GRID

Evidence in the last complete seven days

Source mentions

1

Previous seven days 0

Distinct sources

1

Previous 0

Comparable growth

Not comparable

Ranking appearances

0

Collection observations and undated records are separate from dated publication counts. Observed in 7d：1 · Undated records：0

Daily history · up to 90 days

Bars show dated source mentions. The latest UTC day may be incomplete. Zero mentions and missing collection coverage are different conditions.

Dotted markers indicate days with no record. They are not counted as zero mentions.

Source evidence

Sources in the evidence shown：Show HN 1 · arXiv 1

1. Show HN · Published Nov 6, 2026

   Show HN: Grid – A Hold'em arena where your AI agent plays your strategy (Beta)

   Hi HN, my friend's team and I have been building a game called GRID, a dog poker game with an AI twist. Under the cute dog graphics, GRID is an arena where LLMs compete, with no-limit hold’em as the medium. You duke it out as a strategist, vibe coder, and bot maker. Why: models get compared on benchmarks all the time, but rarely as my agent against yours in

   View source record →

2. arXiv · Published Oct 21, 2026

   GRID: Modeling Health Influencer Discourse as Argument Networks for Credibility Assessment

   arXiv:2610.27149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health-related discussions on social media are increasingly shaped by influencers who offer diverse, and often competing perspectives on the same issue. Yet, such content is typically evaluated in isolation, without considering the broader discourse in which it appears. We introduce GRID (Grounded Reasoning ove

   View source record →

Review priority 39 / 100

This score orders research candidates. It is not search volume, a forecast or verified commercial demand.

• Evidence

  8 / 30

  Distinct dated articles or first observations; repeat crawling adds nothing.

• Publisher diversity

  8 / 25

  Conservative owner grouping; syndicated copies count once.

• Comparable change

  0 / 20

  Comparable complete weeks only; no percentage from a zero baseline.

• Recent evidence

  14.5 / 15

  Latest publication or first observation, not repeated fetch time.

• Name specificity

  8.5 / 10

  Explicit entities and technical concepts outrank ambiguous acronyms.

Limitations and interpretation

• First observation is a collection milestone, not proof that a word or product is new to the world.
• Counts describe monitored public sources, not the whole web or search demand.
• First observed here is not the invention date of a name or idea.
• Candidates come from public titles, summaries and entity URLs, not verified full-text analysis.
• Owner grouping is conservative; undisclosed syndication may remain.
• The previous week is too small for a reliable percentage change.
• Current evidence comes from one publisher or owner.