Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context
Authors: Jingru Jia
Zehua Yuan
Junhao Pan
Paul E McNamara
Deming Chen
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: Large Language Model (LLM)
LLM Reasoning
Fairness
Ethical AI
AI Decision-Making
LLM Prompting
Primary area: interpretability_and_explainability
TL;DR: This paper quantitatively assesses the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs), demonstrating how these models mirror human risk behaviors and exhibit significant variations when embedded with socio-demographic characteristics.

Abstract: When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from rational behavior, which can be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion. Given the widespread use of large language models (LLMs) in supporting decision-making processes, it is crucial to assess whether their behavior aligns with human norms and ethical expectations or exhibits potential biases. Although several empirical studies have investigated the rationality and social behavior performance of LLMs, their internal decision-making tendencies and capabilities remain inadequately understood. This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics theories, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of LLMs. With a multiple-choice-list experiment, we initially 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, but there are significant variations in the degree to which these behaviors are expressed across different LLMs. Further, we explore their behavior when embedded with socio-demographic features of human beings, uncovering significant disparities across various demographic characteristics.

Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context
Jingru Jia", Zehua Yuan", Junhao Pan, Paul E. McNamara, and Deming Chen
University of Illinois at Arbana-Champae [jingruj3, zehuay2, jpan22, mcnamar1, dchen) (aben)@illn @ill edu
Abstract
When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from ratio- nal behavior, which be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion. Given the widespread use of large lan- guage models (LLMs) in supporting decision-makiin making processes, is crucial assess whether their behavior aligns with human norms and ethical expectations or exhibits potential biases. Although several empirical studies have investigated the rationality and social behavior performance of LLMs, their internal decision- making tendencies and capabilities remain inadequately understood. This paper proposes framework, grounded in behavioral economics theories, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of LLMs. With a multipl--chocc--lcn experiment, we initially estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.00-umm Turbo, Claude-3-Opp 3-Ous, and Gemini- 1..0 1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally ex- hibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities, but there significant variations in the degree to which these behaviors are expressed across different LLMs. Further, explore their behavior when embedded with demoorrpmmga features of human beings, uncovering significant disparities across various demographic char- acteristics. For instance, when modeled with attributes of sexual minority groups or physical disabilities, Claude-3-Opus displays increased risk aversion, leading more conservative choices. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and potential biases in deploying LLMs scenarios. Therefore. this study advocates for the development of standards and guidelines to ensure that LLMs operate within ethical boundaries while enhancing their utility in complex decision decision-making environments.
Introduction
In recent years, the deployment of large language models (LLMs) such ChatGPT-4.0-Ture [38]. Claude-3-Oput [12). and Gemini-1.0-pp [33] has revolutionized various fields by providing sophisticated, human-like responses a multitude queries 40 25
26) Their applications span from answering everyday questions and content generation to complex decision-support systems in healtheare, finance, and beyond [1 g 37 Domain-specific L.LMs have also emerged, serving Understanding their internal decision-making tendencies becomes crucial as these models become increasingly integral to eeciisionmmaiing processes. How do LLMs handle risk and uncertainty in comparison human To what extent LLMs exhibit biases when socio-demographic features are introduced into their decision-making processes ? Can trust LLMs to make fair and ethical
as customer service agents, investment assistants, and more 29
2 17
Equal contribution
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

decisions across diverse contexts and populations? All of these questions deserve careful investigation and confident answers.
Human decision-making under uncertainty is extensively studied in behavioral economics theories, highlighting systematic deviations from rational behavior [32]. These deviations be shaped by three parameters: i. Risk preference: Subjects often exhibit varying degrees of risk aversion or risk-seeking behavior. ii Probability weighting: Subjects may overweight small probabilities or underweight large ones, and iii. Loss aversion: Losses generally have a greater psychological impact than equivalent gains. Biases in these areas can lead to suboptimal decision-making For instance, risk aversion might lead to conservative investment choices, missing out on high-reward opportunities. Probability weighting can result in excessive insurance for unlikely events. Loss aversion may lead to resistance to change, as the pain of potential loss outweighs the pleasure of potential gain.
Given the prominence of LLMs in aiding socisionnmaking it is imperative to assess whether their behaviors align with or diverge from human tendencies. Previous empirical studies have examined the rationality and social behaviors of LLMs, yet their intrinsic decision-making processes remain insufficiently understood 11 15), especially when the LLMs are given contextual prompts about the identities characteristics of the user. In this study, we experiment with three feature assignments: a baseline with no demographic context (context-free), human-like demographic distributions, and augmented distributions with minority group characteristics. We assess how LLMs' decision- -making process aligns with or diverges from human-like behavior and uncovers potential biases and ethical concerns, emphasizing the consideration for fairness deploying these models across diverse user groups. To summarize, our contributions are threefold:
1.
We develop a comprehensive framework to evaluate LLMs' decision-making behavior pattern, grounded in behavioral economic theories, particularly the value function model proposed by Tanaka, Camerer, and Nguyen 32] (TCN model). Using three sets of experiments, we evaluate the risk preferences, probability weighting, and loss aversion of LLMs. This framework represents the first application of behavioral economics to LLMs without any preset behavioral tendencies, providing robust foundation for evaluating LLM decision decision-making behaviors.
2. We apply this framework to three state-of-the-an commercial LLM models: ChatGPT-4.0-Tuff Claude-3-Opus and Gemini 1.0-pro, to assess their decision-make behavior in a context- free setting. Our results indicate that LLMs generally exhibit human-like patterns: risk aversion, loss aversion, and overweighting small probabilities. Nevertheless, there are significant variations in the degree to which these behaviors are expressed across different L.MMs.
3. We conduct further experiments embedding socio-demographic features to evaluate how these characteristics influence LLM pocision-making compared humans. Our findings reveal range of distinctive behavior patterns, such as increased risk aversion in certain contexts and varying levels of risk aversion across different models. These results underscore the necessity for a detailed examination of the ethical implications and potential biases in LLM deployment, advocating for the development of standards and guidelines ensure fair and ethical decision-making.
2 Background and Related Work
2.1 LLMs' Behavior Study
Numerous studies within social science have evaluated the alignment between LLM and human behaviors and decision-making processes. For instance, research has shown that LLMs demonstrate economic behaviors, including adherence to downward-sloping demand curves, diminishing marginal utility, status quo bias, and the endowment effect [5] 77. LLMS also show consistency with
human-like behavior patterns in the psychology binary moral judgment experiment [9]
Previous works have also assessed the rationality exhibited by LLMs. LLMs have demonstrated a higher rationality score compared to humans in financial decision-making((Z) Initial investigations using repeated game experiments and more complex decomposed game theory experiments have delineated how LLMs act as rational players within a game-theorette framework [13] I 14.. Additionally, 28 39 have developed frameworks to guide LLMs in making optimal decisions based on Expected Utility Theory (EUT). However, these frameworks pre-assume that the intrinsic feature of L.LMs aligns with human decision decision-making processes. Whether LLMss actually ensure alignment with human behavior and how L.LMs optimize their utility by integrating human demographie features and psychological considerations into the decision-makinn process are left unanswered.

---

Another critical issue is the fairesss and bias in LLM processing, particularly concerning specific demographic or personality traits. [Tlk has shown that ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 exhibit significant biases and a decline in performance when handling information pertaining to minority groups in humans. This underscores the need to develop a framework that overcomes existing limitations and quantitatively evaluates LLM behavior under uncertainty, exploring the effect and bias related to human demographic features.
2.2 Expected Utility Theory and Prospect Theory
Conventionally, the Expected Utility Theory (EUT) characterizes risk aversion as the sole determinant
that shapes the curvature of the utility function that defines an individual's risk preferences. Prospect
Theory (PT) [20] describes how real Aecision-making processes deviate from the rational models. It emphasizes the significance of psychological factors from three main behavioral parameters: risk aversion level, loss aversion level, and probability weighting tendency. Many studies have estimated
the parameters that capture these three aspects with human samples, as summarized in Table 1
Resource
Population
Key Findings
Binswanger
The population is risk-averse. No significant differences were observed across demographic features, including age, oducation, wealth, and gender.
Indian
(1981)
Holt and Laury
(2002)[8)
American
66% sample risk-averse, 26% are risk neutral, and 8% are risk-loving.
Dohmen et
Gender, age, height, parental background have cconomically sigmiticatt
(2010) [0
German
impuct on willingnes to lake risks.
Harrison et al.
Danish
Risk aversinn level is sensitive to age and education level.
[6 [6]
Andersen ot al.
Using concave and linear utility fuuction may result in different docision-making behaviors.
12008)
Danish
No gender differences are found.
Tanaka al. (2010) [2]
Age and education level found have negative correlations with risk preference level.
Vietnamese
Income has negative impact on loss aversion level, and living area also plays an important mll. parameters are corelated with age and education level. Female was observed to more avers and loss averse.
Gaudecker
al. (201 1)
Dutch
Wealth and religiosity are negalively correlated with risk aversion levels, while working hours
Liu (2013)
Chinese
show positive corcelation with loss aversion levels. Among demographic features examined.
no determinants were observed for probability weighting scores.
Note: The words in red font highlight the major tindings and key variables identified in cach study,
Table 1: Decision-making behavior study on human beings
Although researchers have established frameworks to assess human behaviors, appropriate frame- works for LLMs are still missing. EUT alone is insufficient as previous studies have revealed distinct patterns of loss aversion in advanced LLMs, such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, that deviate from EUT's rational agent model [22 30). Additionally, the status quo bias observed in LLMs, where Docision-makers irrationally prefer existing conditions over objectively better alternatives [99, further challenges the applicability of EUT. PT cannot adequately model LLM either, as its assertion about utility function curvature is based on empirical evidence from generie human behaviors. To assess LLM with such pre-assumed evidence without testing LLM's actual tendency baselines can only result in inaccuracy. Several studies have used the pure PT value function to analyze the level of risk aversion in LLMs [24] 30), but relying on the PT value function without preliminary verification might lead to circular reasoning, where assumptions are used to test assumptions.
Given the limitations of both EUT and PT, we adapt and improve the TCN model 32 which combines the essence of EUT and PT, for a comprehensive evaluation of decision-making behaviors. This model allows us to estimate three key parameters: risk preference, loss aversion, and non-lin non-linear probability weighting, providing a balanced framework to understand LLM behaviors better.
3 Preliminary
In behavior studies, understanding individual preferences and Recision-making processes under uncertainty is often approached through the lens of revealed preference. The -ackiign-making process is mathematically represented as follows:
Let O (<,, P represent a dataset of N observations, where each observation consists of chosen bundle x; and price vector p;. A utility function U R + IR, where utility represents the satisfaction or value derived from choices and K represents the number of different goods or dimensions in the bundle x,, rationalizes the dataset if there exists that satisfies:
U(x.) 2 (x) Vx fo R pi p 21).
3

