Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2411.15396

The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges

Jiqun Liu·Jiangen He
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave "rationally", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examined the extent to which LLMs are cognitively biased in COVID-19 medical (mis)information assessment tasks compared to traditional human assessors as a baseline. The results, collected from a between-subject user experiment and a LLM-enabled replicate experiment, demonstrate that 1) Larger and more recent LLMs tend to show a higher level of consistency and accuracy in distinguishing credible information from misinformation. However, they are more likely to give higher ratings for misinformation due to the presence of a more salient, decoy misinformation result; 2) While decoy effect occurred in both human and LLM assessments, the effect is more prevalent across different conditions and topics in LLM judgments compared to human credibility ratings. In contrast to the generally assumed "rationality" of AI tools, our study empirically confirms the cognitive bias risks embedded in LLM agents, evaluates the decoy impact on LLMs against human credibility assessments, and thereby highlights the complexity and importance of debiasing AI agents and developing psychology-informed AI audit techniques and policies for automated judgment tasks and beyond.

Explore related subjects

cs.IRcs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiqun Liu, Jiangen He. 2024-11-23. The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15396

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Favor Recent Content? A Study on Recency Bias in LLM-Based Reranking

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in information systems, including being used as second-stage rerankers in information retrieval pipelines, yet their susceptibility to recency bias has received little attention. We investigate whether LLMs implicitly favour newer documents by prepending artificial publication dates to passages in the TREC Deep Learning passage retrieval collections in 2021 (DL21) and 2022 (DL22). Across seven models, GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4, LLaMA-3 8B/70B, and Qwen-2.5 7B/72B, "fresh" passages are consistently promoted, shifting the Top-10's mean publication year forward by up to 4.78 years and moving individual items by as many as 95 ranks in our listwise reranking experiments. Although larger models attenuate the effect, none eliminate it. We also observe that the preference of LLMs between two passages with an identical relevance level can be reversed by up to 25% on average after date injection in our pairwise preference experiments. These findings provide quantitative evidence of a pervasive recency bias in LLMs and highlight the importance of effective bias-mitigation strategies.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

UniRec: Cross-stage Multi-Task Fusion with Preference Alignment for Cascaded Recommender Systems

Industrial recommender systems cascade stages with different objectives, feature spaces, and latency constraints. Optimizing pre-ranking and ranking separately induces cross-stage inconsistency: upstream models may filter out items preferred by downstream rankers, while independently tuned downstream fusion can offset upstream improvements. Most existing multi-task fusion methods target the ranking stage alone, and cross-stage methods often align with a downstream-derived score, leaving joint optimization of fusion modules across cascaded stages largely unexplored. We propose UniRec, a Unified Cross-stage Recommendation Fusion model. First, the two fusion agents partially share input embeddings in a single computation graph, allowing gradients from either stage to propagate through the shared representations. Second, a dual-axis preference alignment objective coordinates the two stages: horizontally, a compact aggregation term reorganizes dozens of pairwise objectives over heterogeneous prior signals into bidirectional preference evidence; vertically, a cross-stage consistency term transfers downstream pairwise preferences to the upstream fusion score. Third, we introduce attribute group-relative regularization, which computes relative advantages and normalizes policy updates within each attribute group, ensuring that uniformly promoting all items in a high-reward group provides no additional optimization gain. Offline experiments demonstrate UniRec consistently outperforms single-stage fusion and cross-stage coordination baselines; online A/B experiments show a 0.616% gain in app usage duration. UniRec has been fully deployed on the Kuaishou platform.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Scaling Articulated Rationales for MLLM-based Recommendation

We presented SARA, an industrial framework that transforms sparse articulated user rationales into scalable recommendation signals. Its data engine curates questionnaire responses into SARA-HQ, providing explicit preference supervision for aligning SARA-7B through SFT and Quality-Refining DPO. This alignment extends rationale generation from $86{,}564$ questionnaire-covered authors to the full $10$M-author space. SARA-Ranker translates the generated positive and negative rationales into features for user--author interaction modeling and negative-feedback history modeling, connecting articulated reasons to production ranking. Evaluation on unseen authors demonstrates that SARA-7B generates more specific, relevant, and grounded rationales than the evaluated general-purpose MLLMs. On top of a strong industrial ranking baseline with multimodal features, separate online A/B tests show that positive-rationale integration increases watch time by $0.99\%$, while negative-rationale integration reduces Hate feedback by $8.16\%$. Daily refresh and more than $30$ days of production deployment further demonstrate the operational feasibility of the approach. These findings establish articulated rationales as a useful complement to behavioral and content signals, and demonstrate a practical role for MLLMs in scaling sparse human explanations into preference information that improves industrial recommendation.

cs.IR↗