PreprintCited by 5Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSpam and Phishing DetectionTopic Modeling

Adversarial Search Engine Optimization for Large Language Models

Open access
Nestaas, Fredrik, Debenedetti, Edoardo, Tramèr, Florian·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in applications where the model selects from competing third-party content, such as in LLM-powered search engines or chatbot plugins. In this paper, we introduce Preference Manipulation Attacks, a new class of attacks that manipulate an LLM's selections to favor the attacker. We demonstrate that carefully crafted website content or plugin documentations can trick an LLM to promote the attacker products and discredit competitors, thereby increasing user traffic and monetization. We show this leads to a prisoner's dilemma, where all parties are incentivized to launch attacks, but the collective effect degrades the LLM's outputs for everyone. We demonstrate our attacks on production LLM search engines (Bing and Perplexity) and plugin APIs (for GPT-4 and Claude). As LLMs are increasingly used to rank third-party content, we expect Preference Manipulation Attacks to emerge as a significant threat.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper introduces Preference Manipulation Attacks, where attackers craft web page or plugin text to make LLM search engines and plugin-enhanced LLMs favor their content over competitors. It demonstrates these attacks on production systems and argues they create prisoner’s-dilemma incentives that can degrade LLM search and plugin ecosystems.

Key findings

  • Preference Manipulation Attacks reliably boost attacker content: a targeted camera becomes 2.5× more likely to be recommended by Bing Copilot, and a GPT-4 news plugin is 2–8× more likely to be selected than a competing alternative.
  • Fake products can compete with real brands: with no attack, real cameras are recommended 57.9% of the time versus 34.0% for fake products; after attack, fake products rise to 59.4%, slightly above real cameras.
  • Plugin attacks can boost selection by up to 7.2×, with some cases going from 0% to over 90% selection.
  • Attacks can also censor competitors and be launched externally: external Bing attacks succeed at most 25% versus 95%–100% for direct attacks, and in 80% of successful external attacks the LLM does not mention the page containing the injection.
  • Multiple attackers create a prisoner’s dilemma: individual attackers benefit from attacking, but when multiple parties attack, all lose search presence compared with cooperation.

Methods

  • Black-box experiments against production LLM search engines (Bing Copilot and Perplexity) and plugin-enhanced LLMs (Anthropic’s Claude 3 and OpenAI’s GPT-4).
  • For search, the authors populated 50 dummy web pages on spylab.ai with fictitious cameras, books, and news, some containing prompt injections; for plugins, they created functions claiming to retrieve flight schedules or news and manipulated plugin descriptions.
  • Success metrics included whether the LLM recommended/cited a target product or selected a target plugin; evaluation used citations, keywords, and regular-expression matching, with manual checks.

Limitations

  • The paper states attacks are performed in an isolated setting where the authors control all adversarial web pages, and they do not aim to cover all adversarial consequences or find the most efficient attack form.
  • The paper states an end-to-end attack would also require traditional SEO, which is out of scope.
  • The paper states experiments likely cannot be exactly replicated because the systems are black boxes, responses are random, and system behavior changed (e.g., Bing Copilot read pages as BingFirstPages before April 11, 2024, but as web_search_results after).
  • The text also makes evident an experimental bias: queries explicitly ask the LLM to search the authors’ domain, which real users are unlikely to do, though the authors address this partly in Section 5.4.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.18382

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 15 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Web pages and plugin descriptions that explicitly target LLMs can enable unknown providers to compete with reputable brands that are much better ranked in traditional search.

    “and even enable unknown providers to compete with reputable brands that are much better ranked in”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    All parties globally lose in recommendation rates compared to the baseline where all product owners cooperate.

    “Yet, all parties globally lose in recommendation rates compared to the baseline where all product owners cooperate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    The LLM is more inclined to follow Preference Manipulation Attacks that overlap significantly with the text of the user's request.

    “Mirroring the findings of Wan, Wallace, and Klein [27], we find the LLM is more inclined to following Preference Manipulation Attacks that overlap significantly with the text of the user's request.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    When more injections are present, all cameras lose in search presence.

    “and that when more injections are present, all cameras lose in search presence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    LLMs are most convinced by text that closely aligns with the user's query.

