Abstract
When someone asks an AI assistant which doctor to see or which firm to trust with their savings, the answer is a referral. We audit AI provider recommendations in four registry-backed service domains across the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, matching every recommendation against the official registry for its domain (Medicare clinician and facility records, and SEC adviser disclosures), under three conditions: an open-weight model, a proprietary model without web search, and the same proprietary model with search. Without search, both models largely fabricate recommendations in the domains the web covers thinly. Only 4% of the open-weight model's recommended doctors and 11% of the proprietary model's match a clinician in the queried city, and the open-weight matches are name coincidences: its matched clinicians are no likelier to be primary-care doctors than names drawn at random from the registry. With search, 64-71% of recommendations in the same domains match a real provider. Search also changes who is recommended. Without it, recommended advisory firms carry SEC misconduct disclosures at 3.6 times the registry base rate, even after adjusting for firm size; with search, significantly below it. Restaurants, where quality and visibility are separately measurable, show a 3-5x review-count premium but a rating premium of at most a tenth of a star. Finally, search largely removes the metro-size penalty: without it, real recommendations concentrate in the largest metros; with it, match rates are similar across metro-size terciles. Whether an AI referral is trustworthy depends strongly on its retrieval configuration rather than on the underlying model alone, yet an answer produced without retrieval often carries no sign that its recommendations were never verified.
Explore similar work
May 22, 2026cs.CY
A brand whose customers use both ChatGPT and Claude for product recommendations faces a strategic choice: a single optimization playbook, or one per provider? Across 215 commercially-framed prompts in four measurement batches, the two providers disagree on which brands they recommend roughly two-thirds of the time (cross-provider recommendation Jaccard 0.35, below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline). The picks diverge. But when neither provider recommends a brand, we classify the failure into one of three modes -- discoverability (the brand never reaches the model), compellingness (it reaches the model but isn't mentioned), or positioning (it's mentioned but not recommended) -- and on 7,763 such joint failures, both providers diagnose the same failure mode 95.1% of the time (clustered 95% CI [94.3%, 95.7%]). Agreement rises monotonically with falling brand prominence, from 81% [78.2%, 84.0%] on category leaders to 99.6% [99.3%, 99.9%] on long-tail regional brands. The two providers reach their picks by measurably different generative routes -- Anthropic recommends from priors 43-52% of the time, OpenAI 8-29% -- but they converge on the failure diagnosis where it matters most for the long tail. Work that addresses the diagnosed failure mode lifts visibility on both providers; positioning - and content-level work for category leaders is more provider-specific.
Will Jack, Noah Lehman, Keller Maloney +1
Sep 16, 2026cs.CY
Consumers increasingly use AI chatbots for advice on what to buy. With companies like OpenAI and Google monetising their AI through advertising, this raises difficult questions about the bias and impartiality of such advice. In response, we conduct an AI audit of popular chatbots using real commercial-advice queries. First, we curate a dataset of 2,528 real commercial-advice queries (ConsumerQ). Then, we evaluate 1,536 responses to product queries from popular AI chatbots: ChatGPT (chatbot and API), Google Gemini (chatbot and API), and Google Search (AI Overviews). We find that ChatGPT expresses a first-person product preference in 79% of product-recommending responses, compared with 7% for Gemini and 2% for AI Overviews, while the products recommended often change across repeated requests. Displayed sources vary strongly: for the same query, the ChatGPT and Gemini interfaces share only 5.4% of domains on average, with no domain in common in 76.7% of comparisons. APIs provide a different view from their corresponding interfaces, with mean domain overlaps of 12.0% for ChatGPT and 14.8% for Gemini, and also differ in the types and layers of source information they expose. Our findings show that neither isolated responses nor API observations can be assumed to represent the commercial advice consumers encounter. Independent audits of AI-mediated commercial advice should therefore account for repeated responses, consumer-facing conditions, and the source layer being observed.
Lucas G. Uberti-Bona Marin, Thales Bertaglia, Giovanni Astante +5
May 22, 2026cs.IR
AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude are recommendation engines, not search engines: they answer commercial queries by directly nominating brands rather than returning a list of links. Marketing to AI is therefore a broader problem than "show up in search" -- positioning, content, and product fit matter as much as discoverability. We audit ~37,000 production runs across four model configurations and 215 commercially-framed prompts spanning 19 sectors, evaluated against a 533-brand reference catalog stratified into five prominence tiers (L1 category leaders to L5 regional players) sourced from external authority lists. The ladder proxies a brand's awareness footprint within its sector, not revenue or market share. The failure mode differs sharply by tier. L1 brands appear in nearly every relevant retrieval but win only 25-41% of the recommendation slots they reach -- the leverage is differentiation, not visibility. L2 challengers carry the highest conversion rates of any tier (37-52%) but lose to persona-mediated substitution on the Anthropic models. L3 mid-market brands are the inflection level: aggregate coverage drops to 88%, conversion to 34-40%, and persona effects peak. L4 specialists and L5 regional players face catastrophic invisibility -- 48-52% never surface in any of the 37,000 runs. No uniform optimization recipe wins; the right marketing investment depends on where the brand sits on the prominence ladder.
Will Jack, Noah Lehman, Keller Maloney +1