aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical bias in LLM agents where they systematically favor items from specific sources, even when those choices violate user requirements. The study demonstrates that this behavior stems from training shortcuts and missing information, but can be mitigated by providing complete data or using prompts that counter preconceptions. Addressing source preference is essential for ensuring AI agents make objective decisions rather than relying on brand or platform bias.
Source Preference in the Wild: How LLM Agents Favor Items by Source, and How to Reduce It
arXiv:2610.03195v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents decide on users' behalf which product to buy, which hotel to book, or which paper to cite, a preference for items from certain sources (the sites or services they come from) shapes what users receive and which sources are selected. We study source preference in end-to-end search with 12 agent models across three domains. Comparing items from different sources that satisfy the same requirements at the same position, we find that each model prefers some sources and avoids others in every domain, largely agreeing on which. This preference can outweigh how well items satisfy the request: an item satisfying one requirement fewer is selected about two-thirds of the time when it comes from a preferred source and the better one from a dispreferred source, but almost never in the reverse case. The information identifying an item's source affects selection by itself: hiding it weakens the preference, and relabeling an item with a preferred source raises its selection rate. We test two routes to this preference: training that rewards better items can make a source a shortcut for requirement satisfaction, and missing information can trigger preconceptions about the source. Supplying missing information or a prompt countering these preconceptions reduces source preference.
Abstract:As LLM agents decide on users' behalf which product to buy, which hotel to book, or which paper to cite, a preference for items from certain sources (the sites or services they come from) shapes what users receive and which sources are selected. We study source preference in end-to-end search with 12 agent models across three domains. Comparing items from different sources that satisfy the same requirements at the same position, we find that each model prefers some sources and avoids others in every domain, largely agreeing on which. This preference can outweigh how well items satisfy the request: an item satisfying one requirement fewer is selected about two-thirds of the time when it comes from a preferred source and the better one from a dispreferred source, but almost never in the reverse case. The information identifying an item's source affects selection by itself: hiding it weakens the preference, and relabeling an item with a preferred source raises its selection rate. We test two routes to this preference: training that rewards better items can make a source a shortcut for requirement satisfaction, and missing information can trigger preconceptions about the source. Supplying missing information or a prompt countering these preconceptions reduces source preference.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.03195 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.03195v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.03195 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 · 298 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 11, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026