How Large Language Models Source Brand Reputation Across Languages and Markets

When a large language model (LLM) answers a question about a company, it grounds the answer in retrieved web sources, and those sources decide what the model says. Most analysis of AI brand visibility looks at the answer text. This study looks one step earlier, at the citations. We merge three Rankfor.AI datasets covering 128 brands across 12 home markets and 13 languages, and analyse 167,551 URL-grounded citations (189,974 total attribution rows). We classify each citation by domain and source type and measure where AI gets its brand information, by language and by market. Four patterns hold. First, AI grounds brand answers overwhelmingly in third-party sources: 85.7% of citations point to sites the brand does not own, against 14.3% owned. Second, the source base is concentrated and long-tailed: 80% of citations come from about 18% of domains, fitting a Zipf law (alpha = 0.86, R^2 = 0.983). Third, one reference site dominates almost everywhere: Wikipedia is the most-cited domain in 11 of 12 languages, the exception being Lithuanian, where the business daily vz.lt edges it (4.38%). Fourth, the source mix is market-specific at the margin: for 46 Polish national brands the most-cited domain is YouTube, and four HR and careers portals supply 637 citations against 297 for Polish Wikipedia, about twice as many.

Measuring Research Difficulty of Academic Papers: A Case Study in Natural Language Processing

With the rapid growth of the number of academic papers, systematically evaluating the difficulty of research and its relationship to academic impact offers important significance for research topic selection and resource allocation. However, current studies lack quantitative assessments of research difficulty and its correlation with academic impact. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation system for research difficulty, incorporating factors such as academic collaboration, content, and references. Taking the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) as a case study, we extract both internal and external features from academic papers, compute multiple research difficulty indicators. We assign their weights using the entropy weight method and perform a weighted sum to obtain the research difficulty score of academic papers. This paper uses the citation frequency of academic papers to measure academic impact. To validate our approach, NLP experts assessed the difficulty of a sample of papers, and correlation analyses confirmed the reliability of our measurement. Empirical results reveal that in NLP, factors such as the number of pages, reference count, and participation of high-level institutions are significantly associated with academic impact. Moreover, we identify an inverted U-shaped relationship between research difficulty and academic impact. It suggests that moderately difficult research tends to achieve greater academic impact.

How Does Research Evolve? Tracing Cross-Domain Trajectories in NLP, ML, and CV Through Claim-Grounded Typed Citations

How does research evolve, and can we trace it at the level of individual claims? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts. Existing citation graphs usually collapse these roles into a single homogeneous edge type, limiting how we can analyze scientific progress. We introduce SciTraj, a typed citation corpus for tracing research evolution across natural language processing, machine learning, and computer vision. SciTraj includes 32,559 papers published between 2015 and 2024 and 573,126 directed edges spanning six research-relation types. Unlike traditional citation graphs, each edge is paired with the claim sentence that motivates its label. Claim-driven relations are verified by natural language inference against their local in-paper context. The corpus further organizes these relations into multi-step typed trajectories that trace how ideas develop across papers and over time. We evaluate the corpus along three dimensions. First, a three-annotator pilot achieves Fleiss' $κ=0.74$ and 79.9\% majority-vote precision for relation labels, indicating substantial agreement and reliable labeling. Second, corpus-level analyses reveal clear disciplinary siloing in the directional flow of research relations. Topic analysis further identifies rapidly growing clusters dominated by vision and LLM-related research and declining clusters associated with several classical machine-learning topics. We further evaluate SciTraj using a temporally split link-prediction benchmark and a year-shuffle falsifiability test that distinguishes genuine temporal signal from year-correlated content. Under this setting, \textsc{SciTraj-Pair} performs strongly, but its AUC drops by 0.288 when publication years are shuffled, showing that its predictions depend not only on content but also on the temporal order in which research develops.