CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorWeb visibility and informetricsTopic Modeling

From Citation Selection to Citation Absorption: A Measurement Framework for Generative Engine Optimization Across AI Search Platforms

Open access
Kai, Zhang, Xinyue, He, Jingang, Yao·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2604.25707arXiv 2604.25707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative search engines increasingly determine whether online information is merely discoverable, cited as a source, or actually absorbed into generated answers. This paper proposes a two-stage measurement framework for Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): citation selection, where a platform triggers search and chooses sources, and citation absorption, where a cited page contributes language, evidence, structure, or factual support to the final answer. We analyze the public geo-citation-lab dataset covering 602 controlled prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity; 21,143 valid search-layer citations; 23,745 citation-level feature records; 18,151 successfully fetched pages; and 72 extracted features. The central descriptive finding is that citation breadth and citation depth diverge. Perplexity and Google cite more sources on average, while ChatGPT cites fewer sources but shows substantially higher average citation influence among fetched pages. High-influence pages tend to be longer, more structured, semantically aligned, and richer in extractable evidence such as definitions, numerical facts, comparisons, and procedural steps. The results suggest that GEO should be measured beyond citation counts, with answer-level absorption treated as a separate outcome.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes a two-stage GEO measurement framework separating citation selection from citation absorption and applies it to a public dataset of 602 prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity. It finds citation breadth and depth diverge: Perplexity and Google cite broadly, while ChatGPT cites fewer sources but has higher mean absorption among fetched pages, with semantic alignment and evidence structure associated with higher influence.

Key findings

  • Citation breadth and absorption diverge by platform: mean citations per prompt were ChatGPT 6.88, Google 12.06, and Perplexity 16.35, while mean fetched-page influence was ChatGPT 0.2713, Google 0.0584, and Perplexity 0.0646. Search triggering was near universal: ChatGPT 98.64%, Google 99.67%, Perplexity 100.00%.
  • High-influence pages were longer and more structured: top versus bottom quartile ratios were 11.44x for word count (1,943.30 vs 169.82), 12.50x for heading total (10.59 vs 0.85), 5.69x for paragraph count (47.49 vs 8.34), 8.94x for list density (0.428 vs 0.048), and 2.31x for answer-citation semantic similarity (0.570 vs 0.247).
  • Evidence genres were associated with higher mean influence: contains code +76.88%, numbers/statistics +61.55%, definition markers +57.33%, comparison content +55.28%, and how-to content +41.20%. Q&A format was the negative case: 0.0947 vs 0.1005 for non-Q&A pages, a -5.74% relative difference.
  • Source selection was concentrated: official, news, and vertical sources accounted for 79.12% to 87.52% of citations across platforms. Domain-type absorption differed, with encyclopedia pages averaging 0.2144 influence and news_media pages averaging 0.0726.

Methods

  • Design: empirical measurement study using the public geo-citation-lab dataset, with 602 controlled prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity; prompt layers A/B/C/D = 432/60/60/50.
  • Data: 21,143 valid search-layer citations, 23,745 citation-level feature records, 18,151 successfully fetched pages, and 72 extracted features; reported overall fetch success rate was 76.44%.
  • Analysis: descriptive statistics from the public report, separating citation selection (search trigger and citation count) from citation absorption, measured by an influence_score proxy combining ref_count, first_position_ratio, paragraph_coverage_ratio, TF-IDF cosine, and bigram/trigram overlap. Confirmatory models are proposed but not estimated in this manuscript.

Limitations

  • Stated: influence_score is a constructed observational proxy, not direct model attention, retrieval ranking, or causal dependence; variables used inside the score must not be reused as independent predictors of the same outcome.
  • Stated: absorption analysis is conditional on fetch_ok pages; failed fetches may differ systematically. The 602 prompts are designed, not a probability sample of all user traffic; language contrast is limited to Chinese and English; source-type, country, and language fields contain unknown or noisy values; no unified record-level timestamps limit temporal interpretation.
  • Stated and evident: the paper reports descriptive statistics and avoids fabricated p-values, confidence intervals, or regression coefficients; causal optimization claims are not established, and platform-specific patterns are described as snapshot archetypes rather than permanent platform laws.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.25707

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

13 of 17 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Generative Engine Optimization · p. 3

    Agentic and structural GEO work supports the premise that citation outcomes should be studied as a pipeline rather than as a single ranking event.