---

indicating that the chosen bundle z; maximizes the consumer's utility subject to the budget constraint defined by pj and any alternative bundle z.
The axiom of revealed preference provides crucial foundation for testing the consistency of observed choices with utility maximization:
3i Ji P S pi my and x; is chosen over 3.
The Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP) extends this idea by requiring that for all pairs of choices (æ,, r. if z; is revealed preferred to zj, then z should not be revealed preferred to Ty ensuring there are no cycles in preference relations:
xi ~ Ij then 25 x 2:
Following the theoretical framework provided by the GARP, our study integrates these principles with practical applications in behavioral economics. To explore deeper into how LLMs make decisions under risk and uncertainty, we employ TCN model's experimental design that incorporates EUT and The utility function is as the following form:
PT 18 32).
o(y) + (())(v()) - v(v)) ((p)v(()) + w(g)vvy)
if ~ if < 0 <
u( (1.,PU.)))
(1)
for > 0
where
v(x)
(2)
->(-x)²' for 0
w(p) expl-(- (mp)))
(3)
where z, y are experiment outcomes, and p. q are the associated probabilities. Probabilities are weighted by wpp) and w(q). captures the curvature of the value function in which the person is risk-seeking a O, risk-neutral if a O, and risk-averse if o >> 0. High À implies a more loss averse person; determines the weighting of choices of different risk and outcome. a < indicates an overweighting of small probabilities. When X = a 1, the model reduces to the expected utility theory. The interpretation of the three parameters 0, and À are illustrated in Figure
a: Risk Preference
a: Probability Weighting
Loss Aversion
+1
to take (risk: averse)
00
Underweighting emall Probabilites
+:00
More sensitive to loes
Risk neutral
> No probability distortion
Noural evaluation
to take (risk seeking)
Overwcighting amall probabiittis
More sensitive gain
Figure Illustration the three parameters
4 Framework and Design
The entire framework to evaluate LLM's decision-making behavior patterns is shown in Figure 2 starts with an evaluation module containing multiple-choic--ist experiments to elicit decision-maKing preferences. These experiments are applied to the Responder Model, such as LLMs and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI), marking the switching points for preference changes. The TCN Model then derives key preference parameters from these data for both context-free and demographic- feature- embedded LLMs. The resulting parameters eventually assess the capability of LLMS to understand and respond to socio-demographic features through regression models and behavioral analysis.
Step 1: Experimentation Design Three series of multiple-choice- list experiments, as shown in Appendix B. are used to elicit the decision-malke making preferences of the subjects. Each experiment involves presenting subjects with a series of choices between different probabilistic outcomes, also known as lottery games. In each lottery game, subjects are asked to make choices between the
2: d 2, denotes that æ; is directly revealed preferred xy, meaning that chosen z, when both are affordable given the price vector Pi.
2z 2" 2; denotes that x; is indirectly revealed preferred to xy through a sequence of other choices. ensuring transitivity in preferences and preventing cyclical inconsistencies.

---

Context-Free
Demographic Penture
Switching Paints
Step
Ret profemsis
Assigned
Respander Model (LLMGAAI)
SP2
TCN Model
Behavior Analysis
Capobilitty of Feature Understanding
B.
Prof. Params
Step
Step
00
Weighting
othney
oefnery Anch
Evaluation Module
Regression Model
Anch
Demogrophic Features
Step 4
Luss Averico
Figure
Framework and evaluation illustration
options with varying probabilities and outcomes, allowing researchers to infer their preferences and behavioral patterns. Each series is designed to test different aspects of decision-making under uncertainty: Series 1 and 2 focus on positive outcomes to determine the effects 3 introduces negative outcomes to evaluate the parameter À for loss aversion. In experiment design, we treat LLMs similarly to human populations, where each query to the LLM represents an individual interaction, analogous to testing a different human subject. Just individual humans have fixed risk preferences in a given context, we assume fixed parameters for each interaction with the LLM. By repeating these interactions across multiple queries, capture the overall behavioral tendencies of the LLM, just as repeated studies in human populations help reveal broader trends.
and ar and Series
Step 2: Recording Switching Points Switching points are delineated through the comparative utility of a consecutive multiple-choice list. A switching point is the point at which participant changes their preference from one option another. It is defined as the smallest lottery number n such that:
utility a (n) utility (n) and utility a (n < utility e (n + 1):
where A and utility (n) represent the utilities of options A and B at lottery n, respectively,
Step 3: Setting Up Inequalities The utility function is evaluated at each switching point to derive inequalities. In series and 2, assume y at specific lotteries and preference switch. The value function v(x) and the probability weighting function w(p) are applied as follows:
which triggers
v(x) = ='- w(p) = (=p)=(-
Pre-switch inequality at lottery n, where AA, > VA. > 0 and TB. > UB.. 0:
v(yA.) + ((pp,,))((EEA
v(ya,)) )) y +xxp| In PA. ,, (2) Unn
(4)
v(va.)) + w(pe, (v(IB,) v(yB,)) yo. 1-a expl lmpa, (2 1B. 1-9), (5)
VA,," + expl pA..) (( ) ye,
1-a expl lmpa,, ((( 18 1-0),
(6)
Post-switch inequality at lottery n v(yAm41) + w(pA.., ( (u( -oo--wyysnaa v(yAn+1)) < v(18,41) + 10 -
(7)
VA 1-a + (expl-(-lnpp.p)) ) (x))1 yhml < y + expl-(--10 Impe. ) (2b.)
V
(8)
where x, y are the outcomes and p, q the probabilities for lotteries A and B. In series (when
& < 0), inequalities are set up follow the same way to evaluate X. These inequalities are used to establish parameter boundaries for a, a, and in step
Step 4: Estimating Parameters Parameter estimation proceeds iteratively through three steps: 1. Initialize intervals for and based on theoretical evidence; 2. Narrow these intervals by evaluating the utility calculations at each switch point, adjust parameter values to satisfy the defined inequalities; and 3. Converge upon narrowed intervals that satisfy all inequalities. 4. Input the estimated interval of a and a and obtain the estimated interval of through the inequalities. The midpoints these final intervals are the estimates of the parameters, aligning with the methodology endorsed by (32).
Step 5: Rehavior Evaluation Finally, the estimated parameters are used to evaluate the decision- making behavior of the responder models. In this study, the evaluation is conducted for both
5

---

context-free LLMs and LLMs embedded with socio-demographic features. The specific findings from these evaluations are detailed in Section 5, highlighting how LLMs' decision-makee patterns compare to human behavior and the implications of embedding demographic features.
Evaluation and Results
We designed the evaluation framework of financial-related Decision-makinn behavior for three state- of-the-art LLMs. We adhered to two principal guidelines for model selection: (i) The model must be sufficiently large possess the capability to make decisions in open open-ended lottery games. (ii) The model must be pre-trained on natural human utterances, thereby potentially exhibiting a human-like personality. Following these guidelines, selected three commercial L.L.s: ChaGGPT-4-Turbo Claude-3-Opus and Gemini--LO-Pree Version names will be omitted hereafter.
We implemented data collection pipeline to conduct each experiment through API calls to ensure consistency. All three models were tested across two context settings, including context-free free and embedded demographic features. Prompt templates were specifically designed to optimize for responsiveness and answer validity, with an example prompt for ChatGPT provided in Appendix C We chose a sample size of 300 data pieces, which represented the upper bound typically observed in human financial decision- maaiing behavior experiments. To guarantee that each participating LLM access all necessary information from the conversation history from the onset of the lottery game, the same session was maintained for each trial during data collection. History from the previous game sets was cleared to prevent LLMs from recollecting previous games.
5.1 Context-Free
In the context-free experiments, only the instructions for the lottery games are provided, mirroring the method used for data collection with human participants. After repeatedly prompting LLMs to make decisions in the lottery game 300 times, we establish the distribution of the responses for each model. Though they do not always produce identical responses in each round, the resulting distribution elucidates the behavior patterns, which can be explained by the parameters a, a, and X.
5.1.1
Results and Key Findings
a: Risk Preference
Probability Weighting
A: Loss Aversion
ChattaF
0.2
Cause
2,906
Gamáni
CUOGO
0,3020
Gumiii
Mean-f
Standard Deviation
Meon Std. Day
Standard Destation
Meon +/
Standart Deviation
Figure 3: Comparison of context-free free decision-making
We rank the models according to three dimensions of decision-make behavior under uncertainty, as shown in Figure 3 raw data is available in the Appendix Ta Interestingly, all three models share a unanimous preference for risk-averse decision-making tendencies. Across these LLMs, the average a value exceeds O, and even their minimum a value remains greater than O. The TCN model allows LLMs to exhibit diverse risk preferences, but despite this flexibility, our findings still reveal unanimous preference for risk-averse behavior among LLMs, which is consistent with human behavior to a certain extent. ChatGPT leans towards conservative choices with higher rewards, as reflected in its higher risk aversion (σ) but it shows the lowest concern for potential losses (A). With probability weighting parameter a > 1, it diverges from human norms. Conversely, Claude adopts riskier approach, with lower risk aversion, but has higher loss aversion, and sroallprobability overweighting. Gemini balances risk and caution, exhibiting moderate risk-taking tendencies, loss aversion, and balanced probability weighting behavior. An uncommon greater- -taat-r-than-1 a suggests that ChatGPT would perceive unlikely events as even less likely than they are. This could have the following implications: (1) Dialogue Systems: may produce more conservative responses, which might make it better suited for providing safe, predictable information.22 Content Generation: It may avoid rare scenarios, leading to content that aligns more with conventional or high- -iob-prbbayilityy outcomes, which could reduce risk but also the potential for novelty and creativity.

