# Self-Adaptive Cognitive Debiasing for Large Language Models in Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04141 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04141/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 63 of its 126 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 63)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17564/) (2023)
- [Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.07243/) (2018)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [A Survey on In-context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.00234/) (2022)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09583/) (2023)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00453/) (2021)
- [A Simple Language Model for Task-Oriented Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00796/) (2020)
- [Monte Carlo Tree Search Boosts Reasoning via Iterative Preference Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00451/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Few-Shot Clinical Information Extractors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12689/) (2022)
- [On Second Thought, Let's Not Think Step by Step! Bias and Toxicity in Zero-Shot Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08061/) (2022)
- [Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04076/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Agent-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05111/) (2026)
- [In Agents We Trust, but Who Do Agents Trust? Latent Source Preferences Steer LLM Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15456/) (2026)
- [Planted in Pretraining, Swayed by Finetuning: A Case Study on the Origins of Cognitive Biases in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07186/) (2025)
- [LLM Nepotism in Organizational Governance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.09620/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications, particularly as personal assistants in the financial, healthcare, and legal domains. While prompt engineering strategies have enhanced the capabilities of LLMs in decision-making, cognitive biases inherent to LLMs present significant challenges. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norms or rationality in decision-making that can lead to the production of inaccurate outputs. Existing cognitive bias mitigation strategies assume that input prompts only contain one type of cognitive bias, limiting their effectiveness in more challenging scenarios involving multiple cognitive biases. To fill this gap, we propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD), that enhances the reliability of LLMs by iteratively refining prompts. Our method follows three sequential steps - bias determination, bias analysis, and cognitive debiasing - to iteratively mitigate potential cognitive biases in prompts. We evaluate SACD on finance, healthcare, and legal decision-making tasks using both open-weight and closed-weight LLMs. Compared to advanced prompt engineering methods and existing cognitive debiasing techniques, SACD achieves the lowest average bias scores in both single-bias and multi-bias settings.