    “Agentic and structural GEO work further supports the premise that citation outcomes should be studied as a pipeline rather than as a single ranking event [5,6].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] [5] Yuan, J., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Sun, Q., Wang, R., and Li, J. (2026). AgenticGEO: A Self-Evolving Agentic System for Generative Engine Optimization . arXiv:2603.20213. - source
    • cites [6] [6] Yu, J., Yang, M., Ding, Y., and Sato, H. (2026). Structural Feature Engineering for Generative Engine Optimization: How Content Structure Shapes Citation Behavior . arXiv:2603.29979. - source
  • Findingown data
    § 8.2 Semantic Alignment and Evidence Genres · p. 12

    Pages containing code, numbers/statistics, definitions, comparisons, or how-to content show higher mean influence than pages without those features.

    “Pages containing code, numbers, definitions, comparisons, or how-to content show higher mean influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 8.3 Semantic Role and Usage Style · p. 13

    The highest influence semantic roles are definition and comparison.

    “Semantic role analysis reveals that the highest influence roles are definition and comparison.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    ChatGPT has higher average citation count for Chinese prompts, 7.77 versus 7.03 for English.

    “ChatGPT has higher average citation count for Chinese prompts, 7.77 versus 7.03 for English.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 8.6 Why the Negative Q&A Result Matters · p. 17

    In the reported means, Q&A pages have slightly lower influence than non-Q&A pages.

    “In the reported means, Q&A pages have slightly lower influence than non-Q&A pages.”
    • Also stated in: § 14 Conclusion · p. 23 · plain
      “Q&A format alone does not help in the reported means.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 46
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Generative Engine Optimization · p. 3

    Citation-repair work emphasizes that failures can occur across retrieval, fetching, parsing, attribution, and generation.

    “Citation-repair work emphasizes that failures can occur across retrieval, fetching, parsing, attribution, and generation [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] [3] Tian, Z., Chen, Y., Tang, Y., Liu, J., and Jia, R. (2026). Diagnosing and Repairing Citation Failures in Generative Engine Optimization . arXiv:2603.09296. - source

      Section 3.2 identifies citation failures at fetching, parsing, and generation stages. Section 3.1 also describes failures in how sources are selected or attributed. But the taxonomy analyzes webpages that were already retrieved and not cited; it does not identify retrieval failure as one of its failure modes. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Generative Engine Optimization · p. 3

    GEO was formalized by Aggarwal et al. as a framework for improving content visibility in generative engine responses.

    “GEOwasformalized by Aggarwal et al. as a framework for improving content visibility in generative engine responses [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] [1] Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., and Deshpande, A. (2024). GEO: Generative Engine Optimization . arXiv:2311.09735. Accepted to KDD 2024. - source

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Generative Search, RAG, and Source Attribution · p. 3

    Generative search inherits elements from retrieval-augmented generation: retrieve candidate material, ground a response, and provide attribution.

    “Generative search inherits elements from retrieval-augmented generation: retrieve candidate material, ground a response, and provide attribution [12,13,14,15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [12] [12] Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., et al. (2020). RetrievalAugmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. - source

      The Introduction (p. 2) describes RAG retrieving documents and conditioning generation on them, supporting the retrieval and grounding elements. The paper does not describe providing source attribution in generated responses, so it does not support that element of the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [13] [13] Karpukhin, V., Oguz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., and Yih, W.-t. (2020). Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering . EMNLP. source

      The Background section describes retrieving a small set of relevant passages and extracting an answer from them, supporting the retrieval and passage-grounded answer elements. The paper studies extractive question answering, not generative search, and the cited passages do not establish that the system provides attribution. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] [14] Nakano, R., et al. (2021). WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback . arXiv:2112.09332. source
    • cites [15] [15] Menick, J., et al. (2022). Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes . arXiv:2203.11147. source

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Generative Engine Optimization · p. 3

    Aggarwal et al. introduced GEO-bench and showed that black-box content interventions could improve visibility under specific benchmark conditions.

    “That work introduced GEO-bench and showed that black-box content interventions could improve visibility under specific benchmark conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] [1] Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., and Deshpande, A. (2024). GEO: Generative Engine Optimization . arXiv:2311.09735. Accepted to KDD 2024. - source

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Generative Search, RAG, and Source Attribution · p. 3

    Citation-evaluation papers show that citation quality needs sentence-level or claim-level analysis, since a source link can be present while failing to support the statement it is attached to.

