LLM Decision-Making

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

28 papers in the last four weeks, up 460% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 126

Sep 22, 2026cs.AI

Type-Safe Is Not Error-Free: Typed Decision Models Follow the Option Name, Not the Definition Bound to It

Typed decision models return structured results, but output-type correctness alone does not ensure that decisions follow explicit option definitions. Each option pairs a name with a definition that defines its intended meaning; the name, however, can provide a competing semantic cue. We study this conflict in Jev and two open-weight models by changing only the name-definition mapping, leaving the question, state, and the names and definition texts themselves unchanged. We measure decision flips at the level of the selected definition, rather than the returned name. On 1200 decision tasks with task-specific definitions, decision-flip rates are up to 70.4 pp higher with yes/no names than with the 0/1 control. This gap holds across all 4 binary decision rules. With yes/no names, reassignment also lowers their mean AUC from 93.8% to a below-chance 23.2%. In the binary evaluations, random strings used as option names yield mean flip rates close to those of neutral controls across all three models, with comparable balanced accuracy before reassignment. Together, these results support option-name polarity as a contributor to decision instability beyond reassignment alone. The type-error rate remains 0% throughout, showing that type-correct outputs can still fail to follow explicit option definitions.

Yu Sun, Junhao Xu, Jiajia Shi +1

Fudan University · University of Science and Technology of China

LLM Decision-Making Structured Output Generation

Sep 22, 2026cs.AI

REFLEX with Jev for Efficient Selective Control in LLM Agents

LLM agents often use generative models for bounded decisions, raising the question of when these decisions can be handled more efficiently without reducing task success. We study REFLEX, an agent architecture that uses Jev as a fast, typed decision layer and calls a strong LLM when confidence is low, or generation is required. On a frozen 100-task benchmark, REFLEX achieves 95% success with 72.7% fewer strong-model calls than a strong-only agent, with reductions persisting across three fallback families. Controlled interventions show that reliability depends on action-set size and near-valid alternatives near authorization boundaries. External BFCL and

τ

-style evaluations reveal limited advantages over a cheap generative cascade when ordinary routing is already highly accurate. These findings identify when selective control with Jev can reduce computation and where its benefits are limited.

Tiantong Wu, Wei Yang Bryan Lim

Nanyang Technological University Singapore

LLM Inference Efficiency LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Decision-Making LLM Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Sep 22, 2026cs.AI

The Tasteful Agent: Measuring and Improving Taste in Long-Horizon Tasks

LLM agents increasingly work on long-horizon tasks, and the decisions they make along the way, such as which hypothesis to test or which implementation to build on, determine the outcome of the whole run. Making these decisions well is becoming a key capability for both engineering and research agents. We refer to the ability to make good long-horizon decisions as the taste of an agent. While existing benchmarks measure the end-to-end success of agents on long-horizon tasks, none of them measures the taste of an agent. To address this problem, we build Taste-Bench, a benchmark of taste questions constructed automatically from trajectories that agents produced in engineering and research tasks. Each question presents a decision fork, a point in a trajectory where multiple directions are available and one of them leads to a better outcome, and the evaluated model chooses among these directions without seeing what happens after the fork. We mine these forks automatically from parallel attempts at the same task and from detours inside a single trajectory, without needing human annotation. We evaluate frontier models on Taste-Bench and find that the best model answers only 59.7% of the questions correctly. We further find that forks whose deciding evidence appears later in the trajectory are much harder for every model, and that a larger reasoning budget does not improve the accuracy. Finally, we show that taste can be trained. We distill the judgment of a teacher that has seen the outcome into a student model, and the student makes better decisions on unseen tasks and improves end-to-end success on held-out SWE-bench Pro tasks.

Wenbo Pan, Zhichao Liu, Shujie Liu +6

City University of Hong Kong · Microsoft · Independent Researcher

Software Engineering Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Decision-Making LLM Agent Training

Sep 21, 2026cs.AI

When LLM Agents Fail to Read the Room: ReAdapt for Relational Social Reasoning

A social agent's most basic decisions (should I react to this post? who should I reach out to?) are not purely content problems. The right action often hinges on the latent relationship between people -- tie strength, reciprocity, mutual connections -- rather than on which content is most salient. Standard LLM agent loops do not explicitly represent how new relational evidence should revise the agent's current social hypothesis, leaving them prone to surface-obvious choices when relational and content cues diverge. We formalize this failure mode with a relationship-reasoning benchmark: 500 synthetic social worlds with friendships, follows, reaction histories, and feeds, yielding 1,000 queries over two tasks, reaction selection and warm introduction (finding the best bridge to a target person). By construction, the surface-obvious candidate differs from the relationship-grounded oracle in about 53% of queries, forming an overturn subset where the agent must use relational evidence to revise an initially plausible choice. We propose ReAdapt (Relationship-Adaptive Agent with Policy-driven sTate), which augments the ReAct loop with an explicit structured social state z = (G, B, R, N, D) capturing goal, belief, relationship, norm, and disclosure. After each tool observation, ReAdapt runs a typed Adapt step that updates this state and emits a policy operation (continue, switch, abandon, or clarify) before choosing the next action. With Gemini-3-Flash on a stratified subset of n = 150 queries per task, ReAdapt improves warm-introduction accuracy from 37% to 51% (+14 points) and reaction-selection accuracy from 69% to 77% (+8 points). Oracle regret drops from 0.260 to 0.152 and from 0.095 to 0.053, respectively. Holding the model, tools, and environments fixed, these results suggest that explicit relational-state adaptation helps LLM agents turn retrieved social evidence into revised decisions.

