aiqbench analysis
This research investigates how initial evidence order and prior hypotheses introduce cognitive biases into the reasoning processes of search-enabled LLM agents. By isolating these variables across ten models, the study reveals that active searching is more susceptible to starting conditions than passive context provision, with specific patterns emerging when agents encounter dead-end histories or counter-evidence. These findings are critical for understanding the reliability and robustness of autonomous AI systems that rely on external information retrieval.
Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis
arXiv:2611.05720v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search can help LLM agents correct mistakes, but their starting conditions may shape which evidence they find and use. Drawing on cognitive-bias paradigms, we develop a controlled search harness to examine result order, records of prior work, and initial hypotheses while holding each question and document collection fixed. Matched controls distinguish order effects from differences in document composition and the effects of failed work from context length. Across 10 models and 1,000 synthetic search worlds, we track queries, retrieved documents, document openings, and final answers. Our comparisons suggest that final answers are more sensitive to initial evidence order during active search than when all evidence is supplied in full. Dead-end histories can reduce strategy switching relative to matched neutral histories, indicating an effect beyond context length. Under wrong hypotheses, stage measurements distinguish reduced retrieval or opening from errors that persist after counter-evidence is opened. Exploratory interventions show that opening counter-evidence more often can coincide with lower accuracy, while accuracy can improve with little change in opening.
Abstract:Search can help LLM agents correct mistakes, but their starting conditions may shape which evidence they find and use. Drawing on cognitive-bias paradigms, we develop a controlled search harness to examine result order, records of prior work, and initial hypotheses while holding each question and document collection fixed. Matched controls distinguish order effects from differences in document composition and the effects of failed work from context length. Across 10 models and 1,000 synthetic search worlds, we track queries, retrieved documents, document openings, and final answers. Our comparisons suggest that final answers are more sensitive to initial evidence order during active search than when all evidence is supplied in full. Dead-end histories can reduce strategy switching relative to matched neutral histories, indicating an effect beyond context length. Under wrong hypotheses, stage measurements distinguish reduced retrieval or opening from errors that persist after counter-evidence is opened. Exploratory interventions show that opening counter-evidence more often can coincide with lower accuracy, while accuracy can improve with little change in opening.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2611.05720 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.05720v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05720 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 261 words