← Back to all news
arXiv Computation and Language By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin

Repeated Queries Exhaust an LLM's Brand Recommendations but Not Its Sources

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The study examines how repeated identical buying questions affect the brand recommendations of large language models (LLMs) with and without web‑search retrieval. Across 300 question‑engine cells, five engines that did not use web search continued to add new, previously unseen brands up to run 15, while the single retrieval‑enabled engine’s list plateaued earlier. Domain citations continued to grow throughout the runs, indicating that LLMs keep accumulating source diversity even as brand lists stabilize.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

Related stories

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.

By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin
llms
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

Measuring Brand and Source Discovery under Repeated LLM Queries: A Finite-Sample Audit

The study audits large language model (LLM) outputs by measuring how well repeated queries recover a collected set of responses versus the full set of possible outputs. Using sample-based rarefaction on 4,500 responses from 50 buying questions across six configurations, the authors find historical-dictionary median recovery rates between 92.6% and 95.2%, which drop to 89.5%–94.7% after re‑adjudicating all candidate strings. Additional analyses with Gemini 3.1 Pro annotations and matched roster data confirm that recovery percentages vary with extraction methods, question selection, and the finite reference collection, underscoring the need for explicit measurement definitions and sensitivity analyses in LLM audits.

By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin
llms
More like this →
arXiv AI
2d ago

AX is the New AEO

arXiv:2609.34951v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In 2023, AI models answered from training data and hallucinated when it ran out, and businesses were told to seed that knowledge. Models' training...

By Ido Finder, Assaf Elovic, Gad Shalev, Liad Yosef
agents
More like this →