---

5.2
Embedded Demographic Features
Group
Persona
Panel I: Foundational Demographic Features
Sex
malc, female
below lower secondary. lower secondary, upper secondary, short-cycle tertiary, bachelor, and graduate degrees never married, married, widowed, divorced
Education Level
Marital Status
Living Area
rural, urban
Age
15 24, 34, 44, 45 54, 64, 65+
Panel 2: Advanced Demographic Features
Sex Orientation
heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual
Disability
physically-disabled, able-bodied
Race
African, Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian
Religion
Jewish, Christian, Athcist, Religious
lifelong Democrat, lifelong Republican, Barack Obama supporter,
Political Affiliation
Donald Trump supporter
Table 2:
The Personas 10 socio-demographic groups that we explore in this study.
In addition the context-free decision-making baseline, we investigate potential variations in decision patterns among LLMs based on embedded demographic features, including gender, age, education level, marital status, and living area. Given the existing literature highlighting biases within LLMs when encountering such features [13], we introduce an augmentation technique that involves randomly incorporating other minority features into the basic demographic framework. These features encompass sexual orientation, disability, religion, race, and political affiliation. The augmentation of our demographic profiles results 10 distinct socio-demographic groups as outlined in Table 2 These personas provide comprehensive representation of the diverse demographic landscape under examination. We first generate a distribution of demographic profiles by randomly assigning LLMs foundational demographic features and recording their answers. We then apply the real-world distribution across the countries to reflect realistic demographics of human communities and document the results, where the statistical data from the World Bank dataset [36].
5.2.1 Results and Key Findings
Result Comparisons with Context-free Evaluations
d: Risk Preference
a: Probability Weighting
A: Loss Aversion
1.8
10
0.75
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.25
2.6
CT
Chardin
Random Assign
Real Distribution
Assign
Assign Real Distribution
Figure 4: Comparison of the three context settings within each LLM (Mean +/- Std. Dev.)
Embedding demographic features resulted in notable changes the decision-making behavior the LLMS compared to their context-free evaluations, as illustrated in Figure (raw data is available in the Appendix Table (). Although there is no significant difference in parameters' values between the random and real- world distribution of demographic features for the three LLMs, we identify some patterns specific to each model.
ChatGPT shifts towards much riskier decision-making with lower risk aversion (a), while main- taining consistent loss aversion (A). Notably, a shifts from small probability underweighting to overweighting, aligning more closely with typical human behavior. Claude shows stable risk pref- erences and probability weighting but reduced loss aversion, aligning more closely with human tendencies. Gemini becomes more conservative in risk-taking and shows heightened loss aversion with demographic embedding. Contrary to ChatGPT, this model shifts from small probability overweighting to underweighting with slightly higher than 1.
7

---

Key Features
Main Findings from LLMS' respouses
Younger Individuals (<25 years): Claude shows significntly higher tendency overweight
small probabilities among younger users, while Gomini exhibits higher loss aversion.
Age Impact
Older Individuals (>55 years): Actoss other models, group has minimal influence on parametors, with Claude again indicating a higher lendency lo over weigh.
Female presents signiiicnt redlcctinn in risk aversion and probubility weightin parameters by ChatGPT
Gender Differences
and Claude, respectively, suggesting that they may perceive higher risk associated with female demographies.
Education Level
Lawer educational levels impact Clande with lower risk aversion while decreases loss aversion in Gemini.
Marital Status
Clande may think married people are less likely to be risk-aversee
Rural living signilicunily decrewes probahility weighting and increuses loss aversion Claude, implying
Living Area
environmental factors can influence its responses.
Table 3: Summary of sensitivity to foundational features
Models' Sensitivity to Demographic Features
Foundational Demographic Information: We use Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to explore the determinants of decision-making behaviors under uncertainty, using o, a, and À as dependent variables and foundational demographic features as independent variables. We encode categorical features with binaries. For example, "Age < 25 years" is set to 1 for individuals younger than 25 years old and 0 otherwise. We then have the regression model below, where 3n coeffi- cients for demographic variables and Bo is the intercept. n denotes n-th feature, denotes the i-th observation, and é denotes the error offset in regression.
RiskParameter; = B0 + 3. Demographic,, + +
Agee Cloude
Risk Education Claude
Aver. Religion
Prof. Sexualityyy Claude
0.00
0.35
3.3
0.33
0.99
0.51
0.31
0:84
0.60
2.7
0.27
0.3
rrigh Simbent
Secondary
Fertery
Banhator
Dranstlo
Athest
Jowish
Biemnal
Hemermmal
(a)
(c)
(d)
Figure 5: Average parameter values where regression coefficients are significant in this category group. Significant categories are marked in red.
Table highlights key findings from this regression study. As an example of features that have a significant impact on these parameters, we graph comparisons of the average parameter values Age Impact and Education Level in Figure 5a
and 5bb The coefficients are extracted from the complete regression presented in Figure 6 The raw data are also included in Table 77 in Appendix A Incorporated with demographic features, the average parameters across all three models show distinct differences. Additionally, each model exhibits unique sensitivity to the features that affect its application in various demographic contexts.
In the above examples, Claude demonstrates a broader sensitivity to demographic variables in both loss aversion and probability weighting. particularly for young and rural populations. It is also sensitive to education level and marital status. This model's extensive demographic responsiveness could enhance its adaptability in diverse settings but also introduce the risk of unfairness. For ChatGPT and Gemini, the analysis indicates generally lower sensitivity to demographic variables, consistent across diverse user groups. ChatGPT exhibits a significant gender difference in risk preferences, in which females show reduced risk aversion than males. Gemini shows strong effects on loss aversion in the younger age group and lower education level group.
b. Advanced Demographic Information: We incorporate more advanced demographic features to the OLS regression equation as the independent variables and have the regression model below:
RiskParameter, = Bu + 3, Demogrpphic, + Advanccee Demographic,,. + <s
(10)
In examining the additional advanced demographic sensitivities of LLMs, distinct patterns of behavior highlight their unique capabilities and potential biases. Table 4 highlights key findings from this
8

---

Risk Preference Parameter
Probability Weighling Score
Loss Aversion Parameter
<25 Years Old
>55 Years Old
294
Female
High Education Level
Low Education Level
Divorced
Married
Widowed
Rural
-1
-05
.05
.1.1
-05
.05
--1
-5
0
.5
Note: Signillcnnee is denated moterida: cu.., Bar colll.and foe <OJmn.
ChatGPT-4.00 T-4.0-Turbbo
Claude-3-Opus
Gemini-1.0-pro
Figure 6: Influence of Fundamental Demographic Feature: Estimated Coefficients
regression study. Similarly, as an example, we graph comparisons of the average parameter values in Religious Background and Sexual Orientation in Figure 5c and [dd] Complete regression results and raw data are presented in Figure 7 and Table 8 in Appendix A The distinct response patterns from advanced Seatures-embedder LLMs may suggest unique capabilities or potential biases. Claude demonstrates broader adaptability to various demographic factors, including sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, religious background, and political beliefs.
In these two examples, ChatGPT exhibits pronounced sensitivity to political beliefs in terms of loss aversion. This model also shows targeted sensitivity toward physically disabled individuals in probability weighting, being more likely to overweight small probability events. Meanwhile, Gemini displays a specific sensitivity to ethnicity, particularly loss aversion for African and Hispanic groups. Unlike the other models, it maintains politically neutral stance when making decisions.
Key Features
Main F Findings LLMs' responses
Claude shows significant sensitiviry to the Homosesual, Asexual and Bisexual in risk preference levels, marked by positive coefficients, which indicates that thinks these people more risk-averse.
Sexual Orientation
ChiGGP shows significant negative response in probability weighting for physically disabled individuals,
Disability
suggesting a potcotial distortion of the weighting. Claude also considers the disabled more risk-averse.
Claude and Gemin demoustrate signilicnt responses African probability weighting, and Claude shows a noiably lower loss aversion for Africans, Asians, and Hispanies.
Ethnicity
Religious Background
Gemini shows significant decrease in loss aversion for Christinns.
Claude and ChatUPT show sensitivites terms loss aversion and probability weighting. Signiticant lower loss aversion presents in ChatGPT for supporters for Barack Ohama, supporters of Donald Trump and lifelong Republicans. Claude shows negative effects on probability weighting Donald Trump Supporters, and lifelong Republican. The comparison group for the analyses here is lifelong Democrats.
Political Beliefs
Table 4: Summary of sensitivity advanced features
Discussion
In the previous sections, we demonstrated various degrees of bias in the demographic-feature embedded LLMs. Given the presence of these biases across various models and demographic features, it is crucial to carefully consider the implications of embedding demographic features in LLMs and the unintended effects that may ensue.
Implications for users: The potential biases with demographic features in LLMs are of significant concern, even for ordinary users. Companies are increasingly offering customized ChatBots, and users can personalize their models through open versions of LLMss. However, if users from minority groups customize a model expecting it to understand their personalities, could lead to problematic outcomes, as L.LMs might produce responses based on generalized stereotypes. For instance, these users might receive misleading advice on critical decisions like investments in financial decision-making. Users may need to consider more carefully when assessing decisions made by LLMs.

