跳到主要内容
AI News HubLIVE
来源内容 · 翻译待补全2 分钟阅读

待翻译:Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models

文章摘要

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源摘要,待恢复后补全翻译:arXiv:2608.14630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into high-stakes human-AI decision-making, it is important to understand whether their outputs can amplify potential biases, how this influences human decisions, and crucially, whether it can lead to harmful consequences. In this work, we develop a decision-theoretic framework to study rhetorical misalignment, a failure mode where an LLM uses rhetorically inappropriate forms of presentation for a given decision context, thereby inducing suboptimal human decisions. We empirically investigate this phenomenon through a human-subject experiment in realistic clinical decis…

来源arXiv Computational Linguistics作者: Zirui Cheng, Joey Chan, Simo Du, Chenhao Tan, Yue Guo, Hao Peng
待翻译:Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models
报告错误

纠错通道尚未开通,可先复制下方文章信息留存。

查看更正说明
直接读正文

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源正文,待恢复后补全翻译。

--> [Submitted on 24 Jul 2026] Title:Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models View a PDF of the paper titled Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models, by Zirui Cheng and 5 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into high-stakes human-AI decision-making, it is important to understand whether their outputs can amplify potential biases, how this influences human decisions, and crucially, whether it can lead to harmful consequences. In this work, we develop a decision-theoretic framework to study rhetorical misalignment, a failure mode where an LLM uses rhetorically inappropriate forms of presentation for a given decision context, thereby inducing suboptimal human decisions. We empirically investigate this phenomenon through a human-subject experiment in realistic clinical decision-making using a dataset curated from the United States Medical Licensing Examination. By measuring how LLM-generated information affects decisions, we observe that LLMs induce an average 2.81% rate of harmful decision flips across different models, where clinician participants change from a correct to an incorrect answer. Rationales reported by participants provide evidence that these revisions are closely related to the language used by LLMs that may induce different types of cognitive biases, including anchoring, authority bias, and loss aversion. To enable scalable evaluation, we instantiate our theoretical framework using decision-makers simulated by LLMs to computationally measure rhetorical misalignment. Our findings reveal a safety concern previously unrecognized in high-stakes domains: a model can be factually aligned yet still induce harm through its rhetorical presentation. Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.14630 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2608.14630v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14630 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: Zirui Cheng [view email] [v1] Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:36:00 UTC (1,876 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models, by Zirui Cheng and 5 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

展开要点与分析

文章情报

工程师进阶

要点

  • AI 服务暂时不可用,系统已先保留来源内容与降级元数据。
  • arXiv:2608.14630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases. As large language models (LLMs) become increa…

要点与分析由自动化流程生成,可能有误,请结合原始来源核实。