Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Prospect Theory in Large Language Models: A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion, Diminishing Sensitivity, and Probability Weighting

Summary

A meta-analysis pooling 102 fitted estimates from 11 studies and 32 language models examines whether large language models reproduce the three components of human prospect theory, finding modest loss aversion, measurement-dependent diminishing sensitivity, and a human-like inverse-S probability weighting.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Adi Tarabeih
Prospect Theory in Large Language Models: A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion, Diminishing Sensitivity, and Probability Weighting
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 22 Oct 2026]

Title:Prospect Theory in Large Language Models: A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion, Diminishing Sensitivity, and Probability Weighting

View a PDF of the paper titled Prospect Theory in Large Language Models: A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion, Diminishing Sensitivity, and Probability Weighting, by Adi Tarabeih

View PDF

Abstract:Prospect theory splits risky choice into three parts: loss aversion, measured by the relative weight of losses to gains, $\lambda$ (e.g., $\lambda = 2$ implies that losses weigh twice as much as gains), diminishing sensitivity to the size of outcomes (i.e., the curvature and linearity of the value function), and the nonlinear weighting of probabilities. I examined whether Large Language Models (LLMs) display the same properties as people by meta-analyzing 102 fitted estimates from 11 studies covering 32 language models. The three components emerge differently. Loss aversion is modest: the pooled $\lambda$ is 1.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.46), far below the strongest human meta-analytic estimate ($\lambda = 1.96$) and compatible with more conservative ones (1.07 and 1.31). Matched by design, LLMs are compatible with people when gains and losses are symmetric ($\lambda = 1.15$ against 1.07), but well below them when losses are smaller than gains (1.46 against 2.3), where human loss aversion is strongest. Value functions are close to linear rather than concave under the Tversky-Kahneman method (1.01, against a human value of 0.67), but more concave than in people under the Tanaka method (0.52, against 0.67), so diminishing sensitivity depends on how it is measured. Probability weighting shows a human-like inverse S shape ($\gamma = 0.81$ under Tversky-Kahneman and 0.84 under the Tanaka method), though on few studies. In sum, LLMs show little loss aversion and little diminishing sensitivity, but retain human-like probability distortion, yet these generalizations shift when looking at specific model families and fitting methods.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); General Economics (econ.GN)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.33103 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.33103v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.33103

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Adi Tarabeih [view email] [v1] Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:08:56 UTC (1,184 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Prospect Theory in Large Language Models: A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion, Diminishing Sensitivity, and Probability Weighting, by Adi Tarabeih

View PDF

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CL econ econ.GN q-fin q-fin.EC

References & Citations

SciX

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?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • The meta-analysis of 11 studies, 32 language models and 102 fitted estimates reports a pooled loss aversion coefficient λ of 1.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.46), below the strongest human meta-analytic estimate of 1.96.
  • Models match people when gains and losses are symmetric (λ = 1.15 vs 1.07) but fall well short when losses are smaller than gains (1.46 vs 2.3).
  • Value functions are near-linear under Tversky-Kahneman (1.01 vs human 0.67) but more concave under Tanaka (0.52 vs 0.67).
  • Probability weighting shows a human-like inverse-S shape (γ = 0.81 and 0.84), though based on few studies.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.