Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
In-site rewrite2 min read

Invisible to the Machine: Auditing AI Restaurant, Cafe, and Bar Recommendation Against a Complete Market Census

Summary

A complete-census audit of 4,776 cafes, restaurants, and bars in two Bali markets found that 85.6% of venues were never recommended by any of four AI systems across 2,208 responses. Documentation signals (review count, website, price info, third-party mentions) drive inclusion, while star rating influences only ranking within answers. Hallucination was rare (0.08%), but 93 closed venues were recommended, making staleness the key practical failure mode.

SourceHacker News AIAuthor: fspunch
Invisible to the Machine: Auditing AI Restaurant, Cafe, and Bar Recommendation Against a Complete Market Census
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 7 Aug 2026]

Title:Invisible to the Machine: Auditing AI Restaurant, Cafe, and Bar Recommendation Against a Complete Market Census

View a PDF of the paper titled Invisible to the Machine: Auditing AI Restaurant, Cafe, and Bar Recommendation Against a Complete Market Census, by Vladimir Pitenin

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:AI assistants are becoming a primary interface for local discovery, yet almost nothing is known about which venues they surface -- especially in food and drink, where recommendations carry direct revenue consequences. We present the first census-denominated audit of AI venue recommendation: a complete enumeration of 4,776 cafes, restaurants, and bars across two bounded markets (Canggu and Ubud, Bali), against which we evaluate 2,208 search-grounded responses from four production AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity) to 96 persona-conditioned queries, collected over seven days under a pre-registered protocol. Because we observe the full market, we can measure what sampled audits cannot: 85.6% of venues were never recommended by any system -- 72.6% even among established venues with fifty or more ratings. Visibility follows a two-margin structure. Entry into answers is associated with documentation: review volume (OR 1.64), an own website (OR 1.92), listed price information (OR 1.54), and third-party web mentions (OR 1.44) -- while star rating is null at this margin (OR 0.89). Rank within answers reverses the pattern: among recommended venues, rating significantly predicts first position (OR 1.17). Presence in an open POI dataset (Foursquare), a folk-theorized visibility factor, shows no positive effect at either margin. Outright fabrication is rare (0.08% of mentions), but systems recommended permanently closed venues 93 times -- staleness, not hallucination, is the practical failure mode. Cross-system agreement is low (top-20 Jaccard 0.33-0.54). A two-week test-retest shows cross-period answer similarity comparable to same-day rerun similarity: the churn is sampling stochasticity, not temporal drift. We release our protocol, registry construction method, and derived data.

Comments: 31 pages, 10 figures

Subjects:

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computers and Society (cs.CY)

Cite as: arXiv:2608.07069 [cs.IR]

(or arXiv:2608.07069v1 [cs.IR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.07069

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Vladimir Pitenin [view email] [v1] Fri, 7 Aug 2026 10:23:45 UTC (227 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Invisible to the Machine: Auditing AI Restaurant, Cafe, and Bar Recommendation Against a Complete Market Census, by Vladimir Pitenin

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.IR

new | recent | 2026-08

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CY

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • 85.6% of 4,776 venues were never recommended by any of the four AI systems; even among venues with 50+ ratings, 72.6% were invisible.
  • Entry into recommendations is driven by documentation signals (reviews, website, price info, third-party mentions), while star ratings affect only ranking.
  • Systems rarely hallucinated (0.08% of mentions) but recommended permanently closed venues 93 times, indicating staleness is the main failure mode.
  • Cross-system top-20 agreement was low (Jaccard 0.33-0.54), and test-retest churn reflects sampling stochasticity rather than temporal drift.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.