---

Implications for developers and researchers: Previous research [ has demonstrated that biases can be injected at various levels using different instructions, and our experiments provide evidence that injected demographic features can significantly affect how LLMSs make decisions. Critical questions arise: should L.MMs mirror human crciisionmmkingg processes, including preexisting biases, or aim to satisfy ethical standards that remediate these flaws? How should LLMs perform when assisting in human decision-making" Prejudices objectively exist in human society, which are inevitably absorbed by the LLM from their datasets, training, and even aligning with Reinforcement Learning (CoT) prompting [35. LLMs could potentially raise the bar for ethical decision- making by helping identify and correct biases through more structured reasoning. Moreover, LLMs that leverage these structured reasoning frameworks could potentially distinguish between decisions that reflect societal biases and those that follow ethical standards, prompting users to reconsider biased responses. If biases are corrected, methods such targeted fine-tuning and RLHF adjustments could be used to realign the model's behavior toward fairness. However, a key question remains: in doing so, do we risk making LLMs less reflective of human-like behavior, and how do balance ethical responsibility with the usability of these models in real-world applications?
from Human Feedback (RLHF), with advancements such as Chain-of-Thouge
Our study presents intriguing discrepancies between human and LLM behaviors. For example, while human studies may not find significant differences in risk preferences among sexually minority groups (3. our LLM results suggest otherwise. This discrepancy may result from two potential reasons: 1. Flaws in Human Studies: Studies on minority groups often face privacy challenges in obtaining representative samples for their personal information. 2. LLM misunderstandinn:: LLMs may possess flawed understandings due to biases from data and training. If LLMs could reflect real-world trends more accurately from broader and cleaner data and more careful training, should researchers consider LLM outputs as supplementary evidence for social studies? This can only be answered when further studies can address these discrepancies between human and LLM data.
One more thing: Our observation indicates that LLMs behave quite differently from their context- free baselines after specifying demographic features or who LLMs are "pretending to be." Some might argue that LLMs should function as machines with an ensemble of human knowledge, particularly when set in no-context situation, but it remains unclear what natural preferences LLMs should exhibit. We anticipate further research on defining what LLM behavior should entail when not embedded with human-demographic features, marking the boundary between closed-loop answering machine and real artificial intelligence. Essentially, who are LLMS in their most fundamental form?
Limitations: One limitation of this work is the difficulty in directly comparing LLM behaviors to humans due to the complex and sensitive nature of many demographic features, especially those related to minority groups, making it challenging for human subjects to process in studies. Addition- ally, while this study uses financial experiments to elicit overall preferences, exploring other domains with other experiments could provide more comprehensive understanding of LLM behaviors. We recommend future work explore multiple models to compare model fit and robustness for a deeper understanding of LLM decision- decision-making.
7 Conclusion
In conclusion, our work establishes a foundational framework for evaluating LLM behaviors and opens avenues for future research aimed aligning these models more closely with ethical standards and human values. We evaluated three LLMs regarding their capability to process reccision-maknng decisions through three perspectives: risk, probability, and loss. While all models exhibit general tendencies akin to human behavior, each demonstrates unique deviations to an extent. The incorpora- tion of noci-demographii features into our analysis revealed significant impacts of human-related features on the LLM decision-making process, underscoring the potential biases and variability in their outputs. By addressing the complexities and biases inherent in LLM decision-making, we can better harness their capabilities to support fair and equitable outcomes in real-world applications. These findings emphasize the critical need for ongoing scrutiny and refinement of LLMs to ensure they do not perpetuate or exacerbate societal biases. Additionally, our work raises further exploration about how LLMs should be designed to balance realism with ethical responsibility and what their intrinsic behaviors should reflect, with and without numan-demograpp embeddings. This marks the boundary between closed-loog answering systems and genuine artificial intelligence.
10

---

References
[1] Akata, E., Schulz, L., al.: Playing repeated games with large language models. arXiv preprint 16866 (2023)
[2] Andersen, S., Harrison, G. G.W., et al.: Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica (2008)
[3] Apicella, C.L., Dreber, A., et al.: Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and human behavior (2008)
[4] Binswanger, H.P.: Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural india. The Economic Journal (1981)
[5] Brand, Israeli, A., Ngwe, D.: Using gpt for market research. Available at SSRN 4395751 (2023)
[6] Brown, T.B.: Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2000 14tt20000..11155 (2020)
[7] Chen, Y., Liu, T.X., et al.: The emergence of economic rationality of gpt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2023)
[8] Chiang, C.W., Lu, Z., et al.: Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through Ilm-powered devil's advocate. In: Proceedings the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2024)
[9] Dillion, D., Tandon, N., et al.: Can language models replace human participants? Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2023)
[10] Dohmen, T., Falk, A., al.: Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behav- ioral consequences. Journal of the european economic association (2011)
[11] Du, N., Huang, Y., Dai, A.M., Tong, S., Lepikhin, D., Xu, Y., Krikun, M., Zhou, Y., Yu, W.W Firat, O., et al.: Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-expert.. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5547-5569. PMLR (2022)
[12] Enis, M., Hopkins, M.: From Ilm nmt: Advancing low-resource machine translation with claude (2024)
[13] Fan, C., Chen, J., Jin, Y., He, H.: Can large language models serve rational players in game theory? systematic analysis. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2024)
[14] Guo, F:: Gpt game theory experiments. arXiv preprint 5xXiv2305.00511 (2023)
[15] Gupta, S., Shrivastava, V., et al.: Bias runs deep: Implicit reasoning biases in persona-assigned Ilms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00 1..40922 (2023)
[16] Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E.: Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental economics (2009)
[17] Harvel, N., Haiek, F.B., Ankolekar, A., Brunner, D.J.: Can Ilms answer investment banking questions? using domain- tuned functions to improve Ilm performance on knowledge-intensing analytical tasks. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series (2024)
[18] Holt, C.A., Laury, S.K.: Risk aversion and incentive effects. American economic review (2002)
[19] Horton, J.J.: Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? Tech. rep.. National Bureau of Economic Research (2023)
[20] Kai-lneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis decision under risk. Econometrica (1979)
[21] Kamruzzaman, M., Kim, G.L.: Prompting techniques for reducing social bias in Iims through system 1 and system cognitive processes, arXiv preprint urXiv:2404.17218 (2024)
11

---

[22] Kim, J., Kovach. M., et al.: Learning to be homo economicus: Can an Ilm learn preferences from choice. arXiv preprint urXiv:2401.07345 (2024)
[23] Ko, H., Lee, J.: Can chatgpt improve investment decisions? from a portfolio management perspective. Finance Research Letters (2024)
[24] Leng, Y.: Can Ilms mimic human-like mental accounting and behavioral biases? Available SSRN 4705130 (2024)
[25] Lewis, M.: Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequene pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)
[26] Li, Y., Huang, Y., Yang. B., Venkitesh, B., Locatelli, A., Ye, H., Cai. T., Lewis, P., Chen, D.: Snapkv: Lim knows what you are looking for before generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404. 14469 (2024)
[27] Liu, E.M.: Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in china. Review of Economics and Statistics (2013)
[28] Liu, O., Fu, D., Yogatama, D., Neiswanger, W.: Dellma: A framework for decision making under uncertainty with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02399 (2024)
[29] Malkiel, I., Alon, U. et al.: Segllm: Topic-oriented call segmentation via Ilm llmedased conversation synthesis. In: ICASSP (2024)
[30] Qiu, L.. Singh, P.V... Srinivasan, K.: How much should we trust Ilm results for marketing research? Available at SSRN 4526072 (2023)
[31] Rao, A., Kim, J., et al.: Evaluating chatgpt as an adjunct for radiologic decision-making. MedRxiv (2023)
[32] Tanaka, T., Camerer, C.F., Nguyen, Q.: Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from vietnam. American economic review (2010)
[33] Team, G., Anil, R., et al.: Gemini: family of highly capable multimodal models (2024)
[34] Von Gaudecker, H.M., Van Soest, A., Wengström, E.: Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. American Economic Review (2011)
[35] Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 14824-24837 (2022)
[36] WorldBank: World development indicators (2024), https://databank..og worlbannkk...................... org/
Source//or1eddddeeellmmmtttt indii
[37] Wu. S., Irsoy, O., et al.: Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303. 17564 (2023)
[38] Wu, T., He. S., al.: brief overview of chatgpt: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEFF/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica (2023)
[39] Yang, C., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Liu, H., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., Chen, X.: Large language models as optimizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309 004099 (2023)
[40] Zhou, Y., Muresanu, A.I., Han, Z., Paster, K., Pitis, S., Chan, H., Ba, J.: Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. arXiv preprint wtXiv:2211.019111 (2022)
[41] Ziems, C., Held, W. Shaikh, O., Chen, Zhang, Z., Yang. D.: Can large language models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics 50(1), 237-291 (2024)
12

