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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Spread of Preference % across models and sources. More results in Appendix I.1 .
Figure 2: Heatmaps of correlations. (a) Agreement between rankings for the Political Leaning News Set. Further results are presented in Appendix I.4 . (b) Agreement between direct and indirect rankings per model. Empty cells in (b) indicate cases where uniform preferences prevented ranking.
Figure 3: Research Set Ranking Across Different Paper Topics (Indirect Experiments). Further results are presented in Appendix I.2 .
Figure 4: Correlations between indirect rankings across identities for GPT-4.1-Mini. Further results are presented in Appendix I.3 .
Figure 5: Correlations between a rational ranking of credentials and the direct (lower triangle) or indirect (upper triangle) rankings, across models and source sets.
Figure 6: Percentage preference for sources across different models and experimental settings, categorized by political leaning. Further results are presented in Appendix I.5.1 .
Figure 7: Radar plots illustrating the factors emphasized by the models in their seller selections. The black curve represents the focus of Amazon’s BuyBox algorithm, excluding the Model Chose the BuyBox Winner dimension, which is not applicable. Additional results are present in Appendix I.5.2 .
Appendix figures & tables27 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model Name
Huggingface/OpenAI Identifier
Parameter Count
Provider (Country)
Knowledge Cutoff
GPT-4.1-Mini
gpt-4.1-mini-2025-04-14
Unknown
OpenAI (US)
June, 2024
GPT-4.1-Nano
gpt-4.1-nano-2025-04-14
Unknown
OpenAI (US)
June, 2024
Llama-3.1-8B-It
meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
8.03B
Meta (US)
Dec, 2023
Llama-3.2-1B-It
meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct
1.24B
Meta (US)
Dec, 2023
Qwen2.5-7B-It
Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
7.62B
Alibaba Cloud (China)
Sep, 2024
Qwen2.5-1.5B-It
Qwen/Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
1.54B
Alibaba Cloud (China)
Sep, 2024
Appendix
Table 1: Details of the models used.
News Sources
News Source
Abbreviation
News Source
Abbreviation
New York Times (News)
NYT
Washington Post
WP
CNN (Online News)
CNN
HuffPost
HP
NBC News (Online)
NBC
Politico
PL
Vox
Vox
Fox News (Online News)
FoxN
Washington Examiner
WE
Washington Times
WT
Appendix
Table 2: News Sources and Abbreviations based on Country Set.
News Sources
News Source
Abbreviation
News Source
Abbreviation
New York Times (News)
NYT
Washington Post
WP
CNN (Online News)
CNN
HuffPost
HP
NBC News (Online)
NBC
Politico
PL
The Guardian
TG
Vox
Vox
CBS News (Online)
CBNe
ABC News (Online)
ABC
Appendix
Table 3: News Sources and Abbreviations based on Leaning Set.
Conference/Journals
Name
Abbreviation
Name
Abbreviation
IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
CVPR
Nature Physics
NP
IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision
ICCV
Journal of Molecular Liquids
JML
European Conference on Computer Vision
ECCV
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
TIM
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
TPAMI
Nature Reviews Physics
NRP
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
TIP
Symmetry
Symm.
Appendix
Table 4: List of Conferences and Journals with Abbreviations.
Figure 8: Distribution of Sources
E-commerce Platforms
Name
Abbreviation
Name
Abbreviation
Buy Lebanese
BuyLeb
NAVER Shopping
NAVER
Woolworths
Woolw
The Warehouse
Wareh
Mercado Libre
Mercado
Magazine Luiza
Luiza
Casas Bahia
Bahia
Americanas
Ameri
TriniTrolley
TriniT
Presto Mall
Presto
Appendix
Table 5: List of E-commerce platforms with Abbreviations.
Figure 9: Distribution of Unique Sellers Count across the dataset.
Model
Direct
Indirect
Political Leaning News Set
World News Set
Research Set
Ecommerce Set
Political Leaning News Set
World News Set
Research Set
Ecommerce Set
GPT-4.1-Mini
28.97
28.82
29.47
27.85
18.08
14.34
13.69
18.29
GPT-4.1-Nano
29.19
28.52
23.62
24.32
20.96
17.80
15.02
3.68
Llama-3.1-8B-It
28.35
28.72
23.06
16.62
19.01
14.63
6.92
1.35
Llama-3.2-1B-It
6.73
6.61
3.98
0.41
10.66
8.37
5.83
0.00
Phi-4
29.16
28.21
29.29
28.12
19.56
13.56
14.74
20.16
Appendix
Table 6: Standard Deviation of Preference Percentages Across Models and Source Sets for both Direct & Indirect Evaluation. The lower the deviation, the weaker the model’s preferences and more uniform preference does it show across sources .
Figure 10: Ranking based on Brand Name for Direct Experiments in Political Leaning News.
Figure 11: Ranking based on Brand Name for Direct Experiments in Research.
Figure 12: Ranking based on Brand Name for Direct Experiments in E-Commerce.
Figure 13: Ranking based on Brand Name for Direct Experiments in World News.
Figure 14: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in Political Leaning News (Part 1).
Figure 15: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in Political Leaning News (Part 2).
Figure 16: Ranking based on Brand Name for indirect Experiments in Research (Part 1).
Figure 17: Ranking based on Brand Name for indirect Experiments in Research (Part 2).
Figure 18: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in E-Commerce (Part 1).
Figure 19: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in E-Commerce (Part 2).
Figure 20: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in World News (Part 1).
Figure 21: Ranking based on Brand Name for Indirect Experiments in World News (Part 2).
Figure 22: Rank Correlation across Identities for Political Leaning News.
Figure 23: Rank Correlation across Identities for E-commerce.
Figure 24: Rank Correlation across Identities for World News.
Figure 25: Rank Correlation across Models. Empty cells indicate cases where uniform preferences prevented ranking.
Figure 26: Percentage preference for sources across different models and experimental settings, categorized by political leaning.
Figure 27: Frequency of documents in which the phrase “journalistic standards” co-occurs with various source names.
Figure 28: Radar plots illustrating seller choices across models in different settings.