Query Timing Produces Opposite Positional Biases Between LLMs and Humans
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Positional biases such as recency and primacy effects have been documented in large language models (LLMs), yet the underlying mechanism by which these models make their evaluations remains poorly understood. Both primacy and recency biases have been observed in human judgments in response to evidence, but recent work suggest that when the listener updates their beliefs -- during the presentation of evidence or only at the end -- influences the presence of such effects. We investigate whether a similar phenomenon holds for LLMs, finding divergence from human behavior. These biases are more exacerbated in newer models compared to their predecessors.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.
Builds on
6 of 21 references.
References · 6
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 465
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2024Evaluating the Consistency of LLM Evaluatorscited by 24
Built on by
Not cited yet.