---

A Tables of Raw Data from Experiments
Risk Preference
o: Probahility
Weighting
X: Loss Aversion
Mean
Std.Dev.
Min
Max
Mean
Std.Dev.
Min
Max
Mcann
Std.Dev.
Min
Max
ChatGPI-4-Tarb
0.6051
0.1620
0,1700
0,8500
1,1819
0.2280
0,4450
1,3200
1,4786
0.3450
0.7266
3,1
Claude-3-Opus
0,3085
0.0237
0.3050
0,5050
0.7613
0.2557
0.5550
0,8100
2,8395
2,9678
9.1605
Gemini- 1 1.0-pro
0,4959
0.1985
0.1450
0.8550
0,8799
0.2629
0.3900
1,2700
2.3333
0.8531
2,0202
5.0194
Iuman Sample
0.48
0.33
0.69
0.23
3.47
3.92
Table 5: Summary of Parameters for Baseline Results
a: Risk Preference
or Probubility Weighting
A: Loss Aversion
(2)
(3)
(I)
(3)
(I)
(2)
0.6031
0.2615
0,2361
1,1819
0.8549
0.8547
1,4786
1.4647
1,5179
CharGPT-4-Turbo
(0.1620)
(0.1392)
(0.1206)
(0.2280)
(0.1497)
(0.1214)
(0,3450)
(0.3883)
(0.4500)
0,3085
0.3360
0,3061
0,7613
0.6418
0.7096
6,3160
2.6017
2,1665
Claude-3-Opus
(0.0237)
(0.0750)
(0.1022)
(0.2557)
(0.0895)
(0.1265)
(2.8395)
(0.8526)
(1.0180)
0.4959
0.7502
0.7561
0.8759
1.2177
1,2022
2.3333
2.7232
2.9430
Gemini-1.0
(0.1985)
(0.1518)
(0.1171)
(0.2629)
(0.1722)
(0.1997)
(0.8531)
(1.3334)
(1.3155)
mean: 0.48
mean: 0.69
mean: 3.47
Human Sample
std.err: 0.33
std. etr: 0.23
std. esr: 3,92
Column (1) displays the context-free responses from LLMs without any embedded demographic feature. Column (2) shows the responses with randomly assigned feature as we display in Table 2, Panel 1. In column (3), we further modify the distribution of the features. following the real- world distribution accross the countries.
Note:
Table 6: Comparisons of the Risk Parameters
(1)
(2)
(3)
ChatGPT-4-Turbo
Claude-3-Opus
Gemini-L.0-pro
a
.0013
-0133
-0101
.0005
-0341
*3884**
-0038
-00349
.5180*
<25 years old
(.0245)
(.0263)
(.0688)
(.0127)
(.0150)
(.1426)
(.0274)
(.0312)
(22357)
.0014
.0067
-0452
-0152
-0500ee*
.650
-0098
-0154
-11997
years old
(0186)
(.0200)
(.0523)
(.0095)
(.0113)
( (1078)
(0205)
(0223))
(.1760)
.0366*
-0168
-019
-0095
-0249
1062
00335
.0833
.0691
Female
(.0165)
(.0178)
(.0463)
(.0084)
(.0100)
(.995))
(0181)
(00206)
(.1556)
.0119
.0337
.0166
.M34998
-0071
.2385
-0278
-0184
Lower than High School
(.0183)
(0197)
(.0648)
(.0094)
(.0111)
(.1330)
(.0201)
(00228)
(.1722)
-0116
.0388
.0353
-012
-0005
=303
-0267
-0098
-0191
Graduate Level
(0231)
(00248
(.0515)
(00117)
(.0199)
(.1056)
(0256)
(.0291)
(:2199)
-0027
-0016
-1018
.0233
0006
.1923
.0107
.0125
.0890
Married
(.0227)
(.0245)
(.0639)
(.118)
(.0188)
(.1316)
(02253)
(.0287)
(.2170)
-0026
-0432
-0120
-0109
.0074
.0571
-0348
-0365
-0968
Divorced
(.0232)
(.0250)
(.0654)
(.0116)
(.0141)
(.1335)
(.0252)
(.0286)
(.2166)
.0301
-0061
.0337
-0029
.0099
.0516
.0111
-0153
.3834
Widowed
(.022))
(.0252)
(.0658)
(.0119)
(0141)
(.1341)
(0256)
(.0290)
(.2196)
-0254
.0091
.0322
-0156
-02511
.1963*
.0110
.0167
-0988
Rural
(.0165)
(.0178)
(.0463)
(.0084)
(.0100)
(.0953)
(0182)
(.0206)
(.1559)
Constant
0.2834
0.8528
1.8833
0.3791
0,6873
2.4478
0.7595
1.2368
2.7770
Table Regression Analyses: LLMs Sensitivity to Foundational Demographic Features
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. foundational demographic features such as age, gender, education level, marital status, and living area. The coefficients indicate how each demographic feature influences the respective parameter.
0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p 0.001. Independent variables include
13

---

Risk Preference Parameler
Probabiliyy Weighling Score
Loss Aversion Parameler
Asexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
200
physically
African
Asian
Hispanic
Christian
Jewish
Religious
Barack Obama Supporter
Donald Trump Supporter
lifelong Republican
-05
.05
.22
Note: Significance denoted by asteriske: for 0..8, forp 0-....1.. for <0000
ChatGPT-4.O-Turbo
Claude-3-Opus
Gemini-1.0-pm
Figure 7: Influence of Advanced Demographic Features
(1)
(2)
(3)
ChatGPT-4Turrbo
Claude-3-Opus
Gemini-1.0-pro
Feature
.011
.455
-0007
.57444
-0011
.012
.011
-0007
-0011
Asexual
(.026)
(.028)
(.061)
(.014)
(.009)
(.115)
(.036)
(.042)
(.27)
.015
.022
.031
.049..
-0006
-154
-0038
-005
-.108
Bisexual
(.027)
(.028)
(3063)
(.015)
(0009)
(117)
(.038)
(.043)
(.279)
-005
.02
-001
.044.**
.003
-1192
.036
.062
.194
Homosexual
(.028)
(.029)
(.065)
(.015)
(.01)
(.122)
(.039)
(.044)
(.288)
-016
-035*
.02
-018****
.135
.025
.026
-,77
physically-
(.019)
(.02)
(.045)
(.01)
(.007)
(.084)
(.027)
(.031)
(2201)
-036
-002
-0039
.I22
-021
-211
.034
.067*
-293
African
(.025)
(.027)
(.059)
(.014)
(.009)
(.11)
(.035)
(.04)
(.259)
-033
.001
-004
.012
-01
-206
.027
.048
336
Asian
(.028)
(.029)
(.064)
(.015)
(011)
(.12)
(.039)
(.044)
(.286)
-031
.017
004
022
-00
-2255*
.018
.027
-004
Hispanic
(.027)
(.028)
(.063)
(.014)
(.009)
(.117)
(.037)
(.043)
(.277)
-00S
-003
.058
-022
006
101
.017
.008
-744
Christian
(.028)
(.029)
(.064)
(0115)
(.01)
(.119)
(.038)
(.043)
(.28)
-001
-02
-084
-014
.014
-044
.037
.042
-05
Jewish
(.027)
(.028)
(.062)
(.014)
(.009)
(.114)
(.036)
(.041) (.269)
-0108
.013
-017
~02#*
.067
-009
-004
-33
Religious
((028)
(.03)
(0065)
(0015)
(.01)
(.122)
(.039)
(.045)
(.291)
Barack Obama
-007
-039
-1104*
.002
-009
.007
.001
-003
.255
Supporter
(0026)
(.028)
(.061)
(.014)
(.009)
(.114)
(.037)
(.042)
(.272)
Donald Trump
-025
-02
-.115*
-004
-018*
-,123
.021
.027
.194
Supporter
(0028)
(.029)
(0.65)
(015)
(.01)
(.12)
(,038)
(.044)
(.283)
.005
-(105
-1106*
-012
-0155
-,274
.004
.031
.151
lifelong Republican
(.027)
(.028)
(0.61)
(.144)
(.009)
(.155)
(.037)
(.042)
(.271)
.339
919
1,46
.344
.67
2.358
.544
1.096
3.178
Constant
(.045)
(.047)
(.103)
(.024)
(.015)
(.192)
(.061)
(.07)
(.455)
Table Regression Analyses: LLMs Sensitivity to Advanced Demographic Features
Note: Standard errors parentheses. < 0.05, ** p 0.01, *** p 0.001. Independent variables include
advanced demographic features such sexual orientation. disability, ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation. The coefficients indicate how each advanced demographic feature influences the respective parameter.
14

---

B Multiple Choice List Design
In this session, we will showcase the three series of multiple choice lists which contains 35 rows of lottery games designed and utilized in our framework. The first two series at Table and Table 10 are primarily employed assess the risk preferences and probability weighting parameters of intrrduuees the concept of losing money and is thus mainly used determine the loss aversion parameter. This structured approach allows for comprehensive evaluation of the decision- decision-making characteristics of LLMs under different financial scenarios.
the models. The last series at Table [
Option A
Option B
Lottery
30%
70%
10%
90%
1
20
34,0
2.0
2
20
37.0
2.0
3
20
41.0
2.0
4
20
46.0
2.0
5
20
53.0
2.0
6
20
62.0
2.0
20
75.0
2.0
8
20
92.0
2.0
9
20
110.0
2.0
10
20
150.0
2.0
11
20
200.0
2.0
12
20
300.0
2.0
13
20
500.0
2.0
14
20
850.0
2.0
Table 9: Multiple Choice List: Series
Option A
Option B
Lottery
90%
10%
70%
30%
20
15
27
2.0
20
15
28
2.0
3
20
15
29
2.0
20
30
2.0
5
20
15
31
2.0
20
15
32
2.0
7
20
15
34
2.0
8
20
15
36
2.0
20
15
38
2.0
10
20
15
41
2.0
15
2.0
12
20
15
50
2.0
13
20
15
55
2.0
14
20
15
65
2.0
Table 10: Multiple Choice List: Series
Option A
Option B
Lottery
50%
50%
50%
50%
Win 12
Lose 2
Win 15
Lose 10
2
Win 2
Lose 2
Win 15
Lose 10
Win 0.5
Lose 2
Win
Lose 10
4
Win 0.5
Lose 2
Win 15
Lose
5
Win 0.5
Lose 4
Win 15
Lose
Win 0.5
Lose 4
Win
Lose
7
Win 0.5
Lose 4
Win 15
Lose
Table 11: Multiple Choice
List: Series
15

---

C
Prompt Design
In this section, we showcase the complete prompt utilized in our experiments. We conducted two types of experiments in all cases. The first is the context-free LLM behavior evaluation, which assumes no pre-set knowledge about humans, allowing the model to make decisions based solely on its own understanding. The second is the demographic-embedde behavior evaluation, where each prompt is preceded by the addition of specific demographic features. This setup enables us to assess how incorporating demographic information influences the decision-making process of the LLMs.
C.1 Context-free Experiment Prompt
The prompts used for the context-free evaluation of LLMs are listed in Table 12 repeatedly sent using the LLMs' API. In each experiment, we maintain a history of collecting all responses from the LLMs, and this information is aggregated into the subsequent inputs. This process simulates human-like interaction, akin to how a researcher would present the lottery and list of questions to human subjects under the same context.
These prompts are
Questions
We will show you two options for each lottery, and you will choose which option you want. For each lottery, each option will have different potential earnings, with chance to earn, showing as a percentage under each option. Each of the selections will be independent, that is, for each lottery, your choice should be independent of the previous and following lotteries.
Here are lotteries with options and B.
You choose play A B and get the payment following the rules below. You can choose option A from row <1>to row <x1>, choose option B from <x+ 1>to row 14.
See Table
Answer with the value of <x ISonly, please remember
<x1>should be larger and equal to 1, less and equal to 13, do not explain.
Now let's play the second lottery.
You can choose option A from row <1>to row <x2>, choose option B from row <x+1>to row 14. See Table [0]
Answer me with the value of <x2>only, please remember
<x2>should be larger and equal to less and equal 13, do not explain.
Now let's play the last lottery. You will start with 10 dollars.
You are going to play with this money. You can take unless you lose in the lottery.
And if you win we may add some to it. Here are lotteries with options A and
You can choose option A from row <1>to row <x3>, choose option B from row <x+ 1xto row 7. See Table 11.
Answer me with the value of <x3>>onl,, please remember
<x3>should be larger and equal to 1, less and equal to 6, do not explain.
Table 12: Prompt List for Context-free Behavior Evaluation
C.2 Demographic-feature Embedded Experiment Prompt
The prompts employed in the demographic-ffallee feature embedded experiment consist of two parts. The main body of the questions is similar those used in the context-free prompt design. However, each prompt in the demographic-featur embedded experiment is augmented with a demographic component derived from the template shown in Table [3] The complete list of these augmented prompts is presented in Table [4] Similar to the context-Iree behavior evaluation, the session history maintained the retain the memory of the previous lottery. Demographic features are added before each prompt to ensure that all features are remembered by the L.LMs, thereby preventing the loss of feature memory in long-term conversations.
experiments to allow the participating LLMs to
16