Jianzhe Lin, Xiaolin Li, Yunda Liu +2

MetaAI · Work done at Meta

LLM Agent Evaluation Relational Reasoning LLM Decision-Making

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequences

Scientific workflows often require choosing among known relations before a deterministic calculation can proceed. Whether observations share a culture, treatment or reference standard can change the scientific meaning of the resulting count or comparison. We evaluate Jev as a semantic decision component using a harness that follows its documented guidance and assigns arithmetic to code. The study compares twelve model configurations on twenty source-grounded Choices across ten scientific cases, each repeated five times. We measure semantic selections, downstream outputs and final claim labels separately. Jev matched five other configurations at complete semantic correctness and achieved the lowest observed median latency among successful responses. Across three comparison models, seven wrong selections on one culture-history question changed downstream counts while preserving the correct final label. These results identify a useful role for Jev in prepared scientific decision tasks and show why evaluating that role requires checking the relations and quantities that a workflow will reuse.

Boyuan Deng, Shuyi Fan, Hongyang Zhang +1

Johns Hopkins University · Columbia University · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University +1

AI-Assisted Scientific Research LLM Decision-Making Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 20, 2026cs.CL

this-that-model-1.0: A typed decision model that decides in 30 ms, for a millionth of a cent

Software delegates more of its branches to models every year: which queue a ticket enters, whether a command is safe to run, whether a claim clears without a person. What the program needs back is not prose. It is one of n declared options and a number it can threshold. Today that costs a round trip to a frontier model -- hundreds of milliseconds, a per-token bill, and a parser -- for a question that is usually a conjunction of three clauses. this-that-model-1.0 is a 2B-parameter typed decision model. Its answer is read directly from the hidden state at a designated position and restricted to the option set the caller declared, so no text is generated, nothing can be malformed, and every question in a request is answered in the same forward pass. It decides in 30.9 ms on one laptop GPU and generates zero output tokens doing it, where a frontier API call costs 8758 ms and the hosted systems that answer these questions well spend between 21 and 212 generated tokens per question thinking first, billed for every one. It sustains 32 decisions per second on one consumer GPU and never lets the state leave the machine. On a third party's recorded cohort of 68 decision questions, on their inputs and their wording, it scores 0.941 with a Brier score of 0.042, against 0.765 and 0.133 for the hosted service Jev on the same items. One pass of our 42-family internal suite takes 32 seconds and 0.000217 USD of electricity; the most accurate hosted model we measured needs 155.2 minutes and 10.636 USD. We also report where it loses. On multi-step arithmetic, which a single forward pass cannot carry intermediate results through, it scores 0.560 against their 0.98 to 1.00, and a targeted second training round improved the five task families it was written for and transferred to none of the other 13. The model is open-sourced in https://huggingface.co/flock-io/this-that-model-1.0

Zehua Cheng, Wei Dai, Jiahao Sun

University of Oxford

On-Device Language Model Inference LLM Decision-Making Efficient Language Model Inference

Sep 12, 2026cs.AI

When Agents Disagree: Bayesian Backward Reasoning as a Label-Free Anchor for Multi-Agent Collective Decision-Making

When multiple LLM agents yield conflicting answers, the decision-making process dictates whether agent diversity improves performance or merely compounds shared errors. Existing collective decision-making methods, including voting, electoral rules, and LLM judges, rely on forward reasoning: they map evidence to labels in one direction. Although these methods can combine diverse forward traces, they still aggregate estimates that share this evidence-to-label factorization and can inherit correlated errors within the forward pool. We therefore construct a reverse posterior for each instance through Bayesian backward reasoning from an explicit likelihood. The forward and reverse posteriors provide differently factorized approximations of the underlying posterior. Because estimates from different factorizations may tend to share the same error less often, we use Jensen-Shannon divergence to rank agents by cross-path consistency. This cross-path consistency signal underlies three strategies: hard selection (MinJS), soft reweighting (FwdJS), and log-linear fusion (LogLin). Evaluated on DDXPlus across five LLM backbones, our proposed strategies show consistent improvements: MinJS outperforms random selection across all backbones, FwdJS generally improves over the strongest baseline, and LogLin achieves the best performance among the evaluated methods, with its largest gains on the subset where the agents disagree. Despite its weaker standalone accuracy, the reverse posterior serves as a more useful anchor than forward-only alternatives, providing complementary information for collective decision-making. When labeled data are available, a lightweight two-stage calibration can further refine the reverse anchor and improve aggregation performance.

