Getting out of the Big-Muddy: Escalation of Commitment in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01545v2
• Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 15:04:14 GMT
• Title: Getting out of the Big-Muddy: Escalation of Commitment in LLMs
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in autonomous decision-making roles.<n>LLMs may inherit cognitive biases that systematically distort human judgment, including escalation of commitment.<n>This paper investigates whether these biases manifest consistently in LLMs or require specific triggering conditions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in autonomous decision-making roles across high-stakes domains. However, since models are trained on human-generated data, they may inherit cognitive biases that systematically distort human judgment, including escalation of commitment, where decision-makers continue investing in failing courses of action due to prior investment. Understanding when LLMs exhibit such biases presents a unique challenge. While these biases are well-documented in humans, it remains unclear whether they manifest consistently in LLMs or require specific triggering conditions. This paper investigates this question using a two-stage investment task across four experimental conditions: model as investor, model as advisor, multi-agent deliberation, and compound pressure scenario. Across N = 6,500 trials, we find that bias manifestation in LLMs is highly context-dependent. In individual decision-making contexts (Studies 1-2, N = 4,000), LLMs demonstrate strong rational cost-benefit logic with minimal escalation of commitment. However, multi-agent deliberation reveals a striking hierarchy effect (Study 3, N = 500): while asymmetrical hierarchies show moderate escalation rates (46.2%), symmetrical peer-based decision-making produces near-universal escalation (99.2%). Similarly, when subjected to compound organizational and personal pressures (Study 4, N = 2,000), models exhibit high degrees of escalation of commitment (68.95% average allocation to failing divisions). These findings reveal that LLM bias manifestation depends critically on social and organizational context rather than being inherent, with significant implications for the deployment of multi-agent systems and unsupervised operations where such conditions may emerge naturally.

Related papers

• The Deliberative Deficit: An Empirical Critique of LLMs in Democratic Discourse [0.0]
  Deliberative Reason Index (DRI) developed in political science validated across citizen assemblies.<n>Group-level reasoning on non-verifiable problems can't be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks.<n>DRI is a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T19:57:19Z)
• Behavioural Signatures of Risk-Sensitive Decision-Making in Large Language Models [121.70781851874035]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision support.<n>It is important to understand whether their choices under uncertainty exhibit stable and interpretable behavioural regularities.<n>Here we examine this question using a controlled multi-model framework based on no-limit Texas Hold'em.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T10:33:39Z)
• Probing Outcome-Level Resemblance and Mechanism-Level Alignment in LLM Risk Decisions: Evidence from the St. Petersburg Game [44.97835810818409]
  LLMs produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms.<n>These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T15:01:52Z)
• LLM Performance Predictors: Learning When to Escalate in Hybrid Human-AI Moderation Systems [5.7001352660257005]
  We propose a framework for supervised uncertainty quantification in content moderation systems.<n>We show that our method enables cost-aware selective classification in real-world human-AI.<n>This work establishes a principled framework for uncertainty-aware, scalable and responsible human-AI moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T17:46:49Z)
• Same Claim, Different Judgment: Benchmarking Scenario-Induced Bias in Multilingual Financial Misinformation Detection [64.75447949495307]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied across various domains of finance.<n> behavioral biases can lead to instability and uncertainty in decision-making.<n>mfmdscen is a benchmark for evaluating behavioral biases in mfmd across diverse economic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T22:00:32Z)
• FairReason: Balancing Reasoning and Social Bias in MLLMs [50.618158642714505]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) already achieve state-of-the-art results across a wide range of tasks and modalities.<n>Recent studies explore advanced prompting schemes and post-training fine-tuning to push their reasoning ability further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T19:57:22Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [55.328782443604986]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts due to discrepancies between pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>This paper offers the first quantitative analysis of confirmation bias in LLM-based investment analysis.<n>We observe a consistent preference for large-cap stocks and contrarian strategies across most models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple Perspectives [3.7731230532888036]
  CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes) is a dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values.<n>Even the strongest models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-Sonnet, achieve less than 50% accuracy in identifying situations where the decision should be ambivalent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T02:54:16Z)
• Answer, Refuse, or Guess? Investigating Risk-Aware Decision Making in Language Models [63.559461750135334]
  Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to build agents that can act autonomously to achieve goals.<n>We study this "answer-or-defer" problem with an evaluation framework that systematically varies human-specified risk structures.<n>We find that a simple skill-decomposition method, which isolates the independent skills required for answer-or-defer decision making, can consistently improve LMs' decision policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T09:16:26Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• 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)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [17.812295963158714]
  We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• Language Model Cascades: Token-level uncertainty and beyond [65.38515344964647]
  Recent advances in language models (LMs) have led to significant improvements in quality on complex NLP tasks. Cascading offers a simple strategy to achieve more favorable cost-quality tradeoffs. We show that incorporating token-level uncertainty through learned post-hoc deferral rules can significantly outperform simple aggregation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T21:02:48Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.