We test whether LLMs show robust decision biases. Treating models as participants in two-arm bandits, we ran 20000 trials per condition across four decoding configurations. Under symmetric rewards, models amplified positional order into stubborn one-arm policies. Under asymmetric rewards, they exploited rigidly yet underperformed an oracle and rarely re-checked. The observed patterns were consistent across manipulations of temperature and top-p, with top-k held at the provider default, indicating that the qualitative behaviours are robust to the two decoding knobs typically available to practitioners. Crucially, moving beyond descriptive metrics to computational modelling, a hierarchical Rescorla-Wagner-softmax fit revealed the underlying strategies: low learning rates and very high inverse temperatures, which together explain both noise-to-bias amplification and rigid exploitation. These results position minimal bandits as a tractable probe of LLM decision tendencies and motivate hypotheses about how such biases could shape human-AI interaction.
Figures & tables
Strategy
Temperature
Top- p
Strict
0.0
0.5
Moderate
1.0
0.5
Default-like
1.0
1.0
Exploratory
2.0
1.0
Table 1: Decoding Configurations with Temperature and Top- p Settings
Metric
Definition
Total Reward
Sum over trials [ 22 ]
Target-arm Rate
Fraction choosing the higher-probability arm [ 22 ]
Loss-Shift Win-Shift
Probability of switching after a loss / win [ 22 ]
Choice Bias Index
cˉ−0.5,cˉ=P(choose Y) [ 15 ]
Stubbornness Rate
Fraction of runs with cˉ≥0.8 or cˉ≤0.2 [ 12 ]
Amplification Index
Fraction of post-warm-up runs that are monomorphic [ 9 ]
Table 2: Summary of Computed Behavioural Metrics
Figure 1: Symmetric Bandit Behavioural Metrics
Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandit Behavioural Metrics
Figure 3: Posterior Densities of Group - level Parameters
Figure 4: Test-retest Reliability on the Symmetric Bandit
Figure 5: Test-retest Reliability on the Asymmetric Bandit
Large language models are increasingly used in decision-making tasks that require them to process information from a variety of sources, including both human experts and other algorithmic agents. How do LLMs weigh the information provided by these different sources? We consider the well-studied phenomenon of algorithm aversion, in which human decision-makers exhibit bias against predictions from algorithms. Drawing upon experimental paradigms from behavioural economics, we evaluate how eightdifferent LLMs delegate decision-making tasks when the delegatee is framed as a human expert or an algorithmic agent. To be inclusive of different evaluation formats, we conduct our study with two task presentations: stated preferences, modeled through direct queries about trust towards either agent, and revealed preferences, modeled through providing in-context examples of the performance of both agents. When prompted to rate the trustworthiness of human experts and algorithms across diverse tasks, LLMs give higher ratings to the human expert, which correlates with prior results from human respondents. However, when shown the performance of a human expert and an algorithm and asked to place an incentivized bet between the two, LLMs disproportionately choose the algorithm, even when it performs demonstrably worse. These discrepant results suggest that LLMs may encode inconsistent biases towards humans and algorithms, which need to be carefully considered when they are deployed in high-stakes scenarios. Furthermore, we discuss the sensitivity of LLMs to task presentation formats that should be broadly scrutinized in evaluation robustness for AI safety.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in settings that require sophisticated environmental exploration. However, existing work has raised questions about how LLMs actually balance exploration and exploitation. Unlike classical agents, LLM agents engage with tasks through natural language, exposing them to semantic information with no formal counterpart in the task structure. We introduce the semantic bandit, an extension of the multi-armed bandit setting that explicitly considers the textual labels assigned to actions, and use it to study how semantic priors --- inductive biases arising from associations between language and expected reward learned during pre-training, shape LLM exploration behaviour. We find that semantically informative action labels reduce exploration in favour of exploitation, improving performance when aligned with the reward structure and severely degrading it when misaligned. We further find that negative rewards trigger substantially more exploration than equivalent positive rewards, consistent with an expected-scale bias induced by reward conventions common in pre-training data. Overall, we argue that the use of language to define the environment and rewards introduces unavoidable biases derived from the fact that the model is trained on word co-occurence, with implications for the reliability and robustness of LLM agents in real-world decision-making settings.
David Eric Austin, Kaheer Suleman, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
McGill University · Mila – Quebec AI Institute · Skyfall AI +1
We study Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits (CMABs) for non-episodic decision-making problems where the context includes both textual and numerical information (e.g., recommendation systems, dynamic portfolio adjustments, offer selection; all frequent problems in finance). While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to these settings, utilizing LLMs for reasoning at every decision step is computationally expensive, and uncertainty estimates are difficult to obtain. To address this, we introduce LLMP-UCB, a bandit algorithm that derives uncertainty estimates from LLMs via repeated inference. However, our experiments demonstrate that lightweight numerical bandits operating on text embeddings (dense or Matryoshka) match or exceed the accuracy of LLM-based solutions at a fraction of their cost. We further show that embedding dimensionality is a practical lever on the exploration-exploitation balance, enabling cost-performance tradeoffs without prompt complexity. Finally, to guide practitioners, we propose a geometric diagnostic based on the arms' embeddings to decide when to use LLM-driven reasoning versus a lightweight numerical bandit. Our results provide a principled deployment framework for cost-effective, uncertainty-aware decision systems with broad applicability across AI use cases.