Ken Chen, Wei Wang, Sachith Seneviratne +2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia · Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Sri Lanka

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Bayesian Inference LLM Decision-Making Multi-Agent Consensus

Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors

LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench

Cho-Ying Wu

Bosch AI Research

Legal Judgment Prediction Social Bias in Language Models Political Bias in Language Models LLM Decision-Making Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 4, 2026cs.AI

Necessary or Sufficient? Evaluating LLM Explanations With Behavioural Evidence

LLM decision components that can operate within agent workflows often produce action-relevant recommendations or judgements together with explanations. Operators may use the named factors to monitor a system, diagnose errors, or decide when to escalate an output. Such use assumes that the explanations agree with the component's observable decision behaviour. We test two interpretations of the named factors: necessity, meaning that changing a factor would change the output, and sufficiency, meaning that retaining it while removing other changeable information would preserve the output. We evaluate these interpretations in two synthetic use cases: recommending advisors to clients and judging prompts for harmfulness or risk. Models return an output and the top three factors that most influenced it. Controlled black-box interventions estimate a necessity score for each factor by measuring how often changing it changes the output, and a sufficiency score by measuring how often retaining it preserves the output. Across eight models from the Claude, GPT, and Gemini families, the mean Spearman correlations between the cited ranking and the necessity and sufficiency scores are 0.349 and 0.354 for advisor recommendation, and 0.431 and 0.580 for prompt monitoring. Furthermore, an uncited factor scores above the lowest-scoring cited factor in 57.6% of advisor responses under necessity and 58.1% under sufficiency; the corresponding prompt-monitoring rates are 25.8% and 8.9%. The cited top three contain useful information but do not reliably identify the three factors with the strongest measured influence under necessity or sufficiency. The framework provides a black-box reliability check for explanations used in agent oversight while remaining scoped to individual LLM decisions.

Urja Pawar, Rajitha Ramanayake, Nabeel Kemal +6

BNY

Faithfulness of Language Model Explanations LLM Auditing LLM Interpretability LLM Decision-Making Explainability Evaluation

Sep 3, 2026cs.AI

Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable

Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions, yet users often lack a principled basis for assessing whether to rely on a specific recommendation. Existing approaches typically evaluate broad model properties, such as reliability, uncertainty, or robustness, or focus on user trust, rather than the underlying basis for relying on an individual recommendation. Adapting theoretical foundations from epistemology, we introduce epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that characterizes the stability of a model's preference and the scope over which that preference holds. We operationalize this construct through a four-tier reliance certificate for pairwise recommendations, distinguishing among unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported recommendations. We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies: known-groups tests successfully recover expert-prespecified warrant orderings, and stronger warrants systematically align with independent consensus from crowd workers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epistemic warrant provides information distinct from verbalized confidence and is not readily explained by decision difficulty. Ultimately, this framework offers a theoretically grounded, implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual LLM recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.

Shai Vardi, João Sedoc

University of South Florida, Muma College of Business · New York University

LLM Reliability LLM Decision-Making

Sep 3, 2026cs.AI

Adapting to Evolving Requirements: Agentic AI for Retail Supply Chain Operations

Retail supply chain operations rely on coupled decision modules that must adapt as requirements evolve. LLMs offer a natural-language interface for this task, but existing methods primarily focus on individual optimization models. Extending them to heterogeneous decision pipelines is challenging because a requirement may admit multiple intervention paths with different downstream effects. We formulate requirement-driven adaptation as the joint selection of an intervention route and an admissible module-level change, and propose a graph-constrained agentic framework in which domain agents expose admissible reformulation interfaces and a central processor searches over bounded intervention paths. Candidates are validated and compared using downstream KPIs. In collaboration with a large retail partner, we evaluate 100 warehouse requirements elicited from practitioner interviews, with GPT, Qwen, and DeepSeek as base LLMs. Relative to direct LLM reformulation, our framework improves correctness and end-to-end success across all three models, raising end-to-end success from 72--76% to 79--83%.

