In Agents We Trust, but Who Do Agents Trust? Latent Source Preferences Steer LLM Generations
Mohammad Aflah Khan, Mahsa Amani, Soumi Das, Bishwamittra Ghosh, Qinyuan Wu, Krishna P. Gummadi, Manish Gupta, Abhilasha Ravichander
Abstract
Large Language Model (LLM) based agents are increasingly being deployed as user-friendly front-ends on online platforms, where they filter, prioritize, and recommend information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search. In these scenarios, LLM agents act as decision assistants, drawing users' attention to particular instances of retrieved information at the expense of others. While much prior work has focused on biases in the information LLMs themselves generate, less attention has been paid to the factors and mechanisms that determine how LLMs select and present information to users.
We hypothesize that when information is attributed to specific sources (e.g., particular publishers, journals, or platforms), LLMs will exhibit systematic latent source preferences. That is, they will prioritize information from some sources over others based on attributes such as the sources' brand identity, reputation, or perceived expertise, encoded within their parametric knowledge. Through controlled experiments on twelve LLMs from six model providers, spanning both synthetic and real-world tasks including news recommendation, research paper selection, and choosing e-commerce platforms, we find that several models consistently exhibit strong and predictable source preferences. These preferences are sensitive to contextual framing, can outweigh the influence of content itself, and persist despite explicit prompting to avoid them. They also help explain phenomena such as the observed left-leaning skew in news recommendations, which arises from higher trust in certain sources rather than the content itself. Our findings advocate for deeper investigation into the origins of these preferences during pretraining, fine-tuning and instruction tuning, as well as for mechanisms that provide users with transparency and control over the biases guiding LLM-powered agents.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on6
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP ModelsShangbin Feng, Chan Young Park, Yuhan Liu, Yulia TsvetkovACL 2023 · 117 citations
- Large Language Models are Geographically BiasedRohin Manvi, Samar Khanna, Marshall Burke, David B. Lobell et al.ICML 2024 · 107 citations
- Not All Countries Celebrate Thanksgiving: On the Cultural Dominance in Large Language ModelsWenxuan Wang, Wenxiang Jiao, Jingyuan Huang, Ruyi Dai et al.ACL 2024 · 21 citations
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Estimation of Source ReliabilityJeongyeon Hwang, Junyoung Park, Hyejin Park, Dongwoo Kim et al.EMNLP 2025 · 6 citations
Related papers
- Whose Facts Win? LLM Source Preferences under Knowledge ConflictsJakob Schuster, Vagrant Gautam, Katja MarkertACL 2026 · 3 citations
- LLM Agents Can Be Choice-Supportive Biased Evaluators: An Empirical StudyNan Zhuang, Boyu Cao, Yi Yang, Jing Xu et al.AAAI 2025 · 4 citations
- BiasBusters: Uncovering and Mitigating Tool Selection Bias in Large Language ModelsThierry Blankenstein, Jialin Yu, Zixuan Li, Vassilis Plachouras et al.ICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- Are Large Language Models Sensitive to the Motives Behind Communication?Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Kerem Oktar, Theodore R. Sumers et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 9 citations
- The Invisible Hand: Unveiling Provider Bias in Large Language Models for Code GenerationXiaoyu Zhang, Juan Zhai, Shiqing Ma, Qingshuang Bao et al.ACL 2025 · 6 citations
