Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.19608

Twenty Days Later: A Pre-Registered Test of History-Based Forecasts of Brand Mentions in Gemini Answers

Dmitrij Żatuchin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Counts of which brands a large language model names are useful only if they hold long enough to act on. We test this with a pre-registered replication. The same 162 requests (54 questions in English, Estonian and Finnish about three software categories, four of twelve candidate brands per question, three repeats) were sent to gemini-3.1-pro-preview in three waves within about ten hours on 22 and 23 September 2026, and again on 13 October 2026, 20.3 days after the third wave, with identical request bodies. The plan and its decision rule were frozen, hashed and registered on OSF before the first call. The outcome is a lexical mention label per answer and brand, 648 per wave. The primary forecast, each brand-and-question cell's mention rate over the nine earlier answers, scored Brier 0.0281 and log loss 0.126, against Brier 0.0259 for the six-answer forecast of the 8-hour wave and a registered ceiling of 0.0559. It beat brand history (0.104), the overall rate (0.234) and a constant 0.5 (0.250) on both scores and in all nine question families (exact sign-flip p = 0.0039), so durability holds under the registered rule. A forecast frozen from the first wave alone scored 0.0599, 0.0587 and 0.0604 at horizons of 1.5 hours, 9.6 hours and 20.7 days. Of the 202 cells unanimous in the 8-hour wave, 194 were unchanged at D1 and none reversed. The latest wave alone was nearly as accurate as the pooled history (Brier 0.0292; pooled lower in 5 of 9 families, p = 0.28). Every answer reported the requested model version, and none issued a search query although search was enabled. A blind human check of 96 labels agreed with the rule on 94; both disagreements were adjudicated as rater omissions, so after adjudication the rule matched on 96 of 96. The test covers one model, one interval and twelve known brands, and estimates no decay rate.

Explore related subjects

cs.IRcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dmitrij Żatuchin. 2026-10-14. Twenty Days Later: A Pre-Registered Test of History-Based Forecasts of Brand Mentions in Gemini Answers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19608

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

EviRerank: Adaptive Evidence Construction for Long-Document LLM Reranking

Decoder-only LLM rerankers struggle with long documents: inference is costly and relevance signals can be diluted by irrelevant context. Motivated by an attention analysis indicating a consistent degradation trend when non-relevant text is appended, we propose EviRerank, an evidence-based long-document reranking framework for decoder-only LLMs. EviRerank (i) scores document blocks with a lightweight selector (BM25, bi-encoder, or cross-encoder), (ii) constructs a compact reranking context under a hard token cap by dynamically budgeting evidence blocks with Adaptive Evidence Budgeting (AEB) and adding a global summary cue via Summary Augmentation (SA), and (iii) reranks with a decoder-only LLM. Across TREC DL'19, DL'22, DL'23, and MLDR-zh, EviRerank consistently outperforms full-document LLM reranking and strong block-selection baselines while substantially reducing the required input length. On TREC DL'19, EviRerank reaches up to 0.744 nDCG@10 while substantially reducing reranking latency. Additional RankZephyr-7B experiments confirm transfer to listwise reranking under matched context budgets.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

On the Impact of Graph Neural Networks in Recommender Systems: A Topological Perspective

In recommender systems, user-item interactions can be modeled as a bipartite graph, where user and item nodes are connected by undirected edges. This graph-based view has motivated the rapid adoption of graph neural networks (GNNs), which often outperform collaborative filtering (CF) methods such as latent factor models, deep neural networks, and generative strategies. Yet, despite their empirical success, the reasons why GNNs offer systematic advantages over other CF approaches remain only partially understood. This monograph advances a topology-centered perspective on GNN-based recommendation. We argue that a comprehensive understanding of these models' performance should consider the structural properties of user-item graphs and their interaction with GNN architectural design. To support this view, we introduce a formal taxonomy that distills common modeling patterns across eleven representative GNN-based recommendation approaches and consolidates them into a unified conceptual pipeline. We further formalize thirteen classical and topological characteristics of recommendation datasets and reinterpret them through the lens of graph machine learning. Using these definitions, we analyze the considered GNN-based recommender architectures to assess how and to what extent they encode such properties. Building on this analysis, we derive an explanatory framework that links measurable dataset characteristics to model behavior and performance. Taken together, this monograph re-frames GNN-based recommendation through its topological underpinnings and outlines open theoretical, data-centric, and evaluation challenges for the next generation of topology-aware recommender systems.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Relevance Supervision Can Teach Neural Retrievers to Prefer LLM-Generated Text

Recent studies show that neural retrievers often exhibit source bias, ranking LLM-generated passages above semantically similar human-written ones, which threatens the reliability of modern information access systems. While this bias is often viewed as a model-level property, we show that relevance supervision itself can induce it. Empirically, source bias is clearest in relevance-supervised retrievers, and the same encoders become more LLM-preferring after relevance fine-tuning. We trace this effect to surface-level artifacts in supervised retrieval data: annotated positives and negatives differ systematically in properties such as fluency and lexical specificity, and these differences parallel those between LLM-generated and human-written passages. As a result, retrievers can learn artifact-based shortcuts for relevance. We further show theoretically that, under contrastive learning, artifacts that reliably separate positives from negatives can be encoded into learned relevance scores. Motivated by this mechanism, we propose complementary strategies that reduce source bias during training and at inference: balancing artifact distributions in negative sampling and removing the artifact-aligned embedding component, respectively. Overall, our findings support a data-centric view of source bias: retrievers may prefer LLM-generated text not merely because of inherent model properties, but because relevance supervision teaches them to rely on surface-level artifacts.

cs.IR↗