Continual reinforcement learning (continual RL) seeks to formalize the notions of lifelong learning and endless adaptation in RL. In particular, the aim of continual RL is to develop RL agents that can maintain a careful balance between retaining useful information and adapting to new situations. To date, continual RL has been explored almost exclusively through the lens of risk-neutral decision-making, in which the agent aims to optimize the expected long-run performance. In this work, we present the first formal theoretical treatment of continual RL through the lens of risk-aware decision-making, in which the behaviour of the agent is directed towards optimizing a measure of long-run performance beyond the mean. In particular, we show that the classical theory of risk measures, widely used as a theoretical foundation in non-continual risk-aware RL, is, in its current form, incompatible with continual learning. Then, building on this insight, we extend risk measure theory into the continual setting by introducing a new class of ergodic risk measures that are compatible with continual learning. Finally, we provide a case study of risk-aware continual learning, along with empirical results, which show the intuitive appeal of ergodic risk measures in continual settings.

Responsible AI demands systems whose behavioral tendencies can be effectively measured, audited, and adjusted to prevent inadvertently nudging users toward risky decisions or embedding hidden biases in risk aversion. As language models (LMs) are increasingly incorporated into AI-driven decision support systems, understanding their risk behaviors is crucial for their responsible deployment. This study investigates the manipulability of risk aversion (MoRA) in LMs, examining their ability to replicate human risk preferences across diverse economic scenarios, with a focus on gender-specific attitudes, uncertainty, role-based decision-making, and the manipulability of risk aversion. The results indicate that while LMs such as DeepSeek Reasoner and Gemini-2.0-flash-lite exhibit some alignment with human behaviors, notable discrepancies highlight the need to refine bio-centric measures of manipulability. These findings suggest directions for refining AI design to better align human and AI risk preferences and enhance ethical decision-making. The study calls for further advancements in model design to ensure that AI systems more accurately replicate human risk preferences, thereby improving their effectiveness in risk management contexts. This approach could enhance the applicability of AI assistants in managing risk.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision-making tasks under uncertainty; however, their risk profiles and how they are influenced by prompting and alignment methods remain underexplored. Existing studies have primarily examined personality prompting or multi-agent interactions, leaving open the question of how post-training influences the risk behavior of LLMs. In this work, we propose a new pipeline for eliciting, steering, and modulating LLMs' risk profiles, drawing on tools from behavioral economics and finance. Using utility-theoretic models, we compare pre-trained, instruction-tuned, and RLHF-aligned LLMs, and find that while instruction-tuned models exhibit behaviors consistent with some standard utility formulations, pre-trained and RLHF-aligned models deviate more from any utility models fitted. We further evaluate modulation strategies, including prompt engineering, in-context learning, and post-training, and show that post-training provides the most stable and effective modulation of risk preference. Our findings provide insights into the risk profiles of different classes and stages of LLMs and demonstrate how post-training modulates these profiles, laying the groundwork for future research on behavioral alignment and risk-aware LLM design.

In the highly complex and stochastic global, supply chain environments, local enterprise agents seek distributed and dynamic strategies for agile responses to disruptions. Existing literature explores both centralized and distributed approaches, while most work neglects temporal dynamics and the heterogeneity of the risk management of individual agents. To address this gap, this letter presents a heterogeneous risk management mechanism to incorporate uncertainties and risk attitudes into agent communication and decision-making strategy. Hence, this approach empowers enterprises to handle disruptions in stochastic environments in a distributed way, and in particular in the context of multi-agent control and management. Through a simulated case study, we showcase the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach under stochastic settings and how the decision of disruption responses changes when agents hold various risk attitudes.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides, extending their applications to dialogue systems, automated content creation, and domain-specific advisory tasks. However, as their use grows, concerns have emerged regarding their reliability in simulating complex decision-making behavior, such as risky decision-making, where a single choice can lead to multiple outcomes. This study investigates the ability of LLMs to simulate risky decision-making scenarios. We compare model-generated decisions with actual human responses in a series of lottery-based tasks, using transportation stated preference survey data from participants in Sydney, Dhaka, Hong Kong, and Nanjing. Demographic inputs were provided to two LLMs -- ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT o1-mini -- which were tasked with predicting individual choices. Risk preferences were analyzed using the Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) framework. Results show that both models exhibit more risk-averse behavior than human participants, with o1-mini aligning more closely with observed human decisions. Further analysis of multilingual data from Nanjing and Hong Kong indicates that model predictions in Chinese deviate more from actual responses compared to English, suggesting that prompt language may influence simulation performance. These findings highlight both the promise and the current limitations of LLMs in replicating human-like risk behavior, particularly in linguistic and cultural settings.

