Comparative reversal learning reveals rigid adaptation in LLMs under non-stationary uncertainty

Non-stationary environments require agents to revise previously learned action values when contingencies change. We treat large language models (LLMs) as sequential decision policies in a two-option probabilistic reversal-learning task with three latent states and switch events triggered by either a performance criterion or timeout. We compare a deterministic fixed transition cycle to a stochastic random schedule that increases volatility, and evaluate DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini-3, and GPT-5.2, with human data as a behavioural reference. Across models, win-stay was near ceiling while lose-shift was markedly attenuated, revealing asymmetric use of positive versus negative evidence. DeepSeek-V3.2 showed extreme perseveration after reversals and weak acquisition, whereas Gemini-3 and GPT-5.2 adapted more rapidly but still remained less loss-sensitive than humans. Random transitions amplified reversal-specific persistence across LLMs yet did not uniformly reduce total wins, demonstrating that high aggregate payoff can coexist with rigid adaptation. Hierarchical reinforcement-learning (RL) fits indicate dissociable mechanisms: rigidity can arise from weak loss learning, inflated policy determinism, or value polarisation via counterfactual suppression. These results motivate reversal-sensitive diagnostics and volatility-aware models for evaluating LLMs under non-stationary uncertainty.

Rigidity in LLM Bandits with Implications for Human-AI Dyads

We test whether LLMs show robust decision biases. Treating models as participants in two-arm bandits, we ran 20000 trials per condition across four decoding configurations. Under symmetric rewards, models amplified positional order into stubborn one-arm policies. Under asymmetric rewards, they exploited rigidly yet underperformed an oracle and rarely re-checked. The observed patterns were consistent across manipulations of temperature and top-p, with top-k held at the provider default, indicating that the qualitative behaviours are robust to the two decoding knobs typically available to practitioners. Crucially, moving beyond descriptive metrics to computational modelling, a hierarchical Rescorla-Wagner-softmax fit revealed the underlying strategies: low learning rates and very high inverse temperatures, which together explain both noise-to-bias amplification and rigid exploitation. These results position minimal bandits as a tractable probe of LLM decision tendencies and motivate hypotheses about how such biases could shape human-AI interaction.

Adversarial Testing in LLMs: Insights into Decision-Making Vulnerabilities

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world decision-making systems, understanding their behavioural vulnerabilities remains a critical challenge for AI safety and alignment. While existing evaluation metrics focus primarily on reasoning accuracy or factual correctness, they often overlook whether LLMs are robust to adversarial manipulation or capable of using adaptive strategy in dynamic environments. This paper introduces an adversarial evaluation framework designed to systematically stress-test the decision-making processes of LLMs under interactive and adversarial conditions. Drawing on methodologies from cognitive psychology and game theory, our framework probes how models respond in two canonical tasks: the two-armed bandit task and the Multi-Round Trust Task. These tasks capture key aspects of exploration-exploitation trade-offs, social cooperation, and strategic flexibility. We apply this framework to several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-1.5, and DeepSeek-V3, revealing model-specific susceptibilities to manipulation and rigidity in strategy adaptation. Our findings highlight distinct behavioral patterns across models and emphasize the importance of adaptability and fairness recognition for trustworthy AI deployment. Rather than offering a performance benchmark, this work proposes a methodology for diagnosing decision-making weaknesses in LLM-based agents, providing actionable insights for alignment and safety research.