Language models reveal measurable, lab-dependent risk aversion but are context-sensitive: logits map to an exact random-utility model allowing researchers to estimate—and, via fine-tuning, implant—risk preferences, yet presentation and labeling can change the intensity of their choices.

Main Finding

Language models’ single-token decoding rule is structurally equivalent to a random-utility (multinomial logit) choice model: the model’s raw logits act as the systematic utility index and decoding temperature is the scale of i.i.d. Gumbel noise. This makes economic preferences directly observable (for open models) or structurally identifiable (for closed models). Applied to a controlled portfolio-choice task, all evaluated models display innate risk aversion but the degree varies across models/labs. Models respect dominance, continuity, and transitivity but violate label-invariance (reflexivity) and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA): preferences change with how options are presented. Finally, fine-tuning can reliably implant a target risk attitude into a model.

Key Points

• Exact structural mapping: softmax decoding P(i|x,τ) = exp(ui/τ)/Σ exp(uj/τ) admits random-utility representation Ui = ui + τϵi with ϵ i.i.d. Gumbel → multinomial logit (McFadden).
• Logits = observed systematic utility (ui = κVi + ζ(x)); κ scales utility into logit units, ζ(x) is a menu-wide common shift.
• Six revealed-preference diagnostics operationalized: completeness (menu adherence), reflexivity (label invariance), monotonicity (mean–risk dominance), transitivity, continuity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA).
• Experimental design: forced single-token choices among portfolios (expected return, standard deviation). Utility specified as quadratic in attributes → single risk-aversion parameter.
• Estimation:
  • Open-weight models: read logits directly to recover utility indices.
  • Closed/proprietary models: recover parameters via maximum likelihood from repeated sampled choices (as in human-subject discrete-choice estimation).
• Empirical findings:
  • Models reject strictly dominated options and show smooth, transitive rankings (monotonicity, continuity, transitivity largely hold).
  • Reflexivity and IIA fail: changing label/position or adding a dominated option can change choice probabilities and the intensity of preference between unchanged options (context/prompt dependence).
  • All twelve models evaluated are risk averse, but heterogeneously so across labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Alibaba, etc.).
  • Fine-tuning an open-source model can induce targeted risk-aversion parameters with high precision.
• Identification insight: because logits are observable for some models, preference identification does not rest on the usual unobserved-shock assumptions; temperature determines effective scale κ/τ.

Data & Methods

• Two-step measurement program:
• Diagnostic battery: present menus and compute indices for the six axioms. Completeness index C(x,τ) = Σ_{i∈C} exp(κVi/τ) / Σ_{k∈V} exp(κVk/τ) measures menu adherence (exact completeness unattainable at positive τ unless out-of-menu logits are masked).
• Structural estimation: controlled portfolio environment where options are described by expected return and SD; maintain a quadratic utility functional form so risk attitude reduces to one parameter.
• Models tested: a portfolio of twelve language models spanning open-source and frontier proprietary models.
• Measurement modalities:
  • For inspectable models: extract logit vectors from a single forward pass and map directly to utility indices.
  • For black-box models: collect repeated sampled choices under fixed prompts and perform MLE as in discrete-choice econometrics.
• Fine-tuning experiment: standard supervised/targeted fine-tuning to shift weights so induced logits implement desired κ (risk preference); validated by re-running the choice task and recovering the target parameter.

Implications for AI Economics

• Delegation risk and market effects:
  • When principals delegate allocation decisions, models impose default economic preferences that are systematic and lab-specific; when many agents act with the same model preference, market allocations could shift measurably.
  • Because preference intensity (choice probabilities) is context-sensitive (violations of reflexivity and IIA), prompt formatting and option presentation can materially affect outcomes — a practical source of allocator-level heterogeneity and strategic vulnerability near indifference.
• Measurement, transparency, and regulation:
  • The logits→utility mapping provides an operational protocol for auditing an agent’s default preferences. Regulators or principals could require disclosure of default risk parameters or access to logits/temperatures for oversight.
  • Standardized diagnostic tests (the six axioms + structural estimation) are recommended to certify models used for economic delegation.
• Alignment and control:
  • Fine-tuning is a straightforward lever to set a model’s risk attitude precisely; therefore principals can (and should) either fine-tune agents to match declared preferences or require proof of alignment.
  • Prompt engineering alone is insufficient as invariance fails; robust specification likely requires weight-level interventions (fine-tuning), masking, or explicit preference constraints.
• Modeling and research directions:
  • Economic models that consider AI agents should treat model identity (lab/model family) as a feature determining risk preferences.
  • Extend this program beyond risk (e.g., time preferences, social preferences, ambiguity aversion), multi-step decision-making, and agents that output sequences or actions rather than single tokens.
  • Investigate market-level equilibrium effects if large numbers of delegated choices are made by similarly biased agents and potential manipulability when context-dependence is exploitable.

If you want, I can: - Extract the formal definitions/indices (completeness index, reflexivity condition, etc.) into a short cheat-sheet. - Sketch how to implement the diagnostic + estimation pipeline in code (both for open and closed models).