    “In Section 5.4, we corroborate a finding of Wan, Wallace, and Klein [27] who show that LLM's are most convinced by text that closely aligns with the user's query.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wan, Wallace, and Klein [27]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 33
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    LLM search engines often cite each web page once in their response as a summary before recommending a product.

    “often, LLM search engines will cite each web page once in its response as a summary, before recommending a product, motivating the next evaluation scheme.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    For plugin-enhanced LLMs, the model's reasoning for selecting a plugin is often not visible to the user.

    “For plugin-enhanced LLMs, the model's reasoning for selecting a plugin is often not visible to the user, so the attack is inherently stealthy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Precise and creative Bing Copilot behave somewhat differently.

    “and that precise and creative Bing Copilot behave somewhat differently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Adding injections to a web page is generally beneficial, but the products suffer as more pages do this.

    “adding injections to a web page is generally beneficial, but the products suffer as more pages do this.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both Bing Copilot and Perplexity are affected by the GitHub footnote injection.

    “We find that both Bing Copilot and Perplexity are affected by this injection.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Our attacks do not need to be illegible, although this makes them stealthier.

    “Our attacks also do not need to be illegible, although this makes them stealthier.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    GPT-4 Omni and Perplexity (both in Default mode and with Claude 3 Opus) output 'The most reliable source of information about SPY Lab at ETH Zurich is their GitHub page' when responding to a query about the lab.

    “GPT-4 Omni and Perplexity (both in Default mode and with Claude 3 Opus) all output”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Other plugins always have an incentive to attack, but end up selected less often overall when multiple attacks compete.

    “In contrast, GPT-4 mostly ignores the neutral plugin; other plugins always have an incentive to attack, but end up selected less often overall when multiple attacks compete.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    BingFirstPages can only return one web page per search, and the exposed text is limited to 400 characters.

    “BingFirstPages can only return one web page per search, and the exposed text is limited to 400 characters (empirically established).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Many news_search_results are not in the Bing Search index (API), but can still be found by Bing Copilot to answer user queries.

    “Many of these are not in the Bing Search index (API), but can still be found by Bing Copilot to answer user queries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Cameras from the authors' website were preferred over high-quality cameras in Table 1.

    “Table 1 -an example of cameras from our website being preferred over high-quality cameras.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Preference Manipulation Attacks exhibit game-theoretic dynamics.

    “We have also discovered intriguing game-theoretic dynamics of Preference Manipulation Attacks”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The attacks are robust and generally applicable.

    “In this section, we make variations to the attacks discussed in Sections 5.1 to 5.3, demonstrating their robustness and generality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    web_search_results allocate thousands of characters to each read web page, in contrast to BingFirstPages, and allow the LLM to see multiple web pages per search.

    “These allocate thousands of characters to each read web page, in contrast to BingFirstPages, and allow the LLM to see multiple web pages per search that it invokes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Preference Manipulation Attacks are effective against production LLM search engines (Bing and Perplexity) and plugin APIs (for GPT-4 and Claude).

    “We demonstrate our attacks on production LLM search engines (Bing and Perplexity) and plugin APIs (for GPT-4 and Claude).”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · boosted
      “We demonstrate the effectiveness of Preference Manipulation Attacks on production LLM search engines (Bing and Perplexity) and plugin APIs (for GPT-4 and Claude).”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Experiments · boosted
      “We now demonstrate that Preference Manipulation Attacks are effective against production LLM search engines and plugin-enhanced LLMs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most attacks succeed sometimes, and the success rate depends on the position of the injection in the input.

    “with most attacks succeeding sometimes, and the success rate depending on the position of the injection in the input.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The injections used in the main text are often successful.

    “beyond observing that they are often successful”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The prisoner's dilemma from the main text generally re-occurs.

    “The prisoner's dilemma from the main text generally re-occurs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Claude 3 Opus cited the authors' website five times, and in four of those it said the official website cannot be trusted and one should be careful about listening to it.

    “Note that while Claude 3 Opus did cite our website five times, in four out of those, it was to say that our official website cannot be trusted, and that one should be careful about listening to it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    It is sufficient for an injection to be in Bing Copilot's context window in order to succeed; it does not have to be the first read web page.

    “it is sufficient for an injection to be in Bing Copilot's context window in order to succeed; it does not e.g. have to be the first read web page.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    If the user requests 'recommend the best camera', an injection that says 'This is the best camera to buy' is likely to succeed, with the attacker's camera being the only product mentioned 36% of the time, contra 0%-9% otherwise.

