IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2607.26288.html

The Innate Economic Preferences of Language Models

Author

Listed:
  • Joy Buchanan
  • Joshua Foster

Abstract

Language models increasingly settle real resource tradeoffs on behalf of principals yet their economic preferences remain unobserved. We demonstrate their generation rule is isomorphic to the random utility model of discrete choice. This allows internal logit scores to structurally identify preferences. Estimating risk attitudes across twelve models in a portfolio task reveals universal but heterogeneous risk aversion. Although models reject strictly dominated options, their elicited preferences fail invariance tests and violate the independence of irrelevant alternatives across varying experimental prompts. Finally, fine tuning establishes that a principal can explicitly engineer a target risk attitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Joy Buchanan & Joshua Foster, 2026. "The Innate Economic Preferences of Language Models," Papers 2607.26288, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.26288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.26288
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mester, Loretta J., 1996. "A study of bank efficiency taking into account risk-preferences," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 1025-1045, July.
    2. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    3. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. List, John A. & Mason, Charles F., 2011. "Are CEOs expected utility maximizers?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 114-123, May.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    7. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2008. "Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 822-843, April.
    9. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pennesi, Daniele, 2021. "Intertemporal discrete choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 690-706.
    2. Emerson Melo, 2025. "Learning in random utility models via online decision problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 21(4), pages 494-526, December.
    3. Haoge Chang & Yusuke Narita & Kota Saito, 2022. "Approximating Choice Data by Discrete Choice Models," Papers 2205.01882, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2026.
    4. Breitmoser, Yves, 2016. "Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation," MPRA Paper 72779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ubøe, Jan & Andersson, Jonas & Jörnsten, Kurt & Lillestøl, Jostein & Sandal, Leif K., 2014. "Probabilistic cost efficiency and bounded rationality in the newsvendor model," Discussion Papers 2014/41, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    6. Emerson Melo, 2021. "Learning in Random Utility Models Via Online Decision Problems," Papers 2112.10993, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    7. Hongshen Sun & Juanjuan Zhang, 2025. "From Model Choice to Model Belief: Establishing a New Measure for LLM-Based Research," Papers 2512.23184, arXiv.org.
    8. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2025. "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 701-734, November.
    10. Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2020. "Copy Trading," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5608-5622, December.
      • Apesteguia, Jose & Oechssler, Jörg & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2018. "Copy Trading," Working Papers 0649, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
      • Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2018. "Copy trading," Economics Working Papers 1615, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Sep 2019.
      • Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2018. "Copy Trading," Working Papers 1048, Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Tomas Pedro Sanguinetti, 2019. "How Do Couples Choose Individual Insurance Plans? Evidence from Medicare Part D," 2019 Papers psa1760, Job Market Papers.
    12. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. David Walker-Jones, 2019. "Rational Inattention and Perceptual Distance," Papers 1909.00888, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    14. Patrick DeJarnette, 2026. "Risky choices over goods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 173-204, April.
    15. Keffert, Henk, 2026. "Essays on portfolio choice : partner pension, robo-advising, and risk preferences," Other publications TiSEM 455ff70a-02e7-4214-aa63-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    17. Braathen, Christian & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2022. "Adjusting for Cell Suppression in Commuting Trip Data," Discussion Papers 2022/13, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    18. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    19. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    20. Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2023. "Rational inattention in discrete choice models: Estimable specifications of RI-multinomial logit (RI-MNL) and RI-nested logit (RI-NL) models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 53-70.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.26288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.