Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of It

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23893v2
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 21:12:53 GMT
• Title: Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of It
• Abstract summary: It issued 2,400 grounded API calls in one two-hour window on 24 July 2026.<n>Every response was coded for whether it named an individual professional.<n>Models named an individual in 25.8% of responses.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Prior work on AI brand visibility measures the firm: does a model recommend a company, and does that track its reputation. This study asks the question one level down, in categories where the buyer picks a person. It issued 2,400 grounded API calls in one two-hour window on 24 July 2026: 120 buyer-intent prompts, four models (GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.6 Flash, Perplexity Sonar Pro, Grok 4.5), five iterations each, four European markets and five query languages. Every response was coded for whether it named an individual professional, by a rule cascade that never consults a roster and that drops detections resolving to a same-named American city (precision 96.9%, recall 61.7%, so every rate below is a lower bound). All inference corrects for clustering within prompt: intraclass correlation 0.258, effective n 407 against a nominal 2,400. Models named an individual in 25.8% of responses. Category dominates: real estate 35.4% and car dealerships 32.9% against insurance 9.1% (chi-square 159.3, p = 5.8e-8 after correction). Models differ four-fold, from Grok 38.0% to Gemini 9.3%. Citation type predicts naming and citation volume does not: naming responses cite the individual's own site 2.6 points more often (95% CI +1.4 to +3.9) and category portals 4.3 points more often, and cite firm-owned pages at the same rate (44.1% against 45.5%). On nine matched translation pairs, English prompts named an individual in 36.7% of responses against 15.6% for the same question in the local language (OR 3.14, clustered p = 0.074, so the direction is clear and the design cannot close it). A 939-person roster built from public LinkedIn search matched 128 of 27,293 name-shaped mentions (0.47%), 26 of the 939 people were ever named, and the roster-derived rates of 0.0% to 25.4% measure that overlap. Roster-based measurement of individual AI visibility sees a small and unrepresentative slice of what models do.

Related papers

• Same Name, Different Server: A Security Census of Silent Drift in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem [0.0]
  The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has become the common interface through which large language model applications reach external tools.<n>This paper reports a census of that ecosystem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-12T19:47:32Z)
• Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure [51.736723807086385]
  Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T10:22:22Z)
• Corporate-Family Resolution Is Not a String-Matching Problem: A Public Benchmark Stratified by Name Visibility [1.3367903535457364]
  CorpFam is a public benchmark of 54,864 candidate pairs over 10,307 corporate families.<n>It is based on 6,638,350 US federal award records in which every supplier self-reports its ultimate parent to a government registry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T19:16:47Z)
• K-Bench: measuring model performance on real scientific agent requests [0.0]
  K-Bench 01 is an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web.<n>Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric.<n>Across all 39,934 scored judgments, 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T20:06:08Z)
• Whose doctor does the AI recommend? An algorithm audit of reputation and demographic signals in large language model-assisted physician choice [0.0]
  Patients increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which doctor to see.<n>We report a prespecified randomized algorithm audit of what causally moves those recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T15:39:10Z)
• MemDelta: Controlled Baselines and Hidden Confounds in Agent Memory Evaluation [8.38765074765613]
  Agent memory systems are increasingly evaluated against RAG and full-context baselines.<n> reported gains often mix changes in the memory method with changes in the language model, embedding model, or retrieval pipeline.<n>We present MemDelta, a controlled evaluation protocol that varies one component at a time on LongMemEval-S (500 questions, 50+ sessions, three model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T07:51:22Z)
• Efficient Visual Pointing for Embodied AI:Agent-Driven Data Synthesis, Cross-Block Attention, and Iterative Correction [55.11480729304395]
  We describe our PointArena 2026 solution, which achieves 77.2% overall accuracy and ranks second on the benchmark.<n>The ap proach targets three failure modes. First, agent-driven syn thesis builds large semantic and anchor-relative candidate pools.<n>Second, a determinis tic steerable-data pipeline creates a verified 10,000-sample main set, plus reserve samples, using masks, templates, and path verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T06:39:03Z)
• Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark [63.143852586221534]
  We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines.<n>We prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality.<n>The top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:06:49Z)
• FormInv: A Measurement Protocol for Semantic Invariance in Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks [0.0]
  A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups.<n>Removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T18:59:18Z)
• Evaluating Commercial AI Chatbots as News Intermediaries [85.32040752972836]
  Best systems achieve over 90% multiple-choice accuracy on questions about events reported hours earlier.<n>Every model achieves its lowest accuracy on Hindi.<n> retrieval, not reasoning, failures drive over 70% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T17:42:07Z)
• The Range Shrinks, the Threat Remains: Re-evaluating LLM Package Hallucinations on the 2026 Frontier-Model Cohort [51.56484100374058]
  Spracklen et al. showed that code-generating large language models hallucinate package names that do not exist on PyPI or npm.<n>We measure hallucination rates across 199,845 paired Python and JavaScript prompts validated against PyPI and npm master lists.<n>We identify a set of 127 package names (109 on PyPI, 18 on npm) that all five evaluated models invent identically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-16T16:08:52Z)
• How Far Is Document Parsing from Solved? PureDocBench: A Source-TraceableBenchmark across Clean, Degraded, and Real-World Settings [56.70440596502351]
  The past year has seen over 20 open document parsing models, yet benchmarks almost exclusively on OmniDocBench.<n>We present PureDocBench, a benchmark thatrenders document images from HTML/CSS, covering 10 domains, 66 pages, and 1,475 pages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T09:30:31Z)
• Measuring Faithfulness Depends on How You Measure: Classifier Sensitivity in LLM Chain-of-Thought Evaluation [0.0]
  Recent work on chain-of-thought faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers.<n>This paper provides evidence that faithfulness is not an objective, measurable property of a model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T17:48:43Z)
• Distortions in Judged Spatial Relations in Large Language Models [45.875801135769585]
  GPT-4 exhibited superior performance with 55 percent accuracy, followed by GPT-3.5 at 47 percent, and Llama-2 at 45 percent. The models identified the nearest cardinal direction in most cases, reflecting their associative learning mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T20:08:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.