Hugging Face Trending Papers
How Language Models Learn Taste: Brand Preference in LLMs
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
1d ago
How Language Models Learn Taste: Brand Preference in LLMs
The paper investigates how large language models develop brand preferences, noting that models often name market‑leading brands like Nike when asked for a running shoe brand but recommend niche brands such as Brooks. Across 102 models and 42 brand categories, the brand chosen for recommendation differs from the named brand in 26% of cases, and preference optimization (DPO) shifts these choices by 11–24 points. The study suggests that pretraining already links recommended brands to advice, supervised fine‑tuning preserves these preferences, and DPO can shift them even when the preferred brand is absent from the preference data, indicating that the judge models used in training play a key role.
arXiv AI
Jun 10
A Comprehensive Survey of Direct Preference Optimization: Datasets, Theories, Variants, and Applications
arXiv:2410. 15595v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), aligning policy models with human preferences has become increasingly critical.
arXiv AI
Jun 17
Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems
arXiv:2606. 17443v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 25
Who Owns the AI Recommendation? A Multi-Industry Empirical Map of Brand Category Ownership Across Large Language Models
The study examines how large language models (LLMs) like GPT‑5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, and Perplexity sonar‑pro recommend brands across five industries. Using 50 brands and 250 queries repeated five times, the authors measured brand inclusion, recommendation share, competitive vacuum, and co‑mention asymmetry, finding that most queries mention at least one brand and that vacuum prevalence remained stable between February and September 2026. The analysis shows strong cross‑date consistency in recommendation patterns and no emergent clustering of brand mentions, though co‑mention structures deviate from null expectations.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Isolating LLM Lexical Bias: A Curation-Free Triangulated Metric for Preference-Stage Learning
arXiv:2606. 00334v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1
Demand-Side Measurement for Generative Engine Optimization: Constructing and Validating a Million-Persona, Intent-Annotated Buyer Corpus
arXiv:2608.30023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative engines such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity answer buyer questions directly and name a shortlist of brands inside the answer. Studying...