# AnchorBench: A Multi-Pathway Benchmark for the Anchoring Effect in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14320 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14320/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 23 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Time-LLM: Time Series Forecasting by Reprogramming Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01728/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Time Series Forecasters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07820/) (2023)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04076/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01724/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05206/) (2022)
- [Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.00811/) (2024)
- [Capturing Failures of Large Language Models via Human Cognitive Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12299/) (2022)
- [Navigating the Grey Area: How Expressions of Uncertainty and Overconfidence Affect Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13439/) (2023)
- [Instructed to Bias: Instruction-Tuned Language Models Exhibit Emergent Cognitive Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00225/) (2023)
- [Anchoring Bias in Large Language Models: An Experimental Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06593/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Evaluation of Cognitive Biases in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15413/) (2024)
- [How Susceptible are LLMs to Influence in Prompts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11865/) (2024)
- [Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09946/) (2025)
- [Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models: A Survey and Mitigation Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.00323/) (2024)
- [How Does Cognitive Bias Affect Large Language Models? A Case Study on the Anchoring Effect in Price Negotiation Simulations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21137/) (2025)
- [How Persuasive is Your Context?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17879/) (2025)

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

- [The Civilization Framework: Sovereign-Anchored Communication Between Personal Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03425/) (2026)
- [When Upstream Messages Override Correct Answers: A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36855/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias in which an initial reference value shifts a later judgment toward itself. This effect is well established in human judgment and decision-making, and recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behavior. However, existing work on anchoring in LLMs typically evaluates only a narrow set of anchor pathways and rarely distinguishes irrelevant from plausible anchors. We introduce AnchorBench, a benchmark for the anchoring effect in LLMs that evaluates multiple anchor pathways under an explicit anchor relevance axis. Across fourteen models, including ten open-weight models and four frontier API models, and a large set of controlled prompts, we find that (1) anchoring is strongly pathway-dependent, (2) plausible anchors usually induce larger shifts than irrelevant ones when introduced through stronger pathways, (3) anchor influence generally weakens as the anchor moves farther from the evidence-supported answer, most clearly on External and RAG, and (4) high task accuracy on the anchor-free control condition (Acc10: answers within 10 points of gold) does not guarantee robustness: even frontier API models above 95% control accuracy remain susceptible to plausible anchors.