# Some Large Language Models Exhibit Consistent Risk Attitudes

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16197 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.16197/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09768/) (2020)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As artificial intelligence systems are deployed in open-ended, high-stakes settings, a critical dimension remains unmeasured: how perceived risk is translated into action. We test whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic and consistent risk attitudes under uncertainty. We introduce a cross-domain framework that decouples contextual risk belief from categorical decision, and apply it to six representative LLMs and 100 human participants across spatial navigation, clinical triage, and financial allocation tasks. Using regression models, we extract each agents belief-to-decision mapping and quantify risk sensitivity and risk attitude bias. We find that most tested LLMs exhibit (i) robust intra-task consistency, indicating stable mappings from contextual belief to risk decision within a fixed task domain; (ii) cross-domain rank-order stability, preserving relative risk posture across tasks; and (iii) a convergence toward a restricted risk-attitude distribution relative to the broader human baseline. These results reveal risk attitude as a stable and previously uncharacterized dimension of LLM behavior, establishing a foundation for evaluating and aligning AI systems in open-ended decision-making and motivating further investigation into the origins of these intrinsic behavioral dispositions.