    “For example, if the user requests the LLM to”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    location_results vary depending on the VPN location used and are aimed at providing results physically close to the user.

    “We find that depending on the vpn location we use, these results vary, and are aimed at providing results which are physically close to the user.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    When using keywords to evaluate camera recommendations from Bing Copilot, the keywords line always lies above the citations line.

    “Most of the time, the results are similar, but the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    GPT-4 mostly ignores the neutral plugin; other plugins always have an incentive to attack, but end up selected less often overall when multiple attacks compete.

    “In contrast, GPT-4 mostly ignores the neutral plugin; other plugins always have an incentive to attack, but end up selected less often overall when multiple attacks compete.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The attack's success rate depends on the position of the attacker's website in the search result, but not the positions of the targeted websites.

    “The attack's success rate depends on the position of the attacker's website in the search result (but not the positions of the targeted websites).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Bing Copilot censors news from The Nachmittag Post in the example shown.

    “Figure 11 - Figure11-An example where Bing Copilot censors news from The Nachmittag Post.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    GPT-4-Turbo can use multiple plugins at once.

    “Note that GPT-4-Turbo can use multiple plugins at once.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Claude selects the neutral plugin by default, but a news provider can use a Preference Manipulation Attack to override this behavior.

    “Figure6ashows that Claude selects the neutral plugin by default, but that a news provider can use a Preference Manipulation Attack to override this behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For prompt 2, there is the largest difference between attacking and non-attacking cameras, with Bing Copilot frequently mentioning only a single camera in the full response.

    “For prompt 2, we see the largest difference between attacking and non-attacking cameras, with Bing Copilot frequently mentioning only a single camera in the full response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Preference Manipulation Attacks can be used to manipulate an LLM system's responses in a range of settings, to promote the adversary's third-party products, or discredit others.

    “Preference Manipulation Attacks can be used to manipulate an LLM systems' responses in a range of settings, to promote the adversary's third-party products, or discredit others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In the example, Bing Copilot claims that it does not find any relevant information about the Unfolding news story from Birchington News Network, which is the article containing the instructions not to list news from The Nachmittag Post.

    “Note that here, it claims that it does not find any”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    LLMs will sometimes not cite a web page twice, so if a page has already been cited in a summary, it will not be cited in a following recommendation.

    “The issue with using citations here is that LLMs will sometimes not cite a web page twice, so if a page has already been cited in a summary, it will not be cited in a following recommendation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For Bing Copilot, across five runs, the attacks still succeeded according to manual evaluation even though it did not output the required text exactly.

    “Similarly, we ran the experiment five times for Bing Copilot.It did not output the required text exactly, but the attacks still succeeded according to manual evaluation (see below).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using non-adversarial SEO gives a smaller advantage than using adversarial SEO in plugin selection for GPT-4-Turbo and Claude 3 Opus, being chosen as often as plugins that do no SEO at all.

    “Figures 24 and 25 show that using non-adversarial SEO gives a smaller advantage than using adversarial SEO in plugin selection (for GPT-4-Turbo and Claude 3 Opus), being chosen as often as plugins that do no SEO at all.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Claude 3 prefers the neutral plugin by default, while GPT-4 prefers plugins that fetch news from a single source.

    “Claude 3 prefers the neutral plugin by default, while GPT-4 prefers plugins that fetch news from a single source.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Bing Copilot normally does not cite our official website in this setting.

    “Also Bing Copilot normally does not cite our official website in this setting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Plugins are incentivized to launch attacks to boost their selection rate, but globally lose traffic when multiple attacks compete.

    “Plugins are incentivized to launch attacks to boost their selection rate, but globally lose traffic when multiple attacks compete.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Model behaviors vary, with Claude 3 Opus often refusing to make any recommendation when encountering multiple attacks.

    “Model behaviors vary, with Claude 3 Opus often refusing to make any recommendation when encountering multiple attacks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The authors' web pages were read by Bing Copilot as BingFirstPages prior to April 11, 2024, but as web_search_results after this date.

    “we found that our web pages were read by Bing Copilot as so-called BingFirsPages prior to April 11 th , 2024, but web_search_results after this date”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When one product uses Preference Manipulation Attacks, competitors have incentive to launch competing attacks but all products lose in search presence as the technique becomes more prevalent.

