Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs

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 2412.03605 v1 pith:3G77PKDS submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HC

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.HC
keywords biasescognitivellmsmodelsreasoninglanguagebiascapabilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Rapid advancements in Large Language models (LLMs) has significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities. Despite improved performance on benchmarks, LLMs exhibit notable gaps in their cognitive processes. Additionally, as reflections of human-generated data, these models have the potential to inherit cognitive biases, raising concerns about their reasoning and decision making capabilities. In this paper we present a framework to interpret, understand and provide insights into a host of cognitive biases in LLMs. Conducting our research on frontier language models we're able to elucidate reasoning limitations and biases, and provide reasoning behind these biases by constructing influence graphs that identify phrases and words most responsible for biases manifested in LLMs. We further investigate biases such as round number bias and cognitive bias barrier revealed when noting framing effect in language models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Planted in Pretraining, Swayed by Finetuning: A Case Study on the Origins of Cognitive Biases in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cognitive biases in LLMs are largely set during pretraining, while finetuning data and seed randomness only modulate them.

  2. AMEL: Accumulated Message Effects on LLM Judgments

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs exhibit an accumulated message effect where conversation history saturated with positive or negative evaluations biases subsequent judgments, with larger shifts on uncertain items, a negativity asymmetry, and no ...

  3. AMEL: Accumulated Message Effects on LLM Judgments

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs exhibit an accumulated message effect where conversation history polarity biases subsequent judgments, stronger for high-entropy items, independent of context length, and with a negativity bias.

  4. Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs exhibit quality-dependent order biases and name biases in pairwise comparisons that can cause selection of inferior options, demonstrated across resume and color tasks with a new classification of preferences as ...

  5. Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show a quality-dependent position bias, favoring the first option for high-quality choices and later options for low-quality ones, and higher-temperature sampling can reveal the underlying preference.

Pith tools