Representation theorems let AI systems be checked without labels: by querying models on synthetic bets, budgets and state-contingent claims, one can compute polynomial-time penalties that are zero exactly when outputs are rationalizable under standard decision-theory notions, enabling label-free evaluation and regularization.

Main Finding

Representation theorems from decision theory (de Finetti, Afriat, Echenique–Saito) give an “if and only if” basis for label-free evaluation and regularization of LLMs and other AI systems. By eliciting a model’s probabilities, choice allocations, or state-contingent portfolios on synthetic choice problems and checking the corresponding axioms, one can compute continuous, polynomial-time computable penalties that are zero exactly when the model’s behavior is rationalizable under the targeted notion (coherent probability, utility maximization, or subjective expected utility). These checks require no external labels or realized outcomes and exhaust the implications of the chosen rationality standard for the elicited data; they therefore provide a principled, complementary evaluation and regularization signal.

Key Points

• General idea: use representation theorems (equivalence of axioms ↔ existence of a rationalizing objective) to convert behavioral axioms into computable, label-free diagnostics and penalties.
• Three concrete instantiations:
• Probabilistic coherence (de Finetti): model probability assessments avoid Dutch books ↔ extendable to a probability measure. Exploitability penalty L(p) is the optimal guaranteed bettor profit per unit stake from a linear program; L(p)=0 iff coherent.
• Preference rationality (Afriat/GARP): choice data {(x_t, p_t)} are rationalizable by a monotone, concave utility ↔ data satisfy GARP. Continuous penalty: 1 − CCEI (Critical Cost Efficiency Index), computed by shrinking budgets (e-GARP) via binary search; alternative money-pump indices exist (positive iff GARP fails) but may be discontinuous.
• Decision under uncertainty (Echenique–Saito / SARSEU): portfolio choices over state-contingent claims are jointly rationalizable by a single prior µ and concave u ↔ data satisfy SARSEU. One can define e-SARSEU and take 1 − E as a continuous penalty; SARSEU feasibility reduces to LP checks and E attains one of finitely many payoff ratios.
• Practical elicitation design: fix a role/persona per batch and test consistency within that role; generate synthetic choice problems (events, budget sets, portfolios) cheaply at scale.
• Complementarity: coherence/rationalizability does not identify the underlying prior or utility and does not guarantee alignment or desirable objectives — so these penalties complement rather than replace ground-truth, human-preference, or safety signals.
• Computability: the relevant tests reduce to linear programs or finite systems of linear inequalities and are solvable in polynomial time (practical for large-scale synthetic data).
• Existing empirical evidence: prior work documents systematic incoherence and preference violations in LLMs but also that such properties are responsive to training and fine-tuning (cited: Tak et al. 2026; Chen et al. 2023; Paleka et al. 2025; Qiu et al. 2026; Zhu & Griffiths 2024; Kim et al. 2026; etc.).

Data & Methods

• Theoretical method: map each representation theorem to a finite-data test and to a continuous penalty that equals zero iff the finite data are rationalizable under the theorem.
• De Finetti (probability coherence)
  • Data: model-assigned probabilities p(E_i) for finite events E1..En defined over atoms ω1..ωm.
  • Test/penalty: solve LP maximize_b min_j Σ_i b_i (1_{E_i}(ω_j) − p(E_i)) subject to Σ_i |b_i| ≤ 1. The LP optimal value L(p) measures guaranteed bettor profit per unit stake; L(p)=0 ⇔ coherent.
• Afriat (preference rationality / GARP)
  • Data: T observations (x_t chosen at prices p_t with income w_t = p_t·x_t).
  • Test/constructive check: Afriat inequalities (linear constraints) for existence of {u_t, λ_t>0} with u_s − u_t ≤ λ_t p_t·(x_s − x_t) ∀s,t.
  • Continuous penalty: CCEI = sup{e ∈ [0,1] : data satisfy e-GARP}; penalize 1−CCEI. CCEI computable by binary search (each step a GARP check). Lemma: with random continuous prices and budget exhaustion, CCEI=1 iff GARP holds almost surely.
  • Alternatives: money-pump indices that equal the maximum extractable value (positive iff GARP fails) — interpretable but possibly discontinuous.
• Echenique–Saito (SARSEU for SEU)
  • Data: T observations (x_t ∈ R^S_+ chosen at state-price vectors p_t ∈ R^S_++ with income w_t).
  • SARSEU: combinatorial multiplicative axiom (condition (2) in paper) over sequences of payoff comparisons ensuring consistency with a single full-support prior µ and concave u.
  • Test/penalty: SARSEU is reducible to LP feasibility; define e-SARSEU (weaken comparisons by factor e) and E = sup{e : e-SARSEU holds}, penalize 1−E. Lemma: E is attained and equals 1 iff SARSEU holds; E takes one of finitely many ratios formed from observed payoffs.
• Elicitation/design notes:
  • Fix role/persona per batch to avoid cross-role inconsistency penalties.
  • Randomize prices / problem instances to avoid degeneracies where continuous penalties are misleading.
  • The penalties are label-free: they use only the model’s responses and the known logical/price structure of the synthetic problems.
• Computational complexity: main tests are LPs or checks over finite inequality systems; solvable in polynomial time and practical for large synthetic datasets.

