Skip to content
← Back to explorer

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 · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Signal confidence: 0.45

Abstract

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms. These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search. In these scenarios, LLM agents govern the information users receive, by 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 that influence what information LLMs select and present to users. We hypothesize that when information is attributed to specific sources (e.g., particular publishers, journals, or platforms), current LLMs exhibit systematic latent source preferences- that is, they prioritize information from some sources over others. Through controlled experiments on twelve LLMs from six model providers, spanning both synthetic and real-world tasks, 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 in prior work. Our findings advocate for deeper investigation into the origins of these preferences, as well as for mechanisms that provide users with transparency and control over the biases guiding LLM-powered agents.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Pairwise Preference

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.45
  • Known cautions: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.
  • These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search.
  • In these scenarios, LLM agents govern the information users receive, by drawing users' attention to particular instances of retrieved information at the expense of others.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.
  • These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search.
  • In these scenarios, LLM agents govern the information users receive, by drawing users' attention to particular instances of retrieved information at the expense of others.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms.
  • These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.