Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of It
Dmitrij Żatuchin
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.
Create a lesson
Related papers
SURF: Subtractive Updates for Recommender Forgetting
Filippo Betello, Antonio Purificato, Nicola Tonellotto et al.
Exploring LLMs and RAG for Plausible and Explainable Material Prediction of Vehicle Components
Frederik Wagner, Annerose Eichel, Sabine Schulte im Walde
One-Step Retrieval Framework for Real-Time Sponsored Search Ads Using Hierarchical Text Representations
Tongtong Liu, Renyu Zhang, Jiayu Ding et al.
Quanta: A Self-Contained Python Library for Hybrid Retrieval over Quantised Embeddings, Lexical Indexes, and Knowledge Graphs
Ioannis E. Livieris
Single-Token Expected-Value Scoring for Cold-Start Candidate Ranking
Qihang Wang, Jinwei Tan, Mengyuan Shi et al.
PageRecall: Measuring Page Selection in Literature-Grounded Question Answering
Aaditya Chauhan