---

Template
Imagine a ['Age"] year old ['Gender'] with a ['Education") "] degree, who is ['Marital Status"] and lives in 'Location'] area.
This individual identifies as ['Sexual Orientation"] I and is ('Disability'I,
of ["Race"] descent, adheres to ['Religion' beliefs, and supports [ ('Political Affiliation]] policies. Consider the risk preferences and decision-making processes of person with these characteristics. Table 13: Demographic Feature Prompt Template
Questions
Demographic-featee added using Table We will show you two options for each lottery, and you will choose which option you want. For each lottery, each option will have different potential earnings, with chance to earn, showing as a percentage under each option. Each of the selections will be independent, that is, for each lottery, your choice should be independent of the previous and following lotteries.
Here are lotteries with options and B.
You choose play A B and get the payment following the rules below. You can choose option from row <1>to row <x1>,
choose option B from <x+ 1>to row 14.
See Table
Answer with the value of <x I>only, please remember
<x1>should be larger and equal to 1, less and equal to 13, do not explain.
Demographie-feature added using Table 13
Now let's play the second lottery.
You can choose option from row <1>to row <x2>,
<x2>.choose choose option B from row <x+ row 14.
See Table 10.
Answer me with the value <x2>only, please remember
<x2>should be larger and equal to 1, less and equal to 13, do not explain.
Demographie-leatur added using Table 13.
Now let's play the last lottery. You will start with TO dollars. You are going play with this money. You can take unless you lose the lottery.
And if you win we may add some to it.
Here are lotteries with options A and
You can choose option A from row <>>to row <x3>, choose option B from row <x+ 1>to row 7. See Table
Answer me with the value of <x3>>only, please remember
<x3>should be larger and equal to 1, less and equal to 6, do not explain.
Table 14: Prompt List for Demographic-featur Embedded Evaluation
17

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
Claims
Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
The abstract and introduction accurately summarize the key points of the study.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contribu- tions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation long as clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
We discussed the limitation of this work.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to vi- olations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by review- ers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't t acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We offered the entire theoretical and mathematical framework, together with thorough explanation of the underlying assumptions and supporting proofs.
Guidelines:
18

---

The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proof' in the paper should be numbered and cross-referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proof's provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: There are experiments in the paper. We offer the step-by-step instructions for the experiment's structure. Additionally, coding scripts, data, and prompts are also provided for replication.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments. the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can accomplished various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily new algorithm, the paper should make clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
(b) If the contribution is primarily architecture clearly and fully.
model architecture, the paper should describe the
(c) If the contribution is new model (e.g., large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access the model is limited in way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing verifying the results.
cases, in which case authors
Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We release our code and data, with the instructions on exact command and enviro- ment.
Guidelines:
19

---

The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (httpe::/nips..ccppull)
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, "No" is acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (c.g., for a new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https //nips. http://uubllccciidsseeeeeee/eaee
ssi omPolicy) for more details.
The authors should provide instructions data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only subset of experiments are reprodueible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs data and code is permitted.
Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary understand the results?
Answer: [NA].
Justification: There is no model training in this study.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance the experiments?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: In this work, the statistical significance and error bars are shown in comprehensive- ness.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the error bars capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (c.g., Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates). If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
20

---

8. Experiments Compute Resources
Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time execution) needed to reproduce the experi- ments?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
We offer comprehensive instructions for executing the code.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experi- mental runs well as estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (c.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't 't make into the paper).
Code Of Ethics
Does the research conducted the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
We carefully read and complied with the NeurlPS Code Ethics.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We address many aspects the societal impacts our evaluation approach. We offer future research directions to solve the drawbacks we discovered.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g.. deploy- ment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses addition to attacks, mechanisms
21

---

for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
We poses such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: Our evaluation framework's 's model was adjusted in light of carlier research, and we have included citations for all relevant publications.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include URL.
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset. For scraped data from particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, ppppesswithhoeee wwwoee.hooc....o com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset. For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.
13. New Assets
Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We offer the evaluation framework's scripts and sample dataset. These are the new assets that we assert. We provide all the necessary information.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/moodl as part of their sub- missions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
22

---

14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
This paper does not involve duman-subjeet
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.
According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/teview based the requirements of your country institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA].
Justification: Since there are no human participants in this publication, there is no need for IRB.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.
23