    “Citation-evaluation papers further show that citation quality needs sentence-level or claim-level analysis, since a source link can be present while failing to support the statement it is attached to [9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] [9] Xu, Y., Qi, P., Chen, J., Liu, K., Han, R., Liu, L., Min, B., Castelli, V., Gupta, A., and Wang, Z. (2025). CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attribution . arXiv:2506.01829. - source

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

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Generative Search, RAG, and Source Attribution · p. 3

    Studies of answer engines and source-cited responses document limitations such as hallucination, inaccurate citation, and mismatch between evidence and generated claims.

    “Studies of answer engines and source-cited responses document limitations such as hallucination, inaccurate citation, and mismatch between evidence and generated claims [7,8,9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [7] [7] Narayanan Venkit, P., Laban, P., Zhou, Y., Mao, Y., and Wu, C.-S. (2024). Search Engines in an AI Era: The False Promise of Factual and Verifiable Source-Cited Responses . arXiv:2410.22349. - source
    • cites [8] [8] Yang, K.-C. (2025). News Source Citing Patterns in AI Search Systems . arXiv:2507.05301. - source

      The Sources Cited by AI Search Systems section (p. 2) reports studies finding misattributed or misrepresented sources, missing citations, and mis-summarized news citations. That supports inaccurate citation and mismatch between cited evidence and generated claims, but the passages do not establish hallucination as a separate documented limitation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [9] [9] Xu, Y., Qi, P., Chen, J., Liu, K., Han, R., Liu, L., Min, B., Castelli, V., Gupta, A., and Wang, Z. (2025). CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attribution . arXiv:2506.01829. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    Mean citations per prompt are ChatGPT 6.88, Google 12.06, and Perplexity 16.35.

    “Mean citations per prompt: ChatGPT 6.88, Google 12.06, Perplexity 16.35.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Semantic role determines how much a citation matters · p. 17

    Perplexity reaches the highest mean citations per prompt and triggers search for every observed prompt in the cleaned report.

    “It reaches the highest mean citations per prompt and triggers search for every observed prompt in the cleaned report.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingcitation
    § 4.1 Project Scope · p. 4

    The reported overall fetch success rate is 76.44%.

    “The reported overall fetch success rate is 76.44% [16,17].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] geo-citation-lab repository. (2026). A dataset and analysis pipeline for studying how AI search engines select and use citations . GitHub: https://github.com/yaojingang/geo-citation-lab. Accessed April 28, 2026.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] [17] geo-citation-lab final report. (2026). Overseas GEO Research Long Report, recalculated version . https://yaojingang.github.io/geo-citation-lab/04-repet/final\_report.html. Accessed April 28, 2026. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Citation breadth differs despite near-universal search triggering · p. 8

    Search triggering is near universal: ChatGPT trigger rate 98.64%, Google 99.67%, and Perplexity 100.00%.

    “| ChatGPT | 587 | 579 | 98.64% | 6.88 | 6 | 21 |”
    • Also stated in: § Citation breadth differs despite near-universal search triggering · p. 9 · plain
      “| Google | 602 | 600 | 99.67% | 12.06 | 12 | 37 |”
    • Also stated in: § Citation breadth differs despite near-universal search triggering · p. 9 · plain
      “| Perplexity | 602 | 602 | 100.00% | 16.35 | 17 | 27 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 8.1 Page Structure and Length · p. 12

    Word-count bin analysis shows monotonic improvement in mean influence from very short pages to pages longer than 3,000 words, with a modest local plateau around 301 to 1,000 words.

    “The word-count bin analysis shows monotonic improvement in mean influence from very short pages to pages longer than 3,000 words, with a modest local plateau around 301 to 1,000 words.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    Mean fetched-page influence is ChatGPT 0.2713, Google 0.0584, and Perplexity 0.0646.

    “Mean fetched-page influence: ChatGPT 0.2713, Google 0.0584, Perplexity 0.0646.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.1 Prompt Style and Language Effects · p. 9

    English prompts increase citation breadth on Google and slightly on Perplexity, but ChatGPT shows higher average citation count for Chinese prompts in the reported C-layer sample.

    “English prompts increase citation breadth on Google and slightly on Perplexity, but ChatGPT shows higher average citation count for Chinese prompts in the reported C-layer sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    Q&A pages show mean influence 0.0947 versus 0.1005 for non-Q&A pages, a -5.74% relative difference.