Lei Zheng, Liping Yang, Zihao Li +3

School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China · Institute of Operations Research and Analytics, National University of Singapore +1

LLM Agent Orchestration LLM Decision-Making Supply Chain Management

Sep 3, 2026cs.CL

Accountable AI with Grounded, Faithful, Consistent, Actionable Rationales: A Case Study in Clinical Trial Matching with VERDICT

Accountability means a decision can be examined, justified, and contested. LLMs make this hard: fluent output may be ungrounded, incomplete, or unfaithful to the decision process. Achieving accountability requires verified rationales (how was the decision reached), assumptions (what was assumed rather than known), policy consistency (the same treatment for the same facts), and pivotal conditions (what would change the outcome). We introduce self-faithfulness as an automatic test of accountability: changing the pivotal conditions should change the decision. We examine accountable AI through clinical trial matching, a high-stakes task central to evidence-based medicine. Although LLM-based matchers match patients to trials reasonably accurately, they apply decision policies inconsistently and produce rationales that are unfaithful to their own decisions. We introduce VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that translates a decision task, its constraints, and its policy into Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), then derives the decision with SMT and MaxSMT solvers -- so policies are applied consistently and decisions are accountable by construction. Across a SIGIR 2016-derived dataset and TREC 2021, VERDICT achieves the strongest decision accuracy among LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines, applies policies with perfect consistency, and produces clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions, with improved counterfactual self-faithfulness.

Zikai Zhou, Yufei Jin, Yilin Xu +3

Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA · Samueli Electrical and Computer Engineering, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Department of Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA +1

AI Accountability LLM Decision-Making

Aug 12, 2026cs.GT

Do LLMs Take Care of Their Own? Similarity Signals Can Induce Cooperation

As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.

Akash Kundu, Emanuel Tewolde, Ratip Emin Berker +2

Cooperative AI Research Fellowship · Carnegie Mellon University · Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL)

Multi-Agent LLM Systems LLM Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Collaboration LLM Decision-Making

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans. Yet it remains unclear whether their influence is driven by persuasion-oriented expression or compliance-oriented accommodation. We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies across multiple decision scenarios, and use the Werewolf game as an interactive testbed to study their effects on social influence and group outcomes under asymmetric information. Across experiments, stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation. We further reveal a dual effect of compliance: it supports cooperation in honest roles but improves concealment in adversarial roles. These findings suggest that LLM group interactions reveal not only task outcomes, but also measurable patterns of intrinsic behavioral tendency. LLMs can therefore serve as a lens for sociological observation of language-mediated interaction, while highlighting the need to incorporate behavioral tendencies into safety evaluation of LLM systems.

Wenwen He, Wenke Huang, Wei Yang Bryan Lim +1

College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Personality Modeling in Language Models LLM Decision-Making Persuasion in Language Models

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

The Authority Expectancy Effect in Multi-User Conflict

We investigate how social authority (SA) signals interact with severity-based prioritization in large language models, operationalizing each axis as a model-elicited baseline -- the triage hierarchy and the SA hierarchy. Across four LLMs (Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok) and three experimental phases -- resource allocation, fault attribution, and multi-turn dispute mediation -- we find that occupational authority, institutional documentation, and relational congruence can restructure model judgments in ways not captured by additive reweighting of authority cues. We formalize this pattern as the Authority Expectancy Effect (AEE) and characterize it through three properties observed across our conditions: it is reference-dependent, defined only relative to a pre-authority baseline; it involves evidential reinterpretation, in which identical content acquires different inferential implications depending on which party bears the SA signal; and it exhibits direction sensitivity, producing opposite outcomes depending on whether authority position and evidentiary cues align.

Eunna Lee

Independent Researcher

Social Bias in Language Models LLM Decision-Making

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

When the Judge Should Not Decide: Evidence-Locked, Non-Compensatory Selection Bounds LLM-Judge Failure in Reasoning Pipelines

An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships. We show that the cost of that decision depends less on judge accuracy than on the decision rule the judge is embedded in. On frozen candidate pools from four GRPO policies, an unconstrained scalar DeepSeek-R1-7B judge buys almost nothing over answer-level majority vote (+1.0 pp on 500 GSM8K questions, +0.34 EM on 300 HotpotQA questions), and on a frozen-rule 30-question confirmation split it is 10 points worse than majority, a judge that destroys accuracy while scoring candidates confidently. We then subordinate the same judge to Evidence-Locked Derive-Gate-Repair (EL-DGR), a task-adaptive non-compensatory rule under which a judge preference may override evidence-supported consensus only with an extractive evidence certificate, and a repair only when neither alternative is certified and the repair is. With no change to the judge, the candidates, or the budget, EL-DGR reaches 58.2% on GSM8K (vs. 56.8% judge, 55.8% majority, 55.4% first candidate) and 17.33 EM / 25.46 F1 on HotpotQA (vs. 15.67/23.49, 15.33/23.19, 15.33/22.97), improving on first-candidate GRPO by +2.8 pp (exact McNemar p=0.0026) and +2.00 EM (p=0.070, borderline). A decision audit shows why: EL-DGR overturns consensus on only 8 of 30 pilot questions and never converts a correct consensus into an incorrect answer. We also report what did not work: the same seven-channel decomposition used as a step-level gated training reward is null, and corrected channel-drop ablations show no channel is individually necessary (p=1.0 throughout). The practitioner-facing finding is negative about judges and positive about admissibility, bound the judge's blast radius rather than trying to make it accurate.

