# Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13871 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13871/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 6 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.09208/) (2019)
- [The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08646/) (2018)
- [The future of human-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03354/) (2021)
- [Measuring and identifying factors of individuals' trust in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.21028/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study examines the understudied role of algorithmic evaluation of human judgment in hybrid decision-making systems, a critical gap in management research. While extant literature focuses on human reluctance to follow algorithmic advice, we reverse the perspective by investigating how AI agents based on large language models (LLMs) assess and integrate human input. Our work addresses a pressing managerial constraint: firms barred from deploying LLMs directly due to privacy concerns can still leverage them as mediating tools (for instance, anonymized outputs or decision pipelines) to guide high-stakes choices like pricing or discounts without exposing proprietary data. Through a controlled prediction task, we analyze how an LLM-based AI agent weights human versus algorithmic predictions. We find that the AI system systematically discounts human advice, penalizing human errors more severely than algorithmic errors--a bias exacerbated when the agent's identity (human vs AI) is disclosed and the human is positioned second. These results reveal a disconnect between AI-generated trust metrics and the actual influence of human judgment, challenging assumptions about equitable human-AI collaboration. Our findings offer three key contributions. First, we identify a reverse algorithm aversion phenomenon, where AI agents undervalue human input despite comparable error rates. Second, we demonstrate how disclosure and positional bias interact to amplify this effect, with implications for system design. Third, we provide a framework for indirect LLM deployment that balances predictive power with data privacy. For practitioners, this research emphasize the need to audit AI weighting mechanisms, calibrate trust dynamics, and strategically design decision sequences in human-AI systems.