    “Q&A pages show mean influence 0.0947 versus 0.1005 for non-Q&A pages, a -5.74% relative difference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Comparison queries have the strongest observed influence · p. 18

    Technology has the highest reported average influence among industries, followed by healthcare and commerce.

    “Technology has the highest reported average influence among industries, followed by healthcare and commerce.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    For D-layer multi-constraint tasks, ChatGPT averages 3.4 citations while Google averages 12.6 and Perplexity 17.7.

    “For D-layer multi-constraint tasks, ChatGPT averages 3.4 citations while Google averages 12.6 and Perplexity 17.7.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 4.1 Project Scope · p. 4

    The public geo-citation-lab snapshot includes 602 prompts, three platforms, 21,143 valid search-layer citations, 23,745 citation-level feature rows, 18,151 successfully fetched citation pages, and 72 feature dimensions.

    “The public snapshot includes 602 prompts, three platforms, 21,181 cleaned search-layer rows, 21,143 valid search-layer citations, 23,745 citation-level feature rows, 72 feature dimensions, and 18,151 successfully fetched citation pages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] geo-citation-lab repository. (2026). A dataset and analysis pipeline for studying how AI search engines select and use citations . GitHub: https://github.com/yaojingang/geo-citation-lab. Accessed April 28, 2026.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] [17] geo-citation-lab final report. (2026). Overseas GEO Research Long Report, recalculated version . https://yaojingang.github.io/geo-citation-lab/04-repet/final\_report.html. Accessed April 28, 2026. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 8.4 Domain Type and Platform-Specific Correlations · p. 13

    Perplexity combines relevance with heading count and length.

    “Perplexity combines relevance with heading count and length.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 8.4 Domain Type and Platform-Specific Correlations · p. 13

    ChatGPT's strongest reported signal is LLM relevance.

    “ChatGPT's strongest reported signal is LLM relevance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 8.4 Domain Type and Platform-Specific Correlations · p. 13

    Google's strongest reported signals are answer-citation and question-citation embedding similarities, along with definition markers.

    “Google's strongest reported signals are answer-citation and question-citation embedding similarities, along with definition markers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Counter-Intuitive Findings Placed Before the Main Argument · p. 2

    News appears frequently in source selection, while news_media pages average 0.0726 influence and encyclopedia pages average 0.2144 in the reported domain-type table.

    “News appears frequently in source selection, while news_media pages average 0.0726 influence and encyclopedia pages average 0.2144 in the reported domain-type table.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 8.1 Page Structure and Length · p. 12

    High-influence pages have higher word count, heading total, paragraph count, list density, answer-citation semantic similarity, LLM relevance score, and LLM content quality than low-influence pages.

    “High-influence pages are not merely longer. They contain more headings, more paragraphs, denser list structures, higher semantic similarity, and higher LLM-rated relevance and quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 8.2 Semantic Alignment and Evidence Genres · p. 12

    The strongest reported independent correlation is LLM relevance score (r=0.4322), followed by answer-citation embedding similarity (r=0.3561), LLM content quality (r=0.2917), and question-citation embedding similarity (r=0.2548).

    “The strongest reported independent correlation is LLM relevance score ( 𝑟 = 0 . 4322), followed by answer-citation embedding similarity ( 𝑟 = 0 . 3561), LLM content quality ( 𝑟 = 0 . 2917), and questioncitation embedding similarity ( 𝑟 = 0 . 2548).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.1 Prompt Style and Language Effects · p. 9

    Google and Perplexity respond strongly to explicit source requests, while ChatGPT shows higher average citation count under expert-role prompts in this layer.

    “Google and Perplexity respond strongly to explicit source requests, while ChatGPT shows higher average citation count under expert-role prompts in this layer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Semantic role determines how much a citation matters · p. 17

    Perplexity appears citation-rich and coverage-oriented.

    “Perplexity appears citation-rich and coverage-oriented.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 8.5 Platform Strategy Profiles as Descriptive Archetypes · p. 13

    Google AI Overview/Gemini shows strong response to explicit source-request prompts in the B layer and a pronounced English advantage in the C layer.

    “It also shows strong response to explicit source-request prompts in the B layer and a pronounced English advantage in the C layer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 8.5 Platform Strategy Profiles as Descriptive Archetypes · p. 13

    Google AI Overview/Gemini appears broader in citation selection and lower in average citation absorption.

