Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Policy

aiqbench analysis

This paper establishes a rigorous conceptual framework for determining when neural data can legitimately inform welfare policy, arguing that brain signals constrain but do not replace normative economic arguments. The analysis extends these principles to artificial agents trained on human feedback, clarifying that their internal reward signals are computational metrics rather than direct measures of human welfare. This work is essential for policymakers and researchers navigating the intersection of neuroscience, behavioral economics, and AI alignment.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Neural Evidence and Behavioural Welfare Economics: When Can Neuroeconomics Inform Policy?

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2511.19548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Neuroeconomics appears to offer welfare economics an evidential supplement, since neural data may help distinguish choices that express genuine preferences from choices distorted by addiction, framing or self-control failure. This paper asks when such evidence can legitimately inform welfare judgements for policy. It develops a conceptual framework linking three levels of analysis, namely neural signals, computational decision models and normative welfare criteria. The central argument is that neural data can constrain welfare analysis only under four conditions, covering the validity of the neural measure, the identifiability of the decision model, the explicit statement of the welfare criterion, and the institutional context of any policy use. Applying this framework to addiction, neuromarketing and environmental policy, and working through the United Kingdom's Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, a major intervention justified without any neural measurement, the paper develops a Neuroeconomic Welfare Inference Checklist for neural evidence. Neural data can improve behavioural welfare economics by clarifying the mechanisms behind choice, and they cannot replace normative argument about what counts as welfare. The same reasoning applies to artificial agents trained on human feedback, whose internal reward signals are computational quantities and not welfare measures.

Title:Neural Evidence and Behavioural Welfare Economics: When Can Neuroeconomics Inform Policy?

Abstract:Neuroeconomics appears to offer welfare economics an evidential supplement, since neural data may help distinguish choices that express genuine preferences from choices distorted by addiction, framing or self-control failure. This paper asks when such evidence can legitimately inform welfare judgements for policy. It develops a conceptual framework linking three levels of analysis, namely neural signals, computational decision models and normative welfare criteria. The central argument is that neural data can constrain welfare analysis only under four conditions, covering the validity of the neural measure, the identifiability of the decision model, the explicit statement of the welfare criterion, and the institutional context of any policy use. Applying this framework to addiction, neuromarketing and environmental policy, and working through the United Kingdom's Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, a major intervention justified without any neural measurement, the paper develops a Neuroeconomic Welfare Inference Checklist for neural evidence. Neural data can improve behavioural welfare economics by clarifying the mechanisms behind choice, and they cannot replace normative argument about what counts as welfare. The same reasoning applies to artificial agents trained on human feedback, whose internal reward signals are computational quantities and not welfare measures.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); General Economics (econ.GN); Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC)

arXiv:2511.19548 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2511.19548v2 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.19548 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

UCL Journal of Economics, vol. 5 no. 1 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.2755-0877.2257 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 326 words

Related coverage