mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Does Rank Still Matter? Position Bias When AI Agents Shop on Our Behalf

arXiv 2608.22697 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2026cs.AI econ.GN q-fin.ECcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

When shopping is delegated to AI agents, it is unclear whether the ranking advantage documented for humans persists. Across 7,000 sessions with five large language models (LLMs) and varying reasoning effort, we compare AI agents with human field data. AI agents search more extensively than human consumers. As with humans, lower-ranked listings are less likely to be inspected, although the effect is smaller for AI agents. Unlike humans, AI agents show a pattern consistent with the lost-in-the-middle effect, whereby middle listings have the lowest probability of inspection. At the choice stage, position effects are concentrated at lower reasoning effort, but higher effort reduces the middle penalty for every LLM that exhibits it. These findings suggest that, when search is delegated, displayed attributes may matter more than placement, and that exposure to position bias depends on how the AI agent is configured.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.

Builds on

6 of 36 references.

References · 6

  1. 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,581
  2. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  3. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,175
  4. 2025Reasoning on a Budget: A Survey of Adaptive and Controllable Test-Time Compute in LLMscited by 31
  5. 2026Every Token Counts: Exact Likert-Scale Distributions for Measuring LLM Attitudes and Biasescited by 3
  6. 2023Consider or Choose? The Role and Power of Consideration Setscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce
  2. 2026Nonstandard Errors in AI Agents
  3. 2025Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance
  4. 2025A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
  5. 2026From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce
  6. 2026A Picture of Agentic Search
  7. 2026Language Models Exhibit Inconsistent Biases Towards Algorithmic Agents and Human Experts
  8. 2026LLM Biases