# arXiv cs.AI: The psychophysics of affect in large language models [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-the-psychophysics-of-affect-in-large-language-models-525d3f41) Joseph Marks and Marius C. Vollberg report tests of how large language models (LLMs) anticipated the feelings associated with gambling or stock-trading outcomes, and whether those ratings influenced choices. When outcomes were rated separately, the authors found diminishing sensitivity to magnitude, resembling human value functions, but gains were rated more intensely than equivalent losses. They call this pattern “silicon gain amplification,” an inversion of canonical loss aversion. When outcomes were rated together, allowing direct comparison, ratings became more linear. In choice tasks, the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared, and the models’ ratings did not reliably explain choices better than monetary utility did. The results suggest that mappings from outcomes to affect may depend on how outcomes are presented, rather than acting as a stable guide to choice in these tests. That matters for decision workflows involving LLMs: a model’s stated anticipation of how an outcome will feel may not reliably account for its choice. The paper raises whether, and how, agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:06:08.816Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-03T04:46:53.845Z. - [The psychophysics of affect in large language models](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Limits This reading is based on the arXiv abstract, not the full paper; the abstract does not provide details of the study design, models tested, or task results beyond the reported findings. The reported tasks concern anticipated feelings about gambling or stock-trading outcomes; the abstract does not establish how the findings apply to other decision settings. ## Open question How should agentic LLMs incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions, if at all, given that the models’ own ratings did not reliably explain their choices better than monetary utility did? ## Source-stated Marks and Vollberg report that, when outcomes were rated in isolation, LLMs showed diminishing sensitivity to magnitude and rated gains more intensely than equivalent losses; they call the latter pattern silicon gain amplification. > ratings exhibited diminishing sensitivity to magnitude, resembling human value functions; but models rated gains more intensely than equivalent losses, an inversion of canonical loss aversion we call silicon gain amplification - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source-stated The authors report that ratings became more linear when outcomes were rated together, and that in choice the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared; the models’ ratings did not reliably explain choices better than monetary utility did. > When outcomes were rated together, enabling direct comparison, ratings linearised. In choice, the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared, and models' own ratings did not reliably explain their choices better than monetary utility did. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source-stated The authors say their findings raise questions about whether and how agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. > These findings reveal malleable mappings from outcomes to affect, raising questions about whether and how agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source and contributor context Marks, Joseph, Vollberg, Marius C. · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Agentic AI AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#agentic) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 591a7734-e937-4e82-8d61-880fcfd16041. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: eb05ca28dc901277f3a417dbeb03b4613c40214a9df9942100cd31a47ef6b3d5. Source text hash: d3dde6be122e8ad237cd1904bb0cc278ac1c39c5444bcd3723e05ee603007844. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z Joseph Marks and Marius C. Vollberg report tests of how large language models (LLMs) anticipated the feelings associated with gambling or stock-trading outcomes, and whether those ratings influenced choices. When outcomes were rated separately, the authors found diminishing sensitivity to magnitude, resembling human value functions, but gains were rated more intensely than equivalent losses. They call this pattern “silicon gain amplification,” an inversion of canonical loss aversion. When outcomes were rated together, allowing direct comparison, ratings became more linear. In choice tasks, the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared, and the models’ ratings did not reliably explain choices better than monetary utility did. The results suggest that mappings from outcomes to affect may depend on how outcomes are presented, rather than acting as a stable guide to choice in these tests. That matters for decision workflows involving LLMs: a model’s stated anticipation of how an outcome will feel may not reliably account for its choice. The paper raises whether, and how, agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:06:08.816Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-03T04:46:53.845Z. - [The psychophysics of affect in large language models](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Limits This reading is based on the arXiv abstract, not the full paper; the abstract does not provide details of the study design, models tested, or task results beyond the reported findings. The reported tasks concern anticipated feelings about gambling or stock-trading outcomes; the abstract does not establish how the findings apply to other decision settings. ## Open question How should agentic LLMs incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions, if at all, given that the models’ own ratings did not reliably explain their choices better than monetary utility did? ## Source-stated Marks and Vollberg report that, when outcomes were rated in isolation, LLMs showed diminishing sensitivity to magnitude and rated gains more intensely than equivalent losses; they call the latter pattern silicon gain amplification. > ratings exhibited diminishing sensitivity to magnitude, resembling human value functions; but models rated gains more intensely than equivalent losses, an inversion of canonical loss aversion we call silicon gain amplification - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source-stated The authors report that ratings became more linear when outcomes were rated together, and that in choice the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared; the models’ ratings did not reliably explain choices better than monetary utility did. > When outcomes were rated together, enabling direct comparison, ratings linearised. In choice, the gain-loss asymmetry largely disappeared, and models' own ratings did not reliably explain their choices better than monetary utility did. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source-stated The authors say their findings raise questions about whether and how agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. > These findings reveal malleable mappings from outcomes to affect, raising questions about whether and how agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40985) ## Source and contributor context Marks, Joseph, Vollberg, Marius C. · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Agentic AI AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#agentic) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 591a7734-e937-4e82-8d61-880fcfd16041. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: eb05ca28dc901277f3a417dbeb03b4613c40214a9df9942100cd31a47ef6b3d5. Source text hash: d3dde6be122e8ad237cd1904bb0cc278ac1c39c5444bcd3723e05ee603007844. ### passed — 2026-11-11T00:23:34.391Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 591a7734-e937-4e82-8d61-880fcfd16041 attribution — pass: The reading attributes the study and its findings to Joseph Marks and Marius C. Vollberg, matching the arXiv author list. The findings stay framed as what the authors report, and the term 'silicon gain amplification' is correctly credited as their coinage. > Authors:Joseph Marks (1), Marius C. Vollberg (2 and 3) summary — pass: The reading follows the abstract's arc in order: isolated ratings, joint ratings, then choice tasks, ending with the open question. The technical terms are kept exactly, and the central inversion is restated in plain words ('gains were rated more intensely than equivalent losses'). A non-specialist can follow it. 'Agentic LLMs' and 'monetary utility' are unexplained and are candidates for term-library tooltips, but they do not block understanding. The title and question are faithful to the source. > These findings reveal malleable mappings from outcomes to affect, raising questions about whether and how agentic LLMs should incorporate anticipated feelings into decisions. date — pass: The originalPublished value of 2026-10-29 matches the v1 submission date on the arXiv page. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-02. > \[Submitted on 29 Oct 2026\] support — pass: All three claims quote the abstract verbatim. The interpretive sentence says the mappings may depend on presentation rather than serve as a stable guide to choice 'in these tests'. That is hedged, kept to the study's scope, and grounded in the contrast between isolated and joint ratings and in the choice results. The question follows from the authors' own stated open issue. The limitations correctly note that the reading rests only on the abstract. > models' own ratings did not reliably explain their choices better than monetary utility did media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the direct original source, and the page itself offered no better source media. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/525d3f41a0cf6015785d924e60e9f3c90d280ad211760829f8ca0130f000adcf/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-the-psychophysics-of-affect-in-large-language-models-525d3f41.json)