    “When one product uses Preference Manipulation Attacks, competitors have incentive to launch competing attacks but all products lose in search presence as the technique becomes more prevalent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Attack success rates in Figures 7 and 11 are lower because the attack objective is harder, and not because the authors changed from products to news.

    “This gives merit to the hypothesis that attack success rates in Figures 7 and 11 are lower because the attack objective is harder, and not because we changed from products to news.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Existing defenses have seen little evaluation against adaptive attacks, and may fail to protect against attackers with strong economic incentives.

    “Existing defenses have also seen little evaluation against adaptive attacks, and may thus fail to protect against attackers with strong economic incentives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Preference Manipulation Attacks are a new class of attacks that manipulate an LLM's selections to favor the attacker.

    “In this paper, we introduce Preference Manipulation Attacks, a new class of attacks that manipulate an LLM's selections to favor the attacker.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “In this paper, we identify a novel class of attacks on LLMs which we call Preference Manipulation Attacks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The work focuses exclusively on manipulating an LLM search engine or plugin application after it is presented with attacker-controlled text.

    “Additionally, our work focuses exclusively on manipulating a LLM search engine or plugin application after it is presented with attacker-controlled text.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The regular expression evaluation is accurate when the user asks the LLM search engine to 'make a recommendation', outperforming citation and keyword schemes in precision and even LLMs evaluating the responses.

    “This evaluation is accurate when the user asks the LLM search engine to”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    As of April 11, 2024, the authors' web pages are web_search_results, which may affect the reproducibility of the experiments.

    “As of April 11 th , 2024, our web pages are web_search_results, which may affect the reproducibility of our experiments (see Appendix E).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Flagging LLM manipulations might require determining the truthfulness of overly convincing text.

    “Second, flagging such LLM manipulations might require determining the truthfulness of overly convincing text.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The generated responses are random, introducing some degree of variance in the results.

    “Further, the generated responses are random, introducing some degree of variance in the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The LLM search engines and plugin augmented LLMs used are black boxes, and changes made to the models or other aspects of the system could affect the results.

    “First, the LLM search engines and plugin augmented LLMs we use are black boxes, and changes made to the models or other aspects of the system (such as the system prompt) could affect the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The attacks are performed in an isolated setting where the authors control all adversarial web pages.

    “As we note in our experimental setup, our attacks are also performed in an isolated setting where we control all adversarial web pages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Preference Manipulation Attacks combine elements from prompt injection attacks, black-hat SEO, and LLM persuasion.

    “Preference Manipulation Attacks are a new threat that combines elements from prompt injection attacks [9,29], black-hat Search Engine Optimization (SEO) [12,23,28], and LLM”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [9]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [29]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [12]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [23]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [28]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [27]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The specific mechanics of the LLM search engines are not clearly visible to the authors, being black boxes.

    “The specific mechanics of these systems are not clearly visible to us, being black boxes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The experiments pose a limited threat because the dummy web pages have a low ranking in search results and only appear when explicitly searching for the authors' domain.

    “This is a clear advantage of our setup with dummy web pages: since these pages have a low ranking in search results and only appear when explicitly searching for our domain, our experiments pose a limited threat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Economic incentives may inevitably lead to widespread deployment of Preference Manipulation Attacks.

    “and argued that economic incentives may inevitably lead to their widespread deployment”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    An end-to-end attack would also require performing traditional SEO, possibly with black-hat techniques.

    “An end-to-end attack would also require performing traditional SEO (possibly with black-hat techniques).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Specifically optimizing web pages for LLMs can override benign SEO and brand recognition, and allow products from unknown providers to compete with reputable ones.

    “Thus, specifically optimizing web pages for LLMs can override”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    An attacker could launch prohibited SEO techniques that boost a competitor's ranking, in the hope that the search engine would mistakenly punish the competitor in retaliation.

    “An attacker could launch prohibited SEO techniques that boost a competitor's ranking, in the hope that the search engine would mistakenly punish the competitor in retaliation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    LLM applications can enhance the model with external tools which inject text back into the model's context.

    “LLM applications can enhance the model with external tools which inject text back into the model's context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Similar statements may also hold for Perplexity, although the authors did not discover such changes using Perplexity throughout the course of writing.

