Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research reveals critical failure modes in Large Language Models where order effects cause them to select strictly inferior options during high-stakes decision-making tasks like hiring. The study distinguishes between superficial tie-breaking and genuine judgment distortions, proposing specific mitigation strategies such as adjusting the temperature parameter to recover underlying preferences. These findings highlight a distinct behavioral divergence from human rational choice that must be addressed before deploying LLMs in sensitive applications.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2506.14092v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in decision-support systems for high-stakes domains such as hiring and university admissions, where choices often involve selecting among competing alternatives. While prior work has noted position biases in LLM-driven comparisons, these biases have not been systematically analyzed or linked to underlying preference structures. We present the first comprehensive study of position biases across multiple LLMs and two distinct domains: resume comparisons, representing a realistic high-stakes context, and color selection, which isolates position effects by removing confounding factors. We find strong and consistent order effects, including a quality-dependent shift: when all options are high quality, models favor the first option, but when quality is lower, they favor later options. We also identify a previously undocumented bias: a name bias, where certain names are favored despite controlling for demographic signals. To separate superficial tie-breaking from genuine distortions of judgment, we extend the rational choice framework to classify pairwise preferences as robust, fragile, or indifferent. Using this framework, we show that order effects can lead models to select strictly inferior options. These results indicate that LLMs exhibit distinct failure modes not documented in human decision-making. We also propose targeted mitigation strategies, including a novel use of the temperature parameter, to recover underlying preferences when order effects distort model behavior.

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in decision-support systems for high-stakes domains such as hiring and university admissions, where choices often involve selecting among competing alternatives. While prior work has noted position biases in LLM-driven comparisons, these biases have not been systematically analyzed or linked to underlying preference structures. We present the first comprehensive study of position biases across multiple LLMs and two distinct domains: resume comparisons, representing a realistic high-stakes context, and color selection, which isolates position effects by removing confounding factors. We find strong and consistent order effects, including a quality-dependent shift: when all options are high quality, models favor the first option, but when quality is lower, they favor later options. We also identify a previously undocumented bias: a name bias, where certain names are favored despite controlling for demographic signals. To separate superficial tie-breaking from genuine distortions of judgment, we extend the rational choice framework to classify pairwise preferences as robust, fragile, or indifferent. Using this framework, we show that order effects can lead models to select strictly inferior options. These results indicate that LLMs exhibit distinct failure modes not documented in human decision-making. We also propose targeted mitigation strategies, including a novel use of the temperature parameter, to recover underlying preferences when order effects distort model behavior.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2506.14092 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2506.14092v4 [cs.AI] for this version)

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 224 words

Related coverage