Implications for AI Economics

• Label-free, economically grounded evaluation metrics:
  • Provide objective, auditable measures (exploitability, money-pump size, CCEI/E) tied to standard economic notions (arbitrage, revealed preference, SEU).
  • Enable large-scale baseline assessment of belief and preference coherence without needing ground-truth outcomes or human labels.
• Regularization and training:
  • Continuous penalties yield differentiable or piecewise-differentiable objectives that can be incorporated as auxiliary losses (e.g., fine-tuning or RL reward shaping) to reduce exploitability/incoherence.
  • Because penalties are zero exactly when the data satisfy the axiom set, minimizing them enforces all testable implications of a chosen rationality notion on the elicited domain.
• Risk, forecast markets, and deployment:
  • Reduced Dutch-book exploitability improves reliability of probabilistic forecasts and strengthens defensibility in forecast markets or decision-support settings.
  • GARP/SARSEU compliance reduces arbitrage and exploitable preference inconsistencies that adversaries could monetize or weaponize (money pumps, trade loops).
• Model evaluation infrastructure and standards:
  • These tests could form part of regulatory or certification toolkits for economic decision-making models: measurable thresholds (e.g., L(p) below a standard, CCEI above a threshold).
  • Because penalties are rooted in economic exploitability, they lend interpretable standards for audits and red-teaming.
• Complementary to other alignment approaches:
  • Rationalizability does not imply aligned or desirable objectives: an SEU-rational model can have a terrible prior or utility. Thus these penalties should be combined with ground-truth calibration, RLHF, human-alignment tests, and domain-specific performance metrics.
  • They also complement causal/mechanistic interpretability by constraining the space of admissible internal objectives consistent with observed outputs.
• Limitations and strategic considerations:
  • Finite-domain tests only constrain behavior on elicited datasets; models can be locally rational but inconsistent outside the tested domain.
  • Role/persona specification is important; cross-role incoherence may be appropriate (different agents/personas) and should not be penalized.
  • Models could be adversarially optimized to pass the specific tested axioms while retaining undesirable behavior in other dimensions (gaming tests).
  • Some indices (e.g., CCEI) have interpretive caveats or can be degenerate under particular elicitation choices unless prices are randomized or nondegeneracy enforced.
  • SARSEU in the paper is stated for monetary acts (one good per state); extensions to richer consequence spaces or state-dependent utilities require care.
• Research and policy directions:
  • Empirically evaluate how these penalties correlate with downstream harms, calibration, and human-evaluated alignment across model families and training regimes.
  • Integrate penalties into training pipelines (auxiliary losses, curriculum fine-tuning) and measure generalization: does improved rationalizability on synthetic problems translate to better real-world decision quality?
  • Design robust elicitation protocols (randomized prices, many contexts, role specification) and tests that are hard to game while remaining computationally tractable.
  • Consider standards for deployable economic agents that combine rationalizability thresholds with alignment and safety constraints.

Summary takeaway: representation theorems give a clean, computable, and label-free route to evaluate and regularize beliefs and choices of LLMs using economically interpretable exploitability metrics. They are powerful and practical tools but must be used alongside other alignment and performance signals because rationalizability alone does not guarantee desirable objectives or safety.