mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Auditing Preferences for Brands and Cultures in LLMs

arXiv 2603.18300 ↗First posted 18 Mar 2026cs.HC cs.AI cs.CYcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) based AI systems increasingly mediate what billions of people see, choose and buy. This creates an urgent need to quantify the systemic risks of LLM-driven market intermediation, including its implications for market fairness, competition, and the diversity of information exposure. This paper introduces ChoiceEval, a reproducible framework for auditing preferences for brands and cultures in large language models (LLMs) under realistic usage conditions. ChoiceEval addresses two core technical challenges: (i) generating realistic, persona-diverse evaluation queries and (ii) converting free-form outputs into comparable choice sets and quantitative preference metrics. For a given topic (e.g. running shoes, hotel chains, travel destinations), the framework segments users into psychographic profiles (e.g., budget-conscious, wellness-focused, convenience), and then derives diverse prompts that reflect real-world advice-seeking and decision-making behaviour. LLM responses are converted into normalised top-k choice sets. Preference and geographic bias are then quantified using comparable metrics across topics and personas. Thus, ChoiceEval provides a scalable audit pipeline for researchers, platforms, and regulators, linking model behaviour to real-world economic outcomes. Applied to Gemini, GPT, and DeepSeek across 10 topics spanning commerce and culture and more than 2,000 questions, ChoiceEval reveals consistent preferences: U.S.-developed models Gemini and GPT show marked favouritism toward American entities, while China-developed DeepSeek exhibits more balanced yet still detectable geographic preferences. These patterns persist across user personas, suggesting systematic rather than incidental effects.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2026.

Builds on

28 of 55 references.

References · 28

  1. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  2. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
  3. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
  4. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  5. 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 703
  6. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 683
  7. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  8. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
  9. 2022ToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detectioncited by 419
  10. 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 410
  11. 2023Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Studycited by 203
  12. 2018Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 152
16 more
  1. 2023Cultural Bias and Cultural Alignment of Large Language Modelscited by 149
  2. 2025Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)cited by 137
  3. 2024Survey of Cultural Awareness in Language Models: Text and Beyondcited by 101
  4. 2024Large Language Models are Geographically Biasedcited by 91
  5. 2019Managing Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems with Personalized Re-rankingcited by 81
  6. 2025Agentic Web: Weaving the Next Web with AI Agentscited by 43
  7. 2022Using Natural Sentences for Understanding Biases in Language Modelscited by 19
  8. 2025What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commercecited by 18
  9. 2025Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Marketscited by 15
  10. 2024"Global is Good, Local is Bad?": Understanding Brand Bias in LLMscited by 13
  11. 2025The Automated but Risky Game: Modeling and Benchmarking Agent-to-Agent Negotiations and Transactions in Consumer Marketscited by 12
  12. 2024Richer Output for Richer Countries: Uncovering Geographical Disparities in Generated Stories and Travel Recommendationscited by 9
  13. 2025The Agentic Economycited by 9
  14. 2024TravelAgent: Generative Agents in the Built Environmentcited by 5
  15. 2025The World According to LLMs: How Geographic Origin Influences LLMs' Entity Deduction Capabilitiescited by 5
  16. 2025On the Performance of LLMs for Real Estate Appraisalcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Evaluating LLM-Generated Preference Distributions
  2. 2025Sampling Preferences Yields Simple Trustworthiness Scores
  3. 2023Can LLMs Capture Human Preferences?
  4. 2025Think Again! The Effect of Test-Time Compute on Preferences, Opinions, and Beliefs of Large Language Models
  5. 2026DiSCo: A Distribution-First Steering and Cultural Prior Evaluation Framework for Measuring Cultural Preference Bias in LLMs
  6. 2025Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models
  7. 2026When Preferences Fail to Become Incentives: A Utility-Behavior Gap in Large Language Models
  8. 2026LLM Consumer Behavior Theory: Foundations of a Novel Research Field