The Model Knows Your Project, Not You: Measuring Recognition in LLMs with NameRank

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.

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scholar recommenders, shaping who is seen as an expert in academia. Existing audits remain English-centric, single discipline, and persona-agnostic, leaving the source of output variability poorly understood. To this end, we propose a benchmark that disentangles the effects of model choice and prompt design on recommendations. We audit 43 LLMs by varying persona prompts (language, location, role-and-task) and context (field, seniority, k). Recommended scholars are compared against Semantic Scholar over six scientific disciplines to measure technical quality (factuality, coverage) and social representativeness (diversity, parity). Basic technical quality is driven by model choice, factuality and parity by context, and diversity by location. South Africa prompts yield less factual lists, while Japan prompts yield highly factual but homogeneous lists skewed toward highly productive scholars. Prompt design is thus a non-trivial axis of LLM-based scholar discovery and should be systematically audited alongside model choice.