    “Google AI Overview/Gemini appears broader in citation selection and lower in average citation absorption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data
    § E Additional Claim-Level Notes · p. 26

    The absorption table establishes mean and median influence among successfully fetched citations.

    “The absorption table establishes mean and median influence among successfully fetched citations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 14 Conclusion · p. 23

    High-influence pages are longer, more modular, and more semantically aligned with generated answers.

    “High-influence pages are longer, more modular, and more semantically aligned with generated answers.”
    • Also stated in: § A Claim-Level Self-Audit · p. 23 · plain
      “High-influence pages are longer and more structured.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 5.5 Identification Map: What Can and Cannot Be Claimed · p. 7

    The present dataset supports strong descriptive claims about observed platform behavior under the prompt design and structured hypotheses about mechanisms, but not universal causal claims about how changing one page feature will necessarily change citation outcomes on a live platform.

    “The present dataset supports strong descriptive claims about observed platform behavior under the prompt design. It supports structured hypotheses about mechanisms, because multiple independent descriptive patterns point in the same direction. It does not, by itself, support universal causal claims about how changing one page feature will necessarily change citation outcomes on a live platform.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Citation breadth differs despite near-universal search triggering · p. 9

    Perplexity is the broadest citing platform, Google is also broad, and ChatGPT is citation-sparser.

    “Perplexity is the broadest citing platform, Google is also broad, and ChatGPT is citation-sparser.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 8 Results: Citation Absorption · p. 11

    ChatGPT cites fewer sources but uses the sources it cites more deeply according to the influence proxy; Perplexity cites the most sources yet has much lower mean influence; Google is between the two in citation breadth but closer to Perplexity in citation absorption.

    “ChatGPT cites fewer sources but uses the sources it cites more deeply according to the influence proxy. Perplexity cites the most sources, yet its mean influence is much lower. Google sits between the two in citation breadth but closer to Perplexity in citation absorption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 4.3 Cleaning and Caveats · p. 5

    The analysis uses cleaned denominators: 587 observed ChatGPT prompts, 602 Google prompts, and 602 Perplexity prompts for search-layer platform summaries.

    “The analysis in this manuscript uses the report's cleaned denominators: 587 observed ChatGPT prompts, 602 Google prompts, and 602 Perplexity prompts for search-layer platform summaries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8.6 Why the Negative Q&A Result Matters · p. 17

    The Q&A result does not prove that FAQ content is harmful.

    “This does not prove that FAQ content is harmful.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8.5 Platform Strategy Profiles as Descriptive Archetypes · p. 13

    ChatGPT tends to cite fewer sources per prompt, but the selected sources receive higher average influence under the constructed proxy.

    “This means that the platform tends to cite fewer sources per prompt, but the selected sources receive higher average influence under the constructed proxy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The constructed influence_score is a valid proxy for answer-level citation absorption or influence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Semantic role determines how much a citation matters · p. 17

    Perplexity's retrieval style favors breadth, source diversity, and visible provenance.

    “This suggests a retrieval style that favors breadth, source diversity, and visible provenance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8.6 Why the Negative Q&A Result Matters · p. 18

    The value of Q&A content comes from the evidence inside the page, not from the presence of question marks in headings.

    “The value comes from the evidence inside the page, not from the presence of question marks in headings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 5.5 Identification Map: What Can and Cannot Be Claimed · p. 7

    This paper only treats Levels 1 and 2 as empirical findings; Level 3 is presented as an explanation consistent with the data; Level 4 is reserved for future intervention experiments.

    “This paper only treats Levels 1 and 2 as empirical findings. Level 3 is presented as an explanation consistent with the data. Level 4 is reserved for future intervention experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Comparison queries have the strongest observed influence · p. 18

    Categories with high influence naturally demand definitions, criteria, contrastive evidence, and structured explanation, which align with the evidence-container model.

    “These categories naturally demand definitions, criteria, contrastive evidence, and structured explanation, which align with the evidence-container model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 5.3 Scientific Interpretation of the Influence Score · p. 6

    The influence score is a constructed observational proxy rather than a direct measure of hidden model attention, retrieval ranking, or causal dependence.

    “The influence score is a constructed observational proxy rather than a direct measure of hidden model attention, retrieval ranking, or causal dependence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 7 Results: Source Selection · p. 11

    High-frequency domains reveal which sources are repeatedly eligible for selection, but do not prove which domains most strongly shape answers.

