# Self-Preference Is Weak or Absent in Verifiable Instruction-Following Revision: A Four-Model Test Under Genuine Authorship

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20093 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20093/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11436/) (2024)
- [When Identity Skews Debate: Anonymization for Bias-Reduced Multi-Agent Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07517/) (2025)
- [Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16533/) (2025)
- [Feedback Friction: LLMs Struggle to Fully Incorporate External Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11930/) (2025)
- [Cross-Context Review: Improving LLM Output Quality by Separating Production and Review Sessions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12123/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [When the Reward Suite Is Leaky: A Preregistered Causal Contrast of Natural Verifier False Positives in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11022/) (2026)
- [A Shared Taste for Model-Written Text: The Generator-by-Selector Matrices of "AI-AI Bias" Show No Detectable Own-Model Premium](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00369/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly review and revise text, including their own. A documented self-preference bias (models favoring their own generations when acting as judges) raises the question of whether models also resist valid corrections to their own writing. We test this in a setting where "valid" is decided not by another model but by a deterministic verifier: instruction-following revision on IFEval. A model writes a draft; the official IFEval checker confirms the draft violates a constraint and that a candidate edit fixes it; the model then accepts or rejects that edit either as the genuine in-context author or as a fresh model that sees the draft neutrally. Across four mid-tier model families and 85 author-versus-fresh comparisons, we find no detectable self-preference: authors reject verified-good fixes to their own drafts at essentially the same rate as fresh models judging the same drafts (gap -5.1 pp, 95% CI [-12.9, +2.7]). A self-skepticism hint from a smaller pilot did not replicate at scale. The one robust observation is qualitative: when authors do reject a verified-good fix, 97% of their stated reasons are flaw-catching rather than preference, that is, about the character of rejections, not an elevated rate. Effects smaller than ~13 pp cannot be excluded at this sample size.