Actual real-world domains are characterised by uncertain situations in which acting and using resources may entail the embracing of risks. Performing actions in such domains involves costs of consuming some resource, such as time or energy, where the knowledge about these costs can range from known to totally unknown. In autonomous vehicles, actions have uncertain costs due to factors like traffic. Choosing an action requires assessing delay risks, as each road may have unpredictable congestion. Thus, these domains call for not only planning under uncertainty but also planning while embracing risk. Resorting to HTN planning as a widely used planning technique in real-world applications, one can observe that existing approaches assume risk neutrality, relying on single-valued action costs without considering risk. Here, we enhance HTN planning with risk awareness by considering expected utility theory. We introduce a general framework for HTN planning that allows modelling risk and uncertainty using a probability distribution of action costs upon which we define risk-aware HTN planning as being capable of accounting for the different risk attitudes and allowing the computation of plans that go beyond risk neutrality. We lay out that computing risk-aware plans requires finding plans with the highest expected utility. We argue that it is possible for HTN planning agents to solve specialised risk-aware HTN planning problems by adapting existing HTN planning approaches, and develop an approach that surpasses the expressiveness of current approaches by allowing these agents to compute plans tailored to a particular risk attitude. An empirical evaluation of two case studies highlights the feasibility and expressiveness of this approach. We also highlight open issues, such as applying the proposal beyond HTN planning, covering both modelling and plan generation.

The study investigates the coffee value chain dynamics in Davao del Sur using an agent-based model. Three main factors driving interactions among key players were identified: trust, risk, and transaction costs. The model was constructed using NetLogo 6.3.0, and data from a survey questionnaire collected three data points from BACOFA members. Five cases were explored, with each scenario simulated 1000 times. Findings suggest that producers often sell to the market rather than the cooperative due to higher prices. However, producers tend to prioritize trust in buyers and their risk attitude, leading to increased sales to the cooperative. The producer's risk attitude significantly influences their decision-making, affecting performance outcomes such as loans, demand, and price changes. All three factors play a role and exert varying impacts on the value chain. So, the stakeholders' decisions on prioritizing factors in improving relationships depend on their priorities. Nonetheless, simulations show that establishing a harmonious system benefiting all parties is possible. However, achieving this requires adjustments to demand, pricing, trust, and risk attitudes of key players, which may not align with the preferences of some parties in reality.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more prevalent, concerns about their safety, ethics, and potential biases have risen. Systematically evaluating LLMs' risk decision-making tendencies and attitudes, particularly in the ethical domain, has become crucial. This study innovatively applies the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale from cognitive science to LLMs and proposes a novel Ethical Decision-Making Risk Attitude Scale (EDRAS) to assess LLMs' ethical risk attitudes in depth. We further propose a novel approach integrating risk scales and role-playing to quantitatively evaluate systematic biases in LLMs. Through systematic evaluation and analysis of multiple mainstream LLMs, we assessed the "risk personalities" of LLMs across multiple domains, with a particular focus on the ethical domain, and revealed and quantified LLMs' systematic biases towards different groups. This research helps understand LLMs' risk decision-making and ensure their safe and reliable application. Our approach provides a tool for identifying and mitigating biases, contributing to fairer and more trustworthy AI systems. The code and data are available.

Agentic AIs $-$ AIs that are capable and permitted to undertake complex actions with little supervision $-$ mark a new frontier in AI capabilities and raise new questions about how to safely create and align such systems with users, developers, and society. Because agents' actions are influenced by their attitudes toward risk, one key aspect of alignment concerns the risk profiles of agentic AIs. Risk alignment will matter for user satisfaction and trust, but it will also have important ramifications for society more broadly, especially as agentic AIs become more autonomous and are allowed to control key aspects of our lives. AIs with reckless attitudes toward risk (either because they are calibrated to reckless human users or are poorly designed) may pose significant threats. They might also open 'responsibility gaps' in which there is no agent who can be held accountable for harmful actions. What risk attitudes should guide an agentic AI's decision-making? How might we design AI systems that are calibrated to the risk attitudes of their users? What guardrails, if any, should be placed on the range of permissible risk attitudes? What are the ethical considerations involved when designing systems that make risky decisions on behalf of others? We present three papers that bear on key normative and technical aspects of these questions.

In this paper, we study protocols that allow to discern conscious and unconscious decisions of human beings; i.e., protocols that measure awareness. Consciousness is a central research theme in Neuroscience and AI, which remains, to date, an obscure phenomenon of human brains. Our starting point is a recent experiment, called Post Decision Wagering (PDW) (Persaud, McLeod, and Cowey 2007), that attempts to align experimenters' and subjects' objectives by leveraging financial incentives. We note a similarity with mechanism design, a research area which aims at the design of protocols that reconcile often divergent objectives through incentive-compatibility. We look at the issue of measuring awareness from this perspective. We abstract the setting underlying the PDW experiment and identify three factors that could make it ineffective: rationality, risk attitude and bias of subjects. Using mechanism design tools, we study the barrier between possibility and impossibility of incentive compatibility with respect to the aforementioned characteristics of subjects. We complete this study by showing how to use our mechanisms to potentially get a better understanding of consciousness.