Emilio Barkett

Ciarán Walsh, Emilio Barkett

Large language models are increasingly used as behavioral simulators, but it remains unclear when their outputs reflect human-like cognitive mechanisms rather than prompt-sensitive surface patterns. We study this question through the realization effect, a well-characterized finding in behavioral economics in which risk-taking differs systematically after paper versus realized gains and losses. We evaluate LLM behavior at three levels: prompt-only behavioral sensitivity, linear readout of internal representations, and causal control via activation steering. Prompt-only results show systematic condition sensitivity, but the directional pattern does not reproduce human realization-effect predictions. Gemma's residual stream contains a linearly decodable realization-status signal at layer 18 that generalizes to held-out prompts. Steering along this direction does not, however, reliably shift downstream risk choices, a null result that holds across positive scales and in a negative sign-symmetry run. Behavioral sensitivity, latent readout, and causal control are three distinct properties that do not automatically co-occur, and successful latent readout is insufficient evidence that a model behaviorally relies on a representation during downstream decision-making.

Niklas Weller, Emilio Barkett

Aligning AI systems with organizational decision-making is typically framed as a single-target problem: make the model behave like the organization. We argue this framing obscures a deeper pluralistic challenge. We rely on a decision-policy capturing method to measure process alignment: whether an LLM weights information as the organization does, not merely whether it reaches the same conclusions. Applying this method to ECHR Article 6 decisions, process alignment strongly predicts output accuracy (r = 0.85, p < .001) and externalization substantially improves alignment for poorly-aligned models. Applying it to German consumer credit decisions, this relationship collapses (r = 0.15, p = .60): interventions produce inconsistent effects and the benchmark encodes potentially discriminatory historical patterns. This contrast is itself a pluralistic alignment finding: in contested domains, high process alignment is neither achievable via externalization nor unconditionally desirable. Output agreement alone cannot distinguish a model that has internalized an organizational policy from one that merely approximates its outcomes; process-level measurement is a necessary component of any pluralistic alignment evaluation.

Emilio Barkett, Olivia Long, Madhavendra Thakur

Despite their widespread use in fact-checking, moderation, and high-stakes decision-making, large language models (LLMs) remain poorly understood as judges of truth. This study presents the largest evaluation to date of LLMs' veracity detection capabilities and the first analysis of these capabilities in reasoning models. We had eight LLMs make 4,800 veracity judgments across several prompts, comparing reasoning and non-reasoning models. We find that rates of truth-bias, or the likelihood to believe a statement is true, regardless of whether it is actually true, are lower in reasoning models than in non-reasoning models, but still higher than human benchmarks. Most concerning, we identify sycophantic tendencies in several advanced models (o4-mini and GPT-4.1 from OpenAI, R1 from DeepSeek), which displayed an asymmetry in detection accuracy, performing well in truth accuracy but poorly in deception accuracy. This suggests that capability advances alone do not resolve fundamental veracity detection challenges in LLMs.

Paul Kröger, Emilio Barkett

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly embedded in products used by millions, their outputs may influence individual beliefs and, cumulatively, shape public opinion. If the behavior of LLMs can be intentionally steered toward specific ideological positions, such as political or religious views, then those who control these systems could gain disproportionate influence over public discourse. Although it remains an open question whether LLMs can reliably be guided toward coherent ideological stances and whether such steering can be effectively prevented, a crucial first step is to develop methods for detecting when such steering attempts occur. In this work, we adapt a previously proposed statistical method to the new context of ideological bias auditing. Our approach carries over the model-agnostic design of the original framework, which does not require access to the internals of the language model. Instead, it identifies potential ideological steering by analyzing distributional shifts in model outputs across prompts that are thematically related to a chosen topic. This design makes the method particularly suitable for auditing proprietary black-box systems. We validate our approach through a series of experiments, demonstrating its practical applicability and its potential to support independent post hoc audits of LLM behavior.

Emilio Barkett, Olivia Long, Paul Kröger

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in autonomous decision-making roles across high-stakes domains. However, since models are trained on human-generated data, they may inherit cognitive biases that systematically distort human judgment, including escalation of commitment, where decision-makers continue investing in failing courses of action due to prior investment. Understanding when LLMs exhibit such biases presents a unique challenge. While these biases are well-documented in humans, it remains unclear whether they manifest consistently in LLMs or require specific triggering conditions. This paper investigates this question using a two-stage investment task across four experimental conditions: model as investor, model as advisor, multi-agent deliberation, and compound pressure scenario. Across N = 6,500 trials, we find that bias manifestation in LLMs is highly context-dependent. In individual decision-making contexts (Studies 1-2, N = 4,000), LLMs demonstrate strong rational cost-benefit logic with minimal escalation of commitment. However, multi-agent deliberation reveals a striking hierarchy effect (Study 3, N = 500): while asymmetrical hierarchies show moderate escalation rates (46.2%), symmetrical peer-based decision-making produces near-universal escalation (99.2%). Similarly, when subjected to compound organizational and personal pressures (Study 4, N = 2,000), models exhibit high degrees of escalation of commitment (68.95% average allocation to failing divisions). These findings reveal that LLM bias manifestation depends critically on social and organizational context rather than being inherent, with significant implications for the deployment of multi-agent systems and unsupervised operations where such conditions may emerge naturally.