# Who Owns the AI Recommendation? A Multi-Industry Empirical Map of Brand Category Ownership Across Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23057 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23057/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [Language Models as Knowledge Bases?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01066/) (2019)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03216/) (2024)
- [BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.05794/) (2022)
- [Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08758/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08411/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [How Large Language Models Source Brand Reputation Across Languages and Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25787/) (2026)
- [The Dice Roll Method: A Standardized Protocol for Repeated-Query Auditing of Large Language Model Brand Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04047/) (2026)
- [Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23893/) (2026)
- [Twenty Days Later: A Pre-Registered Test of History-Based Forecasts of Brand Mentions in Gemini Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19608/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This exploratory study measures brand inclusion across five industries, 50 brands and 250 queries, each put five times to GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Flash and Perplexity sonar-pro in February and September 2026 (3,614 and 3,750 scored answers). Category Inclusion Rate, Recommendation Share, Competitive Vacuum Index and Co-Mention Asymmetry have stated denominators. February inclusion rates sit close together across an industry's sampled brands (mean Gini 0.30), while at least one brand is named in 80% or more of answers to 204 of 250 queries. Vacuums occur in 7.6% of queries; provisional open-vocabulary model readings suggest most reflect the sampled brand list. The partially pre-specified September replication shows strong cross-date Recommendation Share correlation (Spearman 0.994), unchanged vacuum prevalence and agreement of 60.8% against February's 57.2%. The descriptive size association persists. Fixed margins do not account for all co-mention structure: 31 ordered pairs depart from the September null. Agreement exceeds the query-independent null, and both parametric-pair advantage intervals are positive. All ten clustering seeds yield zero emergent clusters. Matcher validation remains provisional pending author checks. The statistics describe system output and identify no causal mechanism.