mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Dice Roll Method: A Standardized Protocol for Repeated-Query Auditing of Large Language Model Brand Recommendations

arXiv 2609.04047 ↗First posted 3 Sep 2026cs.IR cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Researchers increasingly use repeated identical prompts to audit stochastic variation in large language model (LLM) brand recommendations, yet no standardized protocol exists for setting iteration counts, selecting stability metrics, or establishing reliability thresholds. Objective: We formalize the Dice Roll Method as a reusable protocol for repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations, grounded in a generative model of temperature-scaled nucleus sampling. Methods: Total response variance is decomposed into sampling, prompt-phrasing, run-to-run, and model-version components. The stack: a negative-binomial mixed model with iterations as repeated measures; Cliff's delta as the distribution-free effect size; dependence-preserving bootstrap; simulation-based power; a generalizability-theory decomposition; drift diagnostics on pinned snapshots. We reanalyse five brand-recommendation auditing studies: approximately 190,000 observations, 270+ brands, 6 languages, iteration counts 5 to 40. Results: Three tiers of iteration guidance emerge from the D-study: exploratory (n = 5, G = 0.58), confirmatory (n = 10, G = 0.74), and rigorous (n = 15, G = 0.81), tied to effect-size and generalizability targets. The four metric families (count, set, embedding, fairness-adjusted PASOR) are complementary, motivating a compact metric battery over single indicators. A pre-registered external validation on three independent corpora (Motoki et al., 100-round; Rozado, 24 models; llm-stability) reproduces the D-study reliability prediction in 37 of 39 cells with no failures and the n = 5 power value to two decimals; the fixed tiers do not transfer, supporting a pilot-then-solve reading. Conclusion: The protocol gives repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations a statistically principled footing under the conditional, non-Gaussian structure of real autoregressive generation.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.

Builds on

16 of 69 references.

References · 16

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  3. 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
  4. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  5. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  6. 2021Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpuscited by 481
  7. 2022Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledgecited by 452
  8. 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 265
  9. 2024The Effect of Sampling Temperature on Problem Solving in Large Language Modelscited by 168
  10. 2024Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settingscited by 84
  11. 2024The Political Preferences of LLMscited by 83
  12. 2021Fairness in Information Access Systemscited by 27
4 more
  1. 2025LLM Output Drift: Cross-Provider Validation & Mitigation for Financial Workflowscited by 6
  2. 2026The Language Blind Spot: How Query Language and Brand Recognition Tier Shape AI-Constructed Brand Reputation Across Twelve European Languagescited by 4
  3. 2026Who Owns the AI Recommendation? A Multi-Industry Empirical Map of Brand Category Ownership Across Large Language Modelscited by 3
  4. 2026How Large Language Models Source Brand Reputation Across Languages and Marketscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.