When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from rational behavior, which can be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion.

In risk-averse reinforcement learning (RL), the goal is to optimize some risk measure of the returns. A risk measure often focuses on the worst returns out of the agent's experience. As a result, standard methods for risk-averse RL often ignore high-return strategies. We prove that under certain conditions this inevitably leads to a local-optimum barrier, and propose a mechanism we call soft risk to bypass it. We also devise a novel cross entropy module for sampling, which (1) preserves risk aversion despite the soft risk; (2) independently improves sample efficiency.

How should well-being be prioritised in society, and what trade-offs are people willing to make between fairness and personal well-being? We investigate these questions using a stated preference experiment with a nationally representative UK sample (n = 300), in which participants evaluated life satisfaction outcomes for both themselves and others under conditions of uncertainty. Individual-level utility functions were estimated using an Expected Utility Maximisation (EUM) framework and tested for sensitivity to the overweighting of small probabilities, as characterised by Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). A majority of participants displayed concave (risk-averse) utility curves and showed stronger aversion to inequality in societal life satisfaction outcomes than to personal risk. These preferences were unrelated to political alignment, suggesting a shared normative stance on fairness in well-being that cuts across ideological boundaries. The results challenge use of average life satisfaction as a policy metric, and support the development of nonlinear utility-based alternatives that more accurately reflect collective human values. Implications for public policy, well-being measurement, and the design of value-aligned AI systems are discussed.

When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from rational behavior, which can be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion.

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.

A market scoring rule (MSR) - a popular tool for designing algorithmic prediction markets - is an incentive-compatible mechanism for the aggregation of probabilistic beliefs from myopic risk-neutral agents. In this paper, we add to a growing body of research aimed at understanding the precise manner in which the price process induced by a MSR incorporates private information from agents who deviate from the assumption of risk-neutrality. We first establish that, for a myopic trading agent with a risk-averse utility function, a MSR satisfying mild regularity conditions elicits the agent's risk-neutral probability conditional on the latest market state rather than her true subjective probability. Hence, we show that a MSR under these conditions effectively behaves like a more traditional method of belief aggregation, namely an opinion pool, for agents' true probabilities.

In this paper, we study the Bayesian risk-averse formulation in reinforcement learning (RL). To address the epistemic uncertainty due to a lack of data, we adopt the Bayesian Risk Markov Decision Process (BRMDP) to account for the parameter uncertainty of the unknown underlying model. We derive the asymptotic normality that characterizes the difference between the Bayesian risk value function and the original value function under the true unknown distribution. The results indicate that the Bayesian risk-averse approach tends to pessimistically underestimate the original value function. This discrepancy increases with stronger risk aversion and decreases as more data become available. We then utilize this adaptive property in the setting of online RL as well as online contextual multi-arm bandits (CMAB), a special case of online RL. We provide two procedures using posterior sampling for both the general RL problem and the CMAB problem. We establish a sub-linear regret bound, with the regret defined as the conventional regret for both the RL and CMAB settings. Additionally, we establish a sub-linear regret bound for the CMAB setting with the regret defined as the Bayesian risk regret. Finally, we conduct numerical experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in addressing epistemic uncertainty and verifying the theoretical properties.

We consider the problem of directly optimizing a non-linear function of an outcome, where this outcome itself is the sum of many small contributions. The non-linearity of the function means that the problem is not equivalent to the maximization of the expectation of the individual contribution. By leveraging the concentration properties of the sum of individual outcomes, we derive a scalable descent algorithm that directly optimizes for our stated objective. This allows for instance to maximize the probability of successful A/B test, for which it can be wiser to target a success criterion, such as exceeding a given uplift, rather than chasing the highest expected payoff.