SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Orhan Erdem

Publications and source records attributed to Orhan Erdem.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Artificial Finance: How AI Thinks About Money

In this paper, we explore how large language models (LLMs) approach financial decision-making by systematically comparing their responses to those of human participants across the globe. We posed a set of commonly used financial decision-making questions to seven leading LLMs, including five models from the GPT series(GPT-4o, GPT-4.5, o1, o3-mini), Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek R1. We then compared their outputs to human responses drawn from a dataset covering 53 nations. Our analysis reveals three main results. First, LLMs generally exhibit a risk-neutral decision-making pattern, favoring choices aligned with expected value calculations when faced with lottery-type questions. Second, when evaluating trade-offs between present and future, LLMs occasionally produce responses that appear inconsistent with normative reasoning. Third, when we examine cross-national similarities, we find that the LLMs' aggregate responses most closely resemble those of participants from Tanzania. These findings contribute to the understanding of how LLMs emulate human-like decision behaviors and highlight potential cultural and training influences embedded within their outputs.

econ.GN

Evaluating the Accuracy of Chatbots in Financial Literature

We evaluate the reliability of two chatbots, ChatGPT (4o and o1-preview versions), and Gemini Advanced, in providing references on financial literature and employing novel methodologies. Alongside the conventional binary approach commonly used in the literature, we developed a nonbinary approach and a recency measure to assess how hallucination rates vary with how recent a topic is. After analyzing 150 citations, ChatGPT-4o had a hallucination rate of 20.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-26.4%), while the o1-preview had a hallucination rate of 21.3% (95% CI, 14.8%-27.9%). In contrast, Gemini Advanced exhibited higher hallucination rates: 76.7% (95% CI, 69.9%-83.4%). While hallucination rates increased for more recent topics, this trend was not statistically significant for Gemini Advanced. These findings emphasize the importance of verifying chatbot-provided references, particularly in rapidly evolving fields.

cs.AI