Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support consequential decisions, yet their reliability under equivalent representations of uncertainty remains unclear. Existing work has documented prompt sensitivity, cognitive biases, and confidence miscalibration, but it is still unknown whether high-stakes advice changes when the same probability is expressed through complementary gain and loss frames. We introduce FrameBench-HPS, a controlled benchmark of 2,880 prompts derived from 240 high-stakes scenarios across healthcare, finance, education/career, and legal/consumer-rights domains. Across seven LLMs, gain-loss framing changes the recommendation category in 32.4% of complete groups, with most changes involving uncertainty rather than direct reversals. Human evaluation confirms corresponding shifts in perceived risk and directiveness. Robustness experiments show that framing effects persist under conversational paraphrases and exceed ordinary repeated-generation variability. Probability canonicalization substantially reduces framing sensitivity, identifying probability representation as a practical target for improving consistency in high-stakes LLM decision support.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29294
