jiaxin Liu, Yi Yang, Kar Yan Tam,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit risk preferences consistent with human expectations across different personas.<n>Our results reveal that while LLMs make reasonable decisions in simplified, personalized risk contexts, their performance declines in more complex economic decision-making tasks.<n>Our approach improves the economic rationality of LLMs in risk-related applications, offering a step toward more human-aligned AI decision-making.
• Score: 19.574432889355627
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making scenarios that involve risk assessment, yet their alignment with human economic rationality remains unclear. In this study, we investigate whether LLMs exhibit risk preferences consistent with human expectations across different personas. Specifically, we assess whether LLM-generated responses reflect appropriate levels of risk aversion or risk-seeking behavior based on individual's persona. Our results reveal that while LLMs make reasonable decisions in simplified, personalized risk contexts, their performance declines in more complex economic decision-making tasks. To address this, we propose an alignment method designed to enhance LLM adherence to persona-specific risk preferences. Our approach improves the economic rationality of LLMs in risk-related applications, offering a step toward more human-aligned AI decision-making.

Related papers

• Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agents [67.07177243654485]
  This survey collects and analyzes the different threats faced by large language models-based agents. We identify six key features of LLM-based agents, based on which we summarize the current research progress. We select four representative agents as case studies to analyze the risks they may face in practical use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T15:40:04Z)
• Quantifying Risk Propensities of Large Language Models: Ethical Focus and Bias Detection through Role-Play [0.43512163406552007]
  As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more prevalent, concerns about their safety, ethics, and potential biases have risen. This study innovatively applies the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale from cognitive science to LLMs. We propose a novel Ethical Decision-Making Risk Attitude Scale (EDRAS) to assess LLMs' ethical risk attitudes in depth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T15:55:21Z)
• Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context [5.361970694197912]
  This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs) 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T02:14:19Z)
• CRiskEval: A Chinese Multi-Level Risk Evaluation Benchmark Dataset for Large Language Models [46.93425758722059]
  CRiskEval is a Chinese dataset meticulously designed for gauging the risk proclivities inherent in large language models (LLMs) We define a new risk taxonomy with 7 types of frontier risks and 4 safety levels, including extremely hazardous,moderately hazardous, neutral and safe. The dataset consists of 14,888 questions that simulate scenarios related to predefined 7 types of frontier risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T08:52:24Z)
• How Ethical Should AI Be? How AI Alignment Shapes the Risk Preferences of LLMs [0.0]
  This study examines the risk preferences of Large Language Models (LLMs) and how aligning them with human ethical standards affects their economic decision-making. We find that aligning LLMs with human values, focusing on harmlessness, helpfulness, and honesty, shifts them towards risk aversion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T10:05:25Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• Gaining Wisdom from Setbacks: Aligning Large Language Models via Mistake Analysis [127.85293480405082]
  The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has not only provided numerous opportunities but also presented significant challenges. Existing alignment methods usually direct LLMs toward the favorable outcomes by utilizing human-annotated, flawless instruction-response pairs. This study proposes a novel alignment technique based on mistake analysis, which deliberately exposes LLMs to erroneous content to learn the reasons for mistakes and how to avoid them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T14:59:10Z)
• A Formalism and Approach for Improving Robustness of Large Language Models Using Risk-Adjusted Confidence Scores [4.043005183192123]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive milestones in natural language processing (NLP) Despite their impressive performance, the models are known to pose important risks. We define and formalize two distinct types of risk: decision risk and composite risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T03:20:41Z)
• Efficient Risk-Averse Reinforcement Learning [79.61412643761034]
  In risk-averse reinforcement learning (RL), the goal is to optimize some risk measure of the returns. We prove that under certain conditions this inevitably leads to a local-optimum barrier, and propose a soft risk mechanism to bypass it. We demonstrate improved risk aversion in maze navigation, autonomous driving, and resource allocation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T19:40:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.