AcademicarXiv, 25 Sep 2026
Three larger Qwen3 models leaned toward later-listed hotels, picking the first one only 18.5% to 22.9% of the time
Channel mix & planning
First-shown hotel selection rate by LLM, models below 50%
| Model | First-shown selection rate (%) |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.4 Nano | 46.2% |
| Gemma3 1B | 44% |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 43.4% |
| Phi-3 Mini | 36.4% |
| DeepSeek-R1 7B | 29.4% |
| Phi-2 2.7B | 28.4% |
| Qwen3 30B-A3B | 22.9% |
| Qwen3 4B | 22.7% |
| DeepSeek-R1 1.5B | 19.8% |
| Qwen3 8B | 18.5% |
- Reader Note:
- The share of tasks where the model picked whichever of the two reference hotels was shown first, pooled across both orderings; 50% means no position bias. Qwen3 30B-A3B: 22.9%, Qwen3 4B: 22.7%, Qwen3 8B: 18.5%. The smallest Qwen3 0.6B did the opposite at 98.5%. Synthetic NYC hotel tasks, not live shopping.
- Evidence:
- Experimental
- Vendor interest:
- None
- Sample:
- 28 LLMs from 8 providers tested on 3,600 hotel choice tasks built from 179 real New York City hotel properties; each task was scored in both original and swapped orderings.
Good for
Backing budget and pricing decisions in similar situations.
Not for
- Situations far from the one tested, without checking again.
- This was measured in one market. It may not hold where you are.
- The source never says when this data was collected. It could be considerably older than the publication date suggests.
- The two groups were not split at random — they picked their own side. The difference may have been there before anything was measured.




