mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Do LLMs Favor Their Providers? Measuring Vertical Integration Bias in Code Generation

arXiv 2605.28515 ↗First posted 27 May 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of software development, especially with the advent of agentic capabilities. Yet, many frontier LLMs are affiliated with specific providers. This raises the question of whether generated code favors the provider's own ecosystem over comparable alternatives, potentially constraining developers' choices and increasing dependence on a single provider. We define this behavior as Vertical Integration Bias (VIB) and introduce textscVIBench, a benchmark for measuring VIB in direct and agentic code generation across 20 provider-selectable software-integration scenarios. Evaluating 10 frontier provider-affiliated models against 3 non-affiliated controls, we find positive VIB in direct generation, with six of ten affiliated models showing statistically significant effects up to +18.8 percentage points (pp). Agentic workflows further amplify VIB, reaching +39.2 pp. Moreover, early affiliated-ecosystem choices in agentic workflows can persist into conceptually decoupled downstream files, with persistence as high as 90.3%. These findings underscore the need to measure and account for VIB in code generation, especially as agentic capabilities become more prevalent.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

Builds on

8 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025The Matthew Effect of AI Programming Assistants: A Hidden Bias in Software Evolution27 Sep
  2. 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey4 Sep

Other references · 6

  1. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  2. 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 646
  3. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agentscited by 145
  4. 2025ToolTweak: An Attack on Tool Selection in LLM-based Agentscited by 22
  5. 2025A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languagescited by 20
  6. 2025The Invisible Hand: Unveiling Provider Bias in Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Cognitive Biases in LLM-Assisted Software Development
  2. 2025Rethinking Technology Stack Selection with AI Coding Proficiency
  3. 2026More Code, Less Reuse: Investigating Code Quality and Reviewer Sentiment towards AI-generated Pull Requests
  4. 2025AI-Generated Code Is Not Reproducible (Yet): An Empirical Study of Dependency Gaps in LLM-Based Coding Agents
  5. 2026Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code: Benchmark and Mitigation
  6. 2026Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: An SDLC-Oriented Rapid Review
  7. 2026Bias in the Loop: Auditing LLM-as-a-Judge for Software Engineering
  8. 2026On the risk of coding before testing: An empirical study on LLM-based test generation workflow