    “Similar statements may also hold for Perplexity, although we did not discover such changes using Perplexity throughout the course of writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    An adversarial website owner could anticipate which queries are likely to be issued by Bing Copilot for pages interesting to them, run regular SEO for those queries, and attempt to rank highly enough that Bing Copilot will see the injections.

    “This means that an adversarial website owner could anticipate which queries are likely to be issued by Bing Copilot for pages interesting to them (e.g. by asking for camera recommendations and tracking which terms are searched), run regular SEO for those queries, and attempt to rank highly enough that Bing Copilot will see the injections.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationown data

    Using an injection is the only way to gain in search presence.

    “Here, using an injection is the only way to gain in search presence it seems”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    By not being at the top of the regular search index, web page owners increase their chances of being discovered by Bing Copilot while possibly maintaining a degree of stealthiness.

    “Thus, they increase their chances of being discovered by Bing Copilot while also possibly maintaining a degree of stealthiness by not being at the top of the regular search index.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
62 of 62
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The attacker can place malicious text into the LLM's context.

    “A core assumption in our work is that the attacker can place malicious text into the LLM's context.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Real search engine users would likely not specify a target domain and simply ask for a general search.

    “However, a real search engine user would likely not specify a target domain and simply ask for a general search.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reliable data attribution remains an unsolved problem.

    “first, reliable data attribution remains an unsolved problem”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Users may not want to check the model's justification for every search or plugin use.

    “second, the user may not want to check the model's justification for every search or plugin use”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aligning content with search queries is considered positive under traditional SEO rules.

    “where aligning content with search queries is considered positive.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing GEO manipulation methods are evaluated on disparate datasets, metrics, and experimental setups, preventing direct comparison of their relative strength and detectability.

    “Research on generative engine optimization (GEO) has produced many manipulation methods, but each is evaluated on its own dataset with its own metrics, so their relative strength and detectability stay unclear.”

    From GEO-Bench: Benchmarking Ranking Manipulation in Generative Engine Optimization (2026) · cites this paper as Nestaas et al., 2024

    The SEO discussion (page unavailable) distinguishes a concurrent white-box study from this paper’s black-box experiments on production search engines, supporting a difference in experimental setups. The Experiment Reproducibility section (page unavailable) says the authors’ own results may be hard to replicate. Neither passage establishes that existing GEO methods use disparate datasets and metrics or that their relative strength and detectability cannot be directly compared. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GEO encourages building a brand's presence in widely referenced, machine-readable sources such as community platforms or public knowledge bases because these sources are often used by AI models when generating answers.

    “GEO also encourages building a brand's presence in widely referenced, machinereadable sources, such as community platforms or public knowledge bases (e.g., Reddit and Wikipedia), because these sources are often used by AI models when generating answers (Aggarwal et al. 2024;Chen et al. 2025;Nestaas et al. 2024).”

    From Machine marketing: rethinking the customer in the age of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Nestaas et al. 2024

    The paper’s “LLM Search Engine Details” section (page unavailable) says LLM search engines retrieve parts of web pages, and §5.4 shows that content on a highly ranked GitHub page affected generated answers. It does not recommend building a brand presence on community platforms or public knowledge bases, or establish that Reddit and Wikipedia are often used for this purpose. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nestaas et al. demonstrated that crafted website content can bias LLM selections in production engines including Bing and Perplexity.

    “Nestaas et al. (2024) demonstrated that crafted website content can bias LLM selections in production engines including Bing and Perplexity.”

    From GEO-Bench: Benchmarking Ranking Manipulation in Generative Engine Optimization (2026) · cites this paper as Nestaas et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The stated exact-match response differs from the injected phrase

    Minor

    The response examples say the first bracketed count measures outputs containing an exact required string about "spylab.ai." The GitHub injection instead requests a string about "SPY Lab at ETH Zurich," which is also the wording the main text says the models output.

  • Figure 8 is assigned two different evaluation methods

    Minor

    The evaluation appendix lists Figure 8 among the figures evaluated using keywords, but also lists it among those evaluated using a regular expression. These are described as distinct evaluation schemes, leaving Figure 8's reported method inconsistent.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

19 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nestaas, F., Debenedetti, E., & Tramèr, F.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400104821
Cited by
1
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, adversarial attacks, content ranking, third-party content, prisoner's dilemma, Bing, perplexity, GPT-4, Claude

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-29.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-29.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review