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "2gmiMcQTXD", "reviewer": "Reviewer_gKiM", "summary": "This paper proposes a framework to evaluation the decision making behavior of LLMs. It focuses on ChatGPT4Turbo, Claude3Opus and Gemini1pro. The results show that LLMs exhibit patterns similar to humans. Impacts of socio-demographic features are also analyzed and the results show that different LLMs can vary from each other.", "questions": "- The problem in consideration is important. The findings appear interesting. \n- While the problem is interesting, the technical contribution of the paper seems limited. The measures chosen are also not fully justified. It would be important to highlight the novelty of the results. \n- Following the above comment, the examination does not appear comprehensive. The reviewer worries that the questions may only cover a small set of problems. As a result, the conclusions drawn might contain significant randomness.", "limitations": "Please see the above.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "- The problem in consideration is important. The findings appear interesting.", "weaknesses": "- While the problem is interesting, the technical contribution of the paper seems limited. The measures chosen are also not fully justified. It would be important to highlight the novelty of the results. \n- Following the above comment, the examination does not appear comprehensive. The reviewer worries that the questions may only cover a small set of problems. As a result, the conclusions drawn might contain significant randomness.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our paper and provide constructive feedback. Below, we address each of your comments and concerns:\n\nClarification of Summary:\nOur paper presents a framework for evaluating the decision-making behavior of LLMs under uncertainty grounded in behavioral economics theories. The three models we evaluated—ChatGPT4Turbo, Claude3Opus, and Gemini1pro—serve as examples of the framework's application on commercial LLMs. To clarify, our results do not simply show that LLMs exhibit human-like patterns; they reveal significant variations across LLMs and from human in the three-dimensional parameters we evaluated. Furthermore, our framework uncovers ethical implications and biases in LLMs, such as increased risk aversion for attributes of sexual minority groups or physical disabilities in Claude3Opus.\n\nResponse to Weaknesses and Questions:\nOur work provides a novel and comprehensive approach to evaluating LLMs' decision-making behavior. We also believe the measures we chose are justified, as they align with current practices in evaluating human decision-making behaviors. Highlighting the novelty of our results, our framework uncovers biases and ethical implications that were previously unexplored in LLM evaluations. Specially: \n\n(1)\tAbout Technical Contribution:\nWe consider our technical contributions to be multifaceted:\n\n1.\tThis is the first work to propose a framework for evaluating LLM decision-making behavior under economic uncertainty without pre-required assumptions. This framework provides a standardized valid method for future research.\n\n2.\tOur technical contribution includes a comprehensive analysis of existing models' mathematical pre-assumptions, ensuring our chosen model is the most appropriate for creating this baseline framework.\n\n3.\tWe conduct an evaluation of three state-of-the-art commercial LLM models: ChatGPT4Turbo, Claude3Opus, and Gemini1pro. This evaluation demonstrates the versatility and applicability of our framework across different leading models. We also analyze how socio-demographic characteristics influence LLM decision-making compared to humans, revealing significant insights into biases and ethical implications.\n\nTo summarize, inventing a new model for LLMs is premature without first establishing a reliable baseline framework. While developing new models for LLMs ongoing and we also involve in that, without a baseline like in this paper, these new models would lack foundation and comparability.\n\n(2)\tAbout Measurement Justification:\nFor measurement selection, as in the related work section, especially line 102-116, we conducted a comprehensive literature review before determining using TCN model. In the domain of decision-making behavior under risky contexts, foundational theories are Expected Utility Theory (EUT) and Prospect Theory (PT). Various models based on these frameworks have been developed for human subjects. While previous studies have used PT models, we discussed their limitations in our paper, particularly the issue of pre-assumptions. The TCN model combines elements of both EUT and PT without relying on these pre-assumptions, making it particularly suitable for testing LLMs. This was the primary reason for our adoption of this model.\n\n(3)\tAbout Scope of Examination:\nThe study of decision-making behavior is a substantial and significant area in both behavioral economics and psychology. It encompasses a wide range of applications, from financial decisions to healthcare choices, and is crucial for understanding human behavior in uncertain contexts. For instance, pioneer works by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and Thaler (2015) illustrate the vast importance and impact of decision-making studies on economics and psychology. These studies have provided foundational insights into how individuals evaluate risk and uncertainty, influencing a multitude of fields and practices (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Thaler, 2015; Camerer, 2003; Camerer & Hogarth, 1999; Rabin, 2000; Bavel et al., 2020).\n\nAs LLMs are increasingly involved in decision-making processes, we believe it is time to propose a framework for evaluating them, which is of great importance. Given these examples, we hope it is clear that the scope of decision-making behavior is far from narrow and holds substantial relevance in various critical fields. The settings in this paper are well-established and widely utilized in behavioral studies, linking closely to many practical applications, and covering an exhaustive range of scenarios is beyond the scope of establishing the framework. \nFurther, to address concerns about statistical randomness, we conducted each experiment for every LLM under every setting 300 times. This approach ensures a large enough sample size to mitigate the effects of randomness and variability. In behavioral economics and psychology, similar sample sizes are often used to draw robust and reliable conclusions. \n\nFinal Remarks:\nWe appreciate the opportunity to clarify our work and address your concerns. We hope this response provides a clearer understanding of our contributions and the scope of our study. We believe our work represents a significant step forward in the evaluation of LLMs and their decision-making behaviors.\n\nReferences:\n\n1.\tKahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.\n\n2.\tThaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics.\n\n3.\tCamerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction.\n\n4.\tCamerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework.\n\n5.\tRabin, M. (2000). Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem.\n\n6.\tBavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., et al. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "DgT0Holynz", "reviewer": "Reviewer_1hfj", "summary": "In this paper, the paper the authors model the decision-making behavior of certain open-source LLMs on lottery selection tasks. They further extend this work, by repeating similar analysis after priming the models with demographic information. Results indicate that the different LLMs differ in their risk profiles as inferred by the parameters of the evaluative model. Some prominent differences also emerge on demographic-primed LLMs. The overarching theme that comes through is the need for caution when using LLMs in practice, especially as analogue to human decision-making.\n\n**Conclusion:** Overall, while the paper considers an interesting problem, the results don’t appear to yield any general insights, and the methodology seems to make assumptions that may be difficult to justify. The paper can still be an alright addition to the conference since it’s timely and touches on an important problem.", "questions": "NA", "limitations": "NA", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. It’s clearly written, provides ample context and the ideas are developed in a streamlined fashion.\n2. The problem considered is pertinent and the approach seems to be well motivated by a long history of modeling human behavior.\n3. The analysis makes sense — studying the distribution of pertinent parameters conditioned on different agents, and demographics to derive insights about the underlying behavior.", "weaknesses": "1. It’s unclear whether the TCN model is actually apt in this setting. For example, it seems to assume deterministic values of parameters like sigma, alpha and lambda, and then tries to infer them based on the LLMs decisions. However, what if these parameters are themselves random variables? Does it make sense to assume the LLM has a fixed risk profile across trials? As an analogy, assuming the coin has a fixed bias p, and estimating it via repeated tossing experiments when p is sampled from a uniform distribution each trial. \n\n2. The utility function was a little unclear to me (line 135). Why does it not cover the entire (x,y) domain? w(p) simplifies to 1/p for alpha = 1. Should it be p? As a tangentially related point, consider numbering the equations. \n\n3. In Step 4 (section 4), can we be certain the estimation algorithm actually converges? This relates to 1, so that the convergence might not be guaranteed if the latent parameters are not fixed.\n\n4. While the qualitative results are sensible — due diligence is needed before LLMs can be entirely trustworthy, the quantitative results don’t impart any deep or actionable insights. Observations like a given version of a pre-trained model tends to show risk aversion doesn’t quite generalize.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We sincerely appreciate your careful review and valuable feedback. Your comments are very insightful and have provided us with the opportunity to clarify our work. Before addressing the specific questions, we would like to emphasize that we recognize that LLMs are machines, not humans. However, by considering the set of queries of LLMs as analogous to a population of humans, we can begin to evaluate their behavior by adapting well-established models tested by human experiments. This approach represents the initial phase of our studies, laying the groundwork and finally moving towards the development of models specifically for LLMs.\n\n1. Regarding the Aptness of the TCN Model:\n\nThe TCN model referenced in the paper was originally designed to evaluate human decision-making behavior, assuming each individual has fixed parameters (sigma, alpha, lambda). In human studies, these parameters are considered deterministic for each individual; while across a population, they are treated as random variables due to inter-individual variability. Our work treats LLMs as analogous to human populations, where each LLM exhibits overall tendencies.\nWhen applied to LLMs, each query to a specific LLM can be viewed as one interaction with a population of subjects. These subjects in the population share one distribution of the parameters. For each interaction, we assume fixed parameters specific to that interaction. This assumption applies to each particular interaction rather than the entire set of interactions or “population”. Therefore, while these parameters are fixed for a particular interaction, they may vary across different interactions, akin to different individuals in a population study.\n\nBy conducting multiple rounds of experiments (e.g., 300 times), we aim to capture the population’s overall tendencies. The mean and standard deviation of these parameters across interactions provide an estimation of the general tendencies and variability of the LLMs’ behaviors.\n\nSince the study of LLMs' decision-making behavior is still in its infancy, there is a lack of literature addressing the granularity of the studies and whether their behavior should be considered as having fixed biases or as random variables, which haven’t been decided by some recent studies using simpler models either, as discussed in lines 105-112 of our paper. We also recognize the need for more comprehensive modeling, potentially involving hierarchical models. We have submitted the raw data and plan to release it, enabling other researchers to further explore the possibility of other distributions and refine models to better understand LLM behavior.\n\n2. Regarding the Utility Function:\n(1)\tDomain of (x,y)\nThis utility function actually have covered the all possible cases of (x,y): our utility function determines which value should be x or y based on their signs and magnitudes, ensuring that all combinations of positive and negative values are appropriately handled. The detailed logic and examples are as follows: \nDenote two outputs O1 and O2, abs(O1) > abs(O2).\nif O1O2>0: x = O1, y=O2\nif O1O2<0: x = min(O1, O2), y = max(O1, O2).\nOur utility function is adapted from the framework in the TCN work which is extensively validated with human subjects. This adaption ensures our methodology is grounded in rigorously tested principles of behavioral economics.\n(2) Typo in the Utility Function: You are correct; upon cross-checking our mathematical derivation and code script (available in the supplementary materials), we found a typo in the equation between lines 135 and 136, where we missed a “-” in w(p). This typo led to confusion regarding the utility function. We apologize for this error and appreciate you pointing it out. We will correct the associated mathematical work throughout. Please note that our code and the results presented in the study are based on the correct form of the utility function, so the typo in the manuscript did not affect our computational results.\n(3) Numbering Equations: Thank you for suggesting numbering the equations. We will incorporate this into our revised manuscript to enhance clarity.\n\n3. Regarding the Convergence of the Estimation Algorithm in Step 4:\n\nEach LLM interaction is treated as an independent trial with fixed parameters, as discussed in our response to the first question. In this setup, the parameters are treated as constants within one particular interaction but vary across different interactions, similar to how characteristics vary among individuals in human population studies.\n\nGiven this setup, the convergence of the estimation algorithm in Step 4 is facilitated by systematically narrowing the intervals for each parameter through the iterative solution of groups of inequalities. We have three groups of inequalities and three parameters; therefore, they allow us to obtain the interval for the three parameters.\n\nIteratively solving for the intervals ensuring that the algorithm converges by gradually refining the estimates until the intervals are sufficiently narrow so that our parameter estimates are robust and reliable across different experimental iterations.\n\n4. Regarding the Depth of Quantitative and Qualitative Insights:\n\nIn our work, the quantitative estimation of parameters, followed by regressions to determine the correlations between embedded demographic features and decision-making behavior, provides the foundation for claiming qualitative observations of a given version of a model. The observations are specific to the models, but the method to draw qualitative observation from the quantitative parameters are generalizable.\n\nNevertheless, we acknowledge that finer insights from quantitative results will be beneficial to obtain more detailed qualitative observations. We plan to enhance our analysis granularity in our future work.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "fdN2hrHKq6", "reviewer": "Reviewer_YNJ7", "summary": "This paper presents a novel framework for evaluating the decision-making behavior of large language models (LLMs) under uncertain contexts, grounded in behavioral economic theories. The authors conducted experiments to estimate risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. The study further explores the impact of embedding socio-demographic features on the decision-making process of these models, revealing significant variations and potential biases. The paper concludes with a call for the development of standards and guidelines to ensure ethical and fair decision-making by LLMs.", "questions": "Please see the Weakness.", "limitations": "Yes", "rating": 4, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. Introduces a comprehensive framework for evaluating LLMs' decision-making behavior, which is the first application of behavioral economics to LLMs without preset behavioral tendencies.