REVIEW 1 cited by
Economic Rationality under Specialization: Evidence of Decision Bias in AI Agents
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In the study by Chen et al. (2023) [01], the large language model GPT demonstrated economic rationality comparable to or exceeding the average human level in tasks such as budget allocation and risk preference. Building on this finding, this paper further incorporates specialized agents, such as biotechnology experts and economists, for a horizontal comparison to explore whether specialization can enhance or maintain economic rationality equivalent to that of GPT in similar decision-making scenarios. The results indicate that when agents invest more effort in specialized fields, their decision-making behavior is more prone to 'rationality shift,' specifically manifested as increased violations of GARP (Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference), decreased CCEI (Critical Cost Efficiency Index), and more significant decision deviations under high-risk conditions. In contrast, GPT and more generalized basic agents maintain a more stable and consistent level of rationality across multiple tasks. This study reveals the inherent conflict between specialization and economic rationality, providing new insights for constructing AI decision-making systems that balance specialization and generalization across various scenarios.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Revealed Rationality: Label-Free Evaluation and Regularization from Representation Theorems
Representation theorems from decision theory yield label-free, exhaustive rationality checks and continuous penalties for LLM behavior.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.