Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis
arXiv:2611.05720v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search can help LLM agents correct mistakes, but their starting conditions may shape which evidence they find and use. Drawing on cognitive-bias paradigms, we develop a controlled search harness to examine result order, records of prior work, and initial hypotheses while holding each question and document collection fixed. Matched controls distinguish order effects from differences in document composition and the effects of failed work from context
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.05720. Source account: arXiv:2611.05720v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search can help LLM agents correct mistakes, but their starting conditions may shape which evidence they find and use. Drawing on cognitive-bias paradigms, we develop a controlled search harness to examine result order, records of prior work, and initial hypotheses while holding each question and document collection fixed. Matched controls distinguish order effects from differences in document composition and the effects of failed work from context
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Prospective Memory for Proactive LLM Agents” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “Learning When Human Decisions Matter: Executor-Relative Consultation Value for LLM Agents” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.