\n2. Provides empirical evidence of LLMs' tendencies towards risk aversion and loss aversion, with a nuanced approach to probability weighting, offering insights into their alignment with or divergence from human behavior.\n3. Conducts further experiments with socio-demographic feature embeddings, uncovering disparities in decision-making across various demographic characteristics, which is crucial for understanding potential biases in LLMs.", "weaknesses": "1. The paper does not provide a detailed analysis of the potential causes behind the observed variations in LLM behavior when demographic features are introduced, which could be crucial for understanding and mitigating biases.\n2. The study's focus on three commercial LLMs may limit the applicability of the findings to some open source LLMs like LLaMA.\n3. The authors should discuss the references like chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and reasoning in LLMs, such as \"Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models\" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903), \"Automatic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Models\" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03493), and \"Keypoint-based Progressive Chain-of-Thought Distillation for LLMs\" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16064). These works could provide additional context and depth to the understanding of LLM decision-making processes.’", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments. Below, we address each of the questions raised in the weaknesses section.\n\n1. Regarding the Analysis of Potential Causes for Observed Variations:\n\nAs mentioned in our discussion section (lines 308-313), we have identified several potential reasons for the observed discrepancies between human and LLM behaviors from ethical and sociological perspectives:\n\n(1) Flaws in Human Studies: Studies on minority groups often face privacy challenges in obtaining representative samples, leading to potential biases and flawed understandings.\n\n(2) LLM Misunderstanding: LLMs might possess biases from data and training, which could affect their decision-making behavior.\n\nWe focused our discussion from the data and training perspective because we believed whichever algorithms the LLMs use to update their parameter would’ve inevitably introduced bias, as long as the data wasn’t “perfectly just”. We suggested that if LLMs could reflect real-world trends more accurately with broader, cleaner data and careful training, they might be valuable for social studies, but further research is needed to address human-LLM discrepancies.\nWhile exploring the algorithmic details of model architecture or training datasets is beyond the current paper's scope, we recognize the importance of algorithm-level analysis and will add to our discussion section a recommendation for future research to study the underlying model architectures and training data. Recent algorithm-level studies, such as Meade et al. (2021), Bender et al. (2020), Zhang et al. (2024), Liu et al. (2024), and Guo et al. (2022), as well as the papers related to Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei (2022), Zhang (2022), Feng (2024)), provide foundational insights into addressing biases in LLMs. These works suggest techniques like adversarial debiasing, data augmentation, and fairness constraints, which could be explored in future studies to mitigate biases in LLMs.\n\nOur aim is to serve as an evaluation tool of the behavioral aspects of LLMs in specific contexts. However, we hope that our work provides a robust foundation for such evaluations, facilitating a deeper understanding and mitigation of biases in LLM decision-making behaviors. Understanding the exact causes of LLM behavior remains a complex question; it also cannot be done without evaluating a multitude of models with a foundational framework like ours. \n\n2. Regarding the Inclusion of Commercial LLMs:\nThank you for your suggestion to include more models, especially the open-source models; we also believe this is important work for this research area. We also have carefully planned that for the future work, we will include more models, and testing various dimensions such as architecture differences, model size differences, and dataset differences. \n\nWe specifically chose to evaluate these three commercial LLMs due to their uniqueness and closed-source nature. This choice underscores the need for a reliable and stable evaluation framework to ensure these models behave as intended by their developers. Our framework serves as the first step toward this goal.\n\nNevertheless, comparing LLMs with more transparent/open-sourced bases would indeed strengthen the contribution of our paper.  For example, investigating the relationship between model size and behavior parameters, or examining prompt engineering and instruction-tuning techniques, could provide more detailed insights. While these extensions are beyond the scope of our current study, they represent valuable directions for future research.\n\n3. Regarding References to Chain-of-Thought Prompting and Reasoning:\n\nThank you for the suggestions. We will incorporate discussions of the related works on CoT prompting and reasoning in our revised manuscript if accepted. These references could indeed provide additional context and depth to our understanding of LLM decision-making processes and would make our work more comprehensive.\n\n\nReferences:\n\n•\tBender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2020). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21).\n\n•\tGuo, Y., Yang, Y., & Abbasi, A. (2022). Auto-Debias: Debiasing Masked Language Models with Automated Biased Prompts. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers).\n\n•\tMeade, N., Poole-Dayan, E., & Reddy, S. (2021). An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08527. \n\n•\tLiu, T., et al. (2024). LIDAO: Towards Limited Interventions for Debiasing (Large) Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00548.\n\n•\tZhang, Y. F., et al. (2024). Debiasing large visual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05262.\n\n•\tWei, Jason, et al. (2022). \"Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.\" Advances in neural information processing systems 35: 24824-24837.\n\n•\tZhang, Zhuosheng, et al. (2022). \"Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493.\n\n•\tFeng, Kaituo, et al. (2024). \"Keypoint-based Progressive Chain-of-Thought Distillation for LLMs.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16064 .", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "4WFrBdM0Gn", "reviewer": "Reviewer_hBFU", "summary": "This paper proposes a comprehensive framework to evaluate LLM's decision-making behavior under uncertain contexts. By leveraging computational models from behavioral economics, as well as the experiment paradigms, the authors investigated the risk preferences, probability weighting, and loss aversion of LLMs from the parameters in the models. Finally, by injecting demographic information into LLMs, the authors found significant differences in those parameters measured from behaviors, suggesting potential biases from demographic information (e.g., age, education, or gender) on decision-making tendencies.", "questions": "- One interesting finding from the paper is that human studies may not find significant differences in risk preferences in sexually minority groups but LLMs do respond differently under these settings. There might be two but completely different reasons: first, the authors did not get the full knowledge of the literature in that field and the paper listed there may be only one study that reports non-significant research. The other reason could be intriguing: the studies about one specific topic are limited but humans are generally exhibiting such effects which are overlooked in empirical study. However, LLMs are more likely to learn such effects from massive datasets and thus exhibit effects. So there might be a reverse approach that understanding human behaviors (especially in fields that are overlooked) from LLM's behavior. The authors are not required to formally give an answer to this question, but I find it interesting in public discussion about such potentials.", "limitations": "As indicated above, the major limitations of the paper are not providing a deeper insight into some human cognitive or LLM mechanistic findings, though this framework is valuable and more comprehensive than previous work.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "- This paper advances the evaluation framework of LLM's decision-making behavior under uncertainty, borrowing the models from behavioral economic theories to quantitatively model the behavior of LLMs. By leveraging risk preference, probability weighting and loss aversion, the authors have a deeper investigation on risky decision-making behaviors.\n\n- This paper also investigates demographic influences on the LLMs' behaviors, suggesting potential biases in generating behaviors under different demographic settings.", "weaknesses": "- __Lack of human data__. As the authors have mentioned in the limitation section, it would be fun to investigate the LLM vs. Human behavior at the parameter level of computational models. These parameter differences might explain why humans and LLMs are different or similar on a deeper level.\n\n- __Lack of model selections__. The authors ONLY use one model (TCN model) to evaluate the LLM's behaviors. In computational cognitive sciences and psychology (Wilson, Collins, 2019), it is common to propose multiple cognitive models to test which model might best explain the behaviors of humans (and of machines). The authors could strengthen the model evidence by proposing multiple competing models, comparing models, showing goodness-of-fitting, and even possibly simulation and parameter recovery to show the robustness of the currently selected model. Perhaps there might be better models that can explain the behaviors better and thus, the attribution of behaviors may change.\n\n- __More investigations on LLMs are recommended__. The authors list one of the contributions as investigating multiple LLMs in this framework. The LLM selections are the most known commercial LLMs (like GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini). These model comparisons somehow make sense but two of them are not open-sourced and the training data are not transparent. If the authors could compare some LLMs with a more transparent basis to provide insights into LLMs, this would strengthen the contribution of the paper. For example, the authors could investigate the relationship between model size and the parameters measured from the behaviors. Choosing models within the same family, and trained on similar datasets would make comparisons more informative. Looking at prompt engineering, the way of instruction-tuning or model structure (e.g., encoder-decoder model or decoder-only model) can also make sense while making this framework provide more information.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We appreciate your thoughtful review and the detailed feedback provided. Below, we address each of the concerns and questions raised in the weaknesses section.\n\n1. Lack of Human Data:\n\nWe agree that including more human data would significantly enhance our study. The bottom row in Table 6 shows human parameter data retrieved from one of the original studies that adapted the same evaluation model on human subjects. We acknowledge that we did not emphasize human data in this work due to the complexity and variability inherent in human studies. Human data are influenced by numerous factors, including cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental contexts. Additionally, existing human studies often do not represent the entirety of the human population. For instance, some studies might use college students as samples, while others use rural households, each occurring in different countries and involving people with diverse backgrounds.\nIntegrating such diverse datasets requires the involvement of sociology and economic theories capable of accounting for these variations and ensuring that the resulting analysis is both representative and meaningful. Moreover, ethical considerations are crucial, especially when studying minority groups.\n\nWe are currently collaborating with behavioral economics experts on ongoing research to compare LLM and human data for an apple-to-apple comparison. We hope to complete this work in the near future and believe it will add significant value to our study.\n\n2. Lack of Model Selection:\n\nFor model selection, we conducted a comprehensive literature review. In the domain of decision-making behavior under risky contexts, foundational theories are Expected Utility Theory (EUT) and Prospect Theory (PT). Various models based on these frameworks have been developed for human subjects. While previous studies have used Prospect Theory models, we discussed their limitations in our paper, particularly the issue of pre-assumptions. The TCN model combines elements of both EUT and PT without relying on these pre-assumptions, making it particularly suitable for testing LLMs. This was the primary reason for our adoption of this model.\n\nAlthough our current paper is limited by space constraints, we see great value in your suggestions and will include related results of more models in the final manuscript if accepted and consider them in our future works. We are actively developing new models that may better suit the evaluation of LLM decision-making processes. If our paper is accepted, we will also include a section on future work to discuss these potential directions, integrating more evaluation models and data to enhance the robustness and utility of our framework.\n\n3. Lack of LLM Variety:\n\nWe truly consider your suggestions regarding this to be valuable. The ideas of investigating the relationship between model size and behavior parameters, comparing models within the same family and trained on similar datasets, and examining factors like prompt engineering and model structures, are all meaningful and important research questions to be explored.  While the primary goal of this study is to propose a framework for evaluating decision-making behavior in LLMs, rather than to exhaustively test all models, we are excited to incorporate these directions in future work to enhance the robustness and informativeness of our framework.\n\n4. Response to the Question:\n\nThank you for your interest in this finding regarding the differences in risk preferences between LLMs and human studies. This approach that tries to understand human behaviors from LLM behaviors could indeed be intriguing and valuable for public discussion. We touched on this topic slightly in our discussions and did our best to review relevant literature. \n\nStudying minority groups is always challenging in social sciences, given the context and biases such as sample size limitations and societal prejudices. If it is evident that LLMs have the ability to serve as a supplemental tool, they could help overcome some of these challenges by identifying patterns and preferences that are difficult to detect in traditional studies. Our work aims to serve as an evaluation framework for both researchers and users to at least reveal some information and subsequently infer human characteristics. Leveraging the vast datasets from LLMs, we hope the use can potentially gain a deeper understanding of human behaviors, particularly in under-researched areas, and enrich the field of social sciences.\n\nThank you again for your kind review. We hope our work can be accepted and become a useful evaluation tool for all end-users and researchers.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: After a review/rebuttal/discussion phase that included most of the reviewers we are recommending this paper be accepted for NeurIPS.

All reviewers agreed that the problem in the paper (evaluating decision behavior of LLMs) is an important and interesting one for AI broadly. They also agreed that the paper is clearly written, novel, and is well placed in the literature.

There were some concerns about the comprehensiveness and completeness of the proposed framework, specifically, that the chosen set of measures are not fully justified/comprehensive. We urge the authors to addresses these comments in the final by arguing more directly about both of these properties. 

However, even given the above, the paper does a solid job of articulating and testing the proposed evaluation framework. So while there is always space to be more comprehensive and more general, the steps taken in the paper are a significant first step. We hope the authors will address the reviewers comments on shortcomings in the final version.
Decision: Accept (poster)