Yiyao Zhang, Diksha Goel, Hussain Ahmad +2

School of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia · CSIRO’s Data61, Clayton, VIC, Australia · School of Computer Science and Information Technology, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability LLM Decision-Making LLM Reasoning

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating Investment Logic in Large Language Models: A Real-World Benchmark Towards Personalzied Financial Agents

Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries. Yet financial LLMs are evaluated either by static question answering or by terminal profit and loss. The former omits agency; the latter cannot reveal whether a profitable action was grounded, profile-consistent, or merely lucky. We ask whether the community is using the wrong ruler for consequential agents. We introduce \textsc{InvestLogicBench}, a process-native benchmark containing 201,247 documented decisions from 151 real-world investors. Each episode instantiates a \textbf{P

\rightarrow

E

\rightarrow

R

\rightarrow

D

\rightarrow

O} trace: investor \textit{Profile}, observable market \textit{Events}, investment \textit{Reasoning}, executable \textit{Decision}, and delayed \textit{Outcome}. The release includes profile construction, point-in-time event binding, structured logic, horizons, outcomes, and post-mortems, and supports comprehension, profile-conditioned generation, and end-to-end replay. Across four leading LLMs, logical plausibility remains near 4/5 while event grounding is only 0.8--2.8/5; return and process quality also disagree. These results expose polished but weakly grounded reasoning that outcome-only evaluation hides. We further argue that P

\rightarrow

E

\rightarrow

R

\rightarrow

D

\rightarrow

O should be a data-system interface, requiring versioned profiles, temporal provenance, inspectable retrieval, decision ledgers, and replayable outcomes. Finance is our stress test for a broader class of personalized, consequential agents.

Yuanhong Jiang, Jingjie Zou, Zhenghong Lin +4

AI-Assisted Decision Making LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Decision-Making Finance Financial Decision-Making

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Seeing Is Not Deciding: Can Multimodal LLMs Act as Effective CEOs?

Large language models are increasingly applied as autonomous decision-making agents. However, in executive business decisions, existing benchmarks are limited to textonly settings. This makes it unclear whether models can perceive visual business evidence and effectively integrate it to improve decision quality. We introduce C-SUITEBENCH, a controlled multimodal benchmark that includes five decision tasks under paired text-only and multimodal conditions across 50 scenarios. We place nine frontier models in the role of a chief executive officer and evaluate their decision-making ability. Multimodal inputs consistently improve evidence-centric reasoning, with the largest and most reliable gains appearing in risk forecasting and board-facing justification. However, we uncover a multimodal integration paradox: adding visual business information degrades constrained resource allocation for all nine models, even as visual grounding itself improves. Ablation experiments reveal that this failure emerges from signal crowding, although each visual channel helps individually, their combination disrupts constraint satisfaction during decoding. These findings demonstrate that visual perception and constrained action are separable bottlenecks in multimodal agents, and that indiscriminate visual augmentation can harm high-stakes decision making, motivating selective grounding strategies for future executive AI systems.

Yuyang Dai, Xueqing Peng, Yuxia Wang +2

INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria · Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Multimodal Grounding LLM Decision-Making Multimodal Agents Multimodal Model Evaluation

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

EcoAgent-Bench: Evaluating Economic Decision-Making in Budget-Constrained LLM Agents

Agent benchmarks usually measure task completion and treat resource use as an auxiliary statistic. In deployment, however, the choice among a local lookup, broad search, composite research tool, stronger model, or human escalation is part of the task itself. We introduce EcoAgent-Bench, in which every task specifies priced actions and an explicit budget. Its 304 real-derived tasks span five families adapted from GAIA, HotpotQA, and MuSiQue, and test four decisions: avoiding unnecessary escalation, escalating when local evidence is insufficient, selecting a model tier, and stopping on unsupported premises. We evaluate seven LLM agents in tool-API and workspace-CLI settings, together with four oracle scripted controls. Micro-averaged accuracy rewards one-sided policies: always-escalate controls achieve high micro success while failing save-oriented tasks. We therefore also report an economic-consistency score (the worse of accuracy on upgrade-oriented and save-oriented family groups) which exposes this failure. Tool-API agents attain only 3.9-24.0% micro strict success (at most 7.3% economic consistency), often either stopping before warranted escalation or overspending on cheap tasks. A threshold-crossing budget sweep changes GPT-5.4's escalation rate from 0% to only 3%. These results show that completion under a budget and economical action selection are distinct properties. We release the task bundle, transformation pipeline, frozen evaluation environments, and integrity-bound result artifacts needed to study both.

