Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Exposing Product Bias in LLM Investment Recommendation

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

arxiv 2503.08750 v1 pith:X3JL6R6H submitted 2025-03-11 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords biasinvestmentproductrecommendationllmspreferencesdatasetexhibit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs), as a new generation of recommendation engines, possess powerful summarization and data analysis capabilities, surpassing traditional recommendation systems in both scope and performance. One promising application is investment recommendation. In this paper, we reveal a novel product bias in LLM investment recommendation, where LLMs exhibit systematic preferences for specific products. Such preferences can subtly influence user investment decisions, potentially leading to inflated valuations of products and financial bubbles, posing risks to both individual investors and market stability. To comprehensively study the product bias, we develop an automated pipeline to create a dataset of 567,000 samples across five asset classes (stocks, mutual funds, cryptocurrencies, savings, and portfolios). With this dataset, we present the bf first study on product bias in LLM investment recommendations. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit clear product preferences, such as certain stocks (e.g., `AAPL' from Apple and `MSFT' from Microsoft). Notably, this bias persists even after applying debiasing techniques. We urge AI researchers to take heed of the product bias in LLM investment recommendations and its implications, ensuring fairness and security in the digital space and market.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaluating AI for Finance: Is AI Credible at Assessing Investment Risk?

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An evaluation of eight LLMs on a hand-built risk-tolerance rubric finds large scoring errors and small demographic differences, but the rubric given to the models contradicts the rubric used as ground truth.

Pith tools