Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as near-autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents capable of making everyday decisions on behalf of humans. Although LLMs perform well on many technical tasks, their behaviour in personal decision-making remains less understood. Previous studies have assessed their rationality and moral alignment with human decisions. However, the behaviour of AI assistants in scenarios where financial rewards are at odds with user comfort has not yet been thoroughly explored. In this paper, we tackle this problem by quantifying the prices assigned by multiple LLMs to a series of user discomforts: additional walking, waiting, hunger and pain. We uncover several key concerns that strongly question the prospect of using current LLMs as decision-making assistants: (1) a large variance in responses between LLMs, (2) within a single LLM, responses show fragility to minor variations in prompt phrasing (e.g., reformulating the question in the first person can considerably alter the decision), (3) LLMs can accept unreasonably low rewards for major inconveniences (e.g., 1 Euro to wait 10 hours), and (4) LLMs can reject monetary gains where no discomfort is imposed (e.g., 1,000 Euro to wait 0 minutes). These findings emphasize the need for scrutiny of how LLMs value human inconvenience, particularly as we move toward applications where such cash-versus-comfort trade-offs are made on users' behalf.

Understanding how households consume electricity in response to socioeconomic and climatic drivers is important for decision-makers designing energy policies in a changing climate and under geopolitical tensions. Consumers respond differently to thermal stress depending on income, consumption habits and the surrounding built environment, a nonlinear behaviour that most approaches oversimplify. In this study, households are treated as agents interacting with complex environments, and Inverse Reinforcement Learning is used to represent their consumption behaviour as model implied reward functions. Specifically, we observe how these reward functions change when households undergo socioeconomic and climatic shocks. The framework is tested on different clusters of electricity consumption profiles in Italy. Clusters' reward functions are retrieved and used to understand how cooling behaviour changes from summer 2021 to summer 2022 and 2023, before, during and after the energy crisis and a heatwave. We find that these shocks reshaped cooling behaviour heterogeneously across consumer groups, in directions conditioned by their prior habits and built environment. Across the 2021 to 2023 summers, we identify a spectrum of responses: transient adjustments that receded as the shocks eased, durable shifts persisting into 2023, and consumers exhibiting negligible change. At the intradaily scale, groups comparable in socioeconomic and environmental context but differing in their daily timing of consumption responded distinctly, identifying time of use as a separate dimension of behavioural heterogeneity. Energy policies and demand-response schemes should therefore account not only for who consumers are and where they live, but for when they consume and whether their response to a shock persists.

Risk-averse reinforcement learning finds application in various high-stakes fields. Unlike classical reinforcement learning, which aims to maximize expected returns, risk-averse agents choose policies that minimize risk, occasionally sacrificing expected value. These preferences can be framed through utility theory. We focus on the specific case of the exponential utility function, where we can derive the Bellman equations and employ various reinforcement learning algorithms with few modifications. However, these methods suffer from numerical instability due to the need for exponent computation throughout the process. To address this, we introduce a numerically stable and mathematically sound loss function based on the Itakura-Saito divergence for learning state-value and action-value functions. We evaluate our proposed loss function against established alternatives, both theoretically and empirically. In the experimental section, we explore multiple financial scenarios, some with known analytical solutions, and show that our loss function outperforms the alternatives.