Jie Wu, Ming Gong, Feixiang Cheng +1

Atlassian

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Tool-Use Evaluation LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Decision-Making

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

EuroExec: Frontier Language Models Fall Short of Expert Judgment on European Executive Decision Tasks

Frontier LLMs are increasingly put to use on open-ended complex questions, different in nature from the ones they are typically evaluated on. We dedicate more than 4,000 human expert hours to evaluate a selection of six frontier LLMs on a member of this class of problems: EuroExec, our introduced human expert-based benchmark composed of 413 open-ended long-form European executive tasks authored by 47 vetted domain experts, each question drawn from experience in a real case. Every response is manually evaluated through a multi-attribute rubric, an item-specific checklist of requirements, and a preference rank ordering, extracting an aggregate metric "Solve Rate". The strongest model solves only 56.9% of tasks, while expert-written reference answers judged blindly are solved at near-ceiling levels and are preferred over every model response in 74% of direct rankings, placing frontier generative systems well below the professional standard of work they are already used for. We see that the best way to extract this kind of conclusion is by employing human evaluators, carefully checking their consistency through rigorous statistical analysis, and observe that automatic measurements also fall short when evaluating on this case of real-world open-ended problems with a subjective ground truth.

Pau Arnal, Khaled Denfir, Danylo Smahliuk +2

Sovrano AI

Open-Ended Generation LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Decision-Making

Aug 2, 2026cs.SE

When Policies Change Probabilities: Modular Decision-Making for LLM Code Review

LLM code reviewers often estimate patch risk and make approval decisions in one prompt. A probability should depend on evidence; costs should determine the action taken from it. We test whether four deployed reviewer interfaces preserve this separation using 15,792 responses on 720 candidate patches, with one that passed and one that failed an archived test harness for each of 360 repository issues. In matched calls with the patch and monitor evidence fixed, replacing an equal-cost policy with a 10:1 false-accept policy changes reported failure probabilities by 13.6 to 16.9 percentage points on average. For every reviewer, the actions returned under the high-cost prompt are worse than rejecting all patches. Applying the same high-cost rule to probabilities elicited under equal costs reduces loss for all four systems, showing that probability elicitation itself contributes to the excess loss. We also evaluate a modular pipeline that elicits risk without policy information, combines an independent monitor score, and applies costs in code. Relative to calibrated reviewer-only scores, the pipeline improves average probability accuracy and, at equal costs, reduces mean loss by .073 per issue while accepting 58 to 68% of patches. At 10:1, it accepts none and matches reject-all. Downstream policy can therefore change the probability it is meant to use, motivating separate evaluation of risk, outside evidence, and action.

Rasvik Kudum, Max Corbett, Hitansh Paliwal +3

LLM Evaluation LLM Decision-Making LLM Uncertainty Estimation Automated Code Review

Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

Isotropy Cliffs: The Geometric Signature of Decision-Making in Large Language Models

We investigate the geometry of decision-making in Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) through the lens of isotropy. Analyzing five open-weight models across diverse datasets, we identify decision-critical transition layers characterized by a shift in isotropy, coinciding with a major representational change and the emergence of task-relevant clusters. We demonstrate that this synchronized geometric behavior is strongly correlated with downstream accuracy (

r\approx0.84

), displaying its relevance for successful decision-making. Furthermore, we show that this transition is robust to prompt variations, suggesting that it reflects a general mechanism of model behavior.

Okan S. Coskun, Florian Rottach, Carsten Eickhoff +1

University of Tubingen · The University of Texas at Austin

Multiple-Choice Question Answering LLM Decision-Making Representation Geometry in Language Models

Jul 31, 2026cs.AI

Bayesian and Motivated Reasoning in AI Agents

AI agents increasingly perform open-ended tasks in settings where their conclusions can guide consequential decisions. We provide evidence that AI agents draw different conclusions from identical numerical data when the substantive framing changes. We demonstrate this behavior in high-stakes domains in medicine, election forensics, and geopolitical forecasting by holding the evidence fixed while changing the scenario in which the evidence appears. Across twelve agent-domain comparisons, agents' conclusions are strongly influenced by their prior beliefs. They are more likely to reach an affirmative conclusion when it is framed around a proposition they already regard as likely, while the reverse holds when the framing conflicts with their prior. The framing also changes how some agents work: they search more extensively, choose different analytical specifications, and evaluate the same evidence differently. These results identify a particular risk of delegating decision-making to AI agents, as their decisions may depend on prior beliefs that are neither specified in the task nor visible in the decision record.

Eddie Yang

Purdue University

LLM Decision-Making Agentic Reasoning LLM Agent Reliability

Jul 30, 2026cs.AI

Guiding Large Language Models with Genetic Programming-Evolved Heuristic Knowledge for Dynamic Multi-Mode Project Scheduling

