# Mind the (DH) Gap! A Contrast in Risky Choices Between Reasoning and Conversational LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15173 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15173/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 1 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Relative Value Biases in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14530/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Reasonably reasoning AI agents can avoid game-theoretic failures in zero-shot, provably](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18563/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The use of large language models either as decision support systems, or in agentic workflows, is rapidly transforming the digital ecosystem. However, the understanding of LLM decision-making under uncertainty remains limited. We study LLM risky choices along two dimensions: (1) prospect representation (based on an explicit representation or outcome history) and (2) decision rationale (explanation). Our study, which involves 20 frontier and open LLMs, is complemented by a matched human subjects experiment, which provides one reference point, while an expected payoff maximizing rational agent model provides another. We find that LLMs cluster into two categories: reasoning models (RMs) and conversational models (CMs). RMs tend towards rational behavior, are insensitive to the order of prospects, gain/loss framing, and explanations, and behave similarly whether prospects are explicit or presented via a history of outcomes. CMs are significantly less rational, slightly more human-like, sensitive to prospect ordering, framing, and explanation, and exhibit a large description-history gap. Paired comparisons of open LLMs suggest that a key factor differentiating RMs and CMs is training for mathematical reasoning.