    “High-frequency domains reveal which sources are repeatedly eligible for selection. They do not prove which domains most strongly shape answers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.2 Prompt Architecture · p. 5

    The sample is not a probability sample of all real user traffic; all external validity claims must be bounded to the prompt distribution used here.

    “The sample is not a probability sample of all real user traffic. All external validity claims must therefore be bounded to the prompt distribution used here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 9 Mechanistic Interpretation: The Evidence-Container Hypothesis · p. 19

    The evidence-container hypothesis states that a page becomes valuable to a generative engine when it can be decomposed into reusable, semantically aligned information units.

    “The evidence-container hypothesis states that a page becomes valuable to a generative engine when it can be decomposed into reusable, semantically aligned information units.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.2 External Validity · p. 21

    The source-type taxonomy contains unknown and noisy values.

    “The source-type taxonomy contains unknown and noisy values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The domain taxonomy accurately classifies domains for the domain-type influence comparisons.

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § 10.2 External Validity · p. 21

    The language contrast focuses on Chinese and English; results should not be generalized to all non-English contexts.

    “The language contrast focuses on Chinese and English; results should not be generalized to all non-English contexts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 13 Reproducibility and Data Availability · p. 22

    This study is based on the public geo-citation-lab repository and its associated public report.

    “This study is based on the public geo-citation-lab repository and its associated public report.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The public geo-citation-lab dataset and report are reliable and accurate sources for the descriptive quantities reported.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    If failed pages systematically differ from successful pages, absorption estimates are conditional on fetchability.

    “If failed pages systematically differ from successful pages, absorption estimates are conditional on fetchability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    Absorption analysis excludes failed fetches.

    “Absorption analysis excludes failed fetches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 9 Mechanistic Interpretation: The Evidence-Container Hypothesis · p. 19

    A long page with modular structure gives the engine multiple chances to map user intent to specific answer segments.

    “A long page with modular structure gives the engine multiple chances to map user intent to specific answer segments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    Outcome-component leakage is a risk.

    “Outcome-component leakage is another risk.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 9 Mechanistic Interpretation: The Evidence-Container Hypothesis · p. 19

    The evidence-container hypothesis explains why word count alone is an incomplete proxy.

    “This hypothesis explains why word count alone is an incomplete proxy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 9.4 Why This Differs From Classical SEO Advice · p. 20

    Classical SEO is still relevant because source authority and domain recognizability influence the gateway into citation pools.

    “Classical SEO is still relevant because source authority and domain recognizability influence the gateway into citation pools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § E Additional Claim-Level Notes · p. 26

    The strongest remaining weakness is causal identification.

    “The strongest remaining weakness is causal identification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    This manuscript explicitly avoids outcome-component leakage by distinguishing outcome components from permissible explanatory variables.

    “This manuscript explicitly avoids that error by distinguishing outcome components from permissible explanatory variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    Without aligned timestamps, the dataset should be interpreted as a static research snapshot rather than a live platform-monitoring source.

    “Without aligned timestamps, the dataset should be interpreted as a static research snapshot rather than a live platform-monitoring source.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § D Reproducibility and Release Checklist · p. 25

    Influence-score components are excluded from primary explanatory language.

    “Influence-score components are excluded from primary explanatory language.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.2 External Validity · p. 21

    Country and language shares are reported only after excluding unknown values.

    “Country and language shares are reported only after excluding unknown values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    The lack of unified record-level timestamps limits temporal interpretation.

    “The lack of unified record-level timestamps limits temporal interpretation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 9 Mechanistic Interpretation: The Evidence-Container Hypothesis · p. 19

    Authority, language, region, source type, and platform-specific preferences shape the gateway into citation pools.

    “Authority, language, region, source type, and platform-specific preferences shape the gateway.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.2 External Validity · p. 21

    The 602 prompts are designed, not randomly sampled from all user behavior.

    “The 602 prompts are designed, not randomly sampled from all user behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The designed prompt set is adequate for the descriptive platform profiles reported.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.3 Statistical Validity · p. 21

    The current manuscript uses descriptive statistics from the public report.

    “The current manuscript uses descriptive statistics from the public report.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The public geo-citation-lab dataset and report are reliable and accurate sources for the descriptive quantities reported.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § D Reproducibility and Release Checklist · p. 25

    Search