In dynamic multi-mode project scheduling, activities have alternative execution modes and uncertain durations, while precedence relations and limited resources constrain their execution. Heuristic priority rules support fast online decisions, but their design requires substantial domain expertise. Genetic programming (GP) hyper-heuristics can automatically evolve such rules. Large language models (LLMs), meanwhile, provide a flexible interface for interpreting scheduling information and explaining decisions. However, zero-shot LLM decisions may lack domain knowledge, consume many tokens, and vary across repeated queries. GP-evolved rules therefore provide a potential source of scheduling knowledge for guiding LLM decisions. Unlike existing LLM--GP hybrids that use LLMs to support heuristic evolution, we transfer knowledge in the reverse direction, using knowledge extracted from high-quality GP rules to guide an online LLM decision maker. We extract knowledge from high-quality GP rules and inject it through Feature Selection, Feature Hint, Rule Reference, and Rule Follow. These mechanisms are evaluated in terms of scheduling performance, token consumption, decision stability, and the feature focus expressed in generated rationales. GP-derived guidance generally improves the unguided LLM, but its representation matters. Simplifying the decision context or supplying explicit decision logic is more effective than highlighting important features. Feature Selection offers the best token efficiency, whereas Rule Follow achieves strong performance at greater token cost. Guidance also improves decision stability and changes the features expressed in generated rationales.

Yuan Tian, Yi Mei, Mengjie Zhang

Centre for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence & School of Engineering and Computer Science, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

Large Language Model-Guided Optimization Combinatorial Optimization LLM Decision-Making

Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

Scores Are Not Decisions: Cost-Aware Stopping for Tool Acquisition in LLM Agents

As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure. Routers and retrievers can rank candidate tools by relevance, but a ranking alone does not determine how many are worth selecting. Existing approaches leave acquisition under heterogeneous costs unaddressed. We formulate this decision as cost-aware marginal decision-focused stopping (CAM-DF) over ranked tool prefixes, with CAM-DF-lite as a compact interpretable variant. We train directly on the offline gap between stopping now and the best continuation: its sign labels the decision, its magnitude weights each error by the payoff at stake. We prove this objective is Bayes-aligned with the stopping target and that score-only rules are suboptimal under heterogeneous costs. We evaluate on 1,343 tasks across five tool-use domains. On

τ

-bench Retail, CAM-DF attains the highest payoff among deployable methods, with gains over a predict-then-threshold baseline across all five ranking sources and two cost regimes. Our approach is state-of-the-art under heterogeneous costs and high cost pressure, with larger gains under weaker rankings. In live execution, CAM-DF exposes the agent to 37% fewer tools than full access while maintaining comparable task success. The CAM-DF family is a lightweight pre-execution plugin that turns existing tool rankings into lower-cost acquisition decisions without fine-tuning the underlying LLM.

Yicheng Feng, Yan Zhang, Yan Cheng +1

School of Advanced Manufacturing and Robotics, Peking University · Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University · Business School, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics +1

Decision-Focused Learning Tool-Using Agents LLM Decision-Making Tool-Using Language Agents

Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

Thinking Under Uncertainty: Evidence Use and Information-Seeking in Language Models

Inference-time thinking improves the performance of large language models, but aggregate outcomes do not reveal whether models use available evidence more effectively or seek information that could improve future decisions. We distinguish these responses by measuring action preference, thinking length, and reported confidence under matched uncertainty. Ten open-weight models completed matched horizon-style two-armed bandit trials in thinking and non-thinking modes. A cognitive model separated value-guided action and uncertainty-independent choice noise from two behavioral signatures of exploration: a UCB-like preference for the less-known arm and Thompson-like choice variability that increases with total uncertainty. On average, thinking strengthened value-guided action and reduced uncertainty-independent choice noise, without producing UCB-like exploration or strengthening Thompson-like exploration. Outside action, the information-imbalanced history condition, which also displayed more observations than the matched balanced condition, was associated with greater thinking length. Reported confidence became more sensitive to decision difficulty and more strongly associated with chosen task evidence. We interpret these thinking-length and reported-confidence patterns as consistent with metacognitive control and metacognitive monitoring, respectively, without establishing either process. Decoder sweeps, especially temperature, altered choice noise and thinking length but did not reproduce the joint cross-output pattern. In this controlled decision setting, thinking improved how models acted on current evidence, while neither measured signature supported a shift toward a more information-seeking policy.

Hua-Dong Xiong, Xinyuan Yan, Ji-An Li +3

School of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Georgia Tech · Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine · Department of Psychology, New York University +1

LLM Decision-Making LLM Uncertainty Estimation Metacognition in Language Models

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

One More Turn, Less Regret: A Regret-Based Multi-Turn Benchmark for LLMs' Clarification Policies

Ambiguous user requests make clarification a sequential decision problem for conversational LLM assistants: they must decide whether to ask, what to ask, when to stop, and when to answer. We introduce RegretBench, a multi-turn benchmark that evaluates clarification as policy behavior rather than isolated question quality. RegretBench provides a hidden-intent formulation of ambiguity, supports free-form interaction grounded in semantic-state tracking, and introduces a regret-based objective that measures how much value a model loses relative to a reference clarification policy. Experiments on open-domain QA and product recommendation scenarios show that final success alone is insufficient, as models with similar accuracy can differ substantially in efficiency, robustness to user behaviors, and stopping decisions. By jointly measuring intent resolution, interaction cost, ineffective clarification, and regret, RegretBench reveals whether models clarify usefully and efficiently. Our results show that effective clarification requires more than plausible questions: models must ask the right question at the right time and stop once the user's intended meaning is clear.

Minh Ngoc Ta, My Anh Tran Nguyen, Duong D. Nguyen +2

MBZUAI · BKAI Research Center, Hanoi University of Science and Technology · INSAIT, Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"

LLM Evaluation Clarification Question Generation LLM Decision-Making Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation

Jul 15, 2026cs.CL

Multi-Head Latent Control: A Unified Interface for LLM Agent Decision Making

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents, but reliable agentic behavior requires more than next-token prediction. At inference time, it is preferred that an agent can decide whether to proceed with its current reasoning, defer to a stronger model, request additional information, invoke external tools, or abstain under the given setup. Existing approaches address these decisions through prompt-level routing, external orchestration, or task-specific fine-tuning, which primarily rely on input-side signals, and are often costly and difficult to maintain as model backbones evolve. We ask whether such control decisions can be inferred directly from a model's latent generation process. We introduce Multi-Head Latent Control, a lightweight layer that reads hidden-state trajectories from a frozen LLM or VLM to produce deployment-time control signals. A Capability Head predicts whether the current model can solve the instance or should defer to a stronger collaborator, while a Resolution Head predicts appropriate resolution decision Clarification, Tool Use, Abstention, or Direct Answering. Both heads are trained only on latent traces from the same frozen LLM backbone, enabling post hoc adaptation without modifying the model. Across language and vision-language settings, Multi-Head Latent Control consistently improves the quality-cost tradeoff of multi-model systems, enabling early handoff from partial generations and more accurate intervention decisions. In routed execution (small + large model), it reduces large-model usage by up to 90.7 percent on AndroidWorld and 27-53 percent on average across benchmarks, while retaining most of large-model performance. Additionally, the learned control signals improve tool-use decision quality, yielding up to +158 percent relative score gain and 65.5 percent fewer missed-required tool calls.

Amirhosein Ghasemabadi, Ruichen Chen, Bahador Rashidi +1

1ECE Department, University of Alberta · 2Huawei Technologies Canada Co., Ltd.

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Language Model-Based Control LLM Decision-Making LLM Agents LLM Routing

Jul 14, 2026cs.CL

Can Induced Emotion Bias LLM Behaviors in Sequential Decision Making?

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains, understanding contextual factors that may modulate their decision-making becomes critical. While LLMs are trained to perceive and resonate with users' emotions, it remains unclear whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making. We investigate this question using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a classic psychological paradigm for studying decision-making under uncertainty, combined with an imagination-based emotion induction procedure. We first validate the feasibility of this paradigm by confirming that LLMs can sense strong, distinguishable emotions from context and that LLM agents can learn from sequential interactions in a human-like pace. With the validated setup, we find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average. However, the effects of anger are conditioned: inducing anger makes LLM agents less sensitive to penalties for bad decisions, and in early stages of the game, anger can lower exploration, locking decisions into a few choices early. These findings reveal the subtle yet distinct effects of induced emotion on LLM decision-making compared to human behavior, and provide a tool for future research on affective modulation of LLM agents.

Minh Khoi Ho, Zihao Zhu, Runchuan Zhu +4

MBZUAI · Texas A&M University · National University of Singapore +4

Sequential Decision Making LLM Decision-Making Emotion Representation in Language Models

Jul 11, 2026cs.AI

Behavioural Signatures of Risk-Sensitive Decision-Making in Large Language Models

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision support, it is important to understand whether their choices under uncertainty exhibit stable and interpretable behavioural regularities. Human decision-making combines relatively persistent risk preferences with context-dependent adjustment, yet it remains unclear whether analogous behavioural structure can be observed in LLM-based decision systems. Here we examine this question using a controlled multi-model framework based on no-limit Texas Hold'em, where behaviour is quantified by Participation, measuring voluntary engagement in uncertain opportunities, and Proactiveness, measuring pre-flop risk escalation. Across homogeneous self-play and heterogeneous mixed-model interactions, frontier LLMs exhibit stable, model-specific risk profiles, forming a spectrum from conservative to aggressive decision styles. These profiles remain largely robust under changing opponent composition, while the most conservative and most aggressive models diverge further in mixed settings. Under global risk pressure and personal resource constraint, models adapt in structured but heterogeneous ways, ranging from broad behavioural contraction to selective de-escalation and near-invariant behaviour. These findings suggest that LLMs differ not only in baseline risk disposition, but also in the risk signals they respond to and the flexibility with which they adjust, providing a behavioural basis for auditing risk-sensitive decision-making in interactive settings. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/XuankunRong/AgentTexasPoker.

Xuankun Rong, Wenke Huang, Bo Du +2

School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Personality Modeling in Language Models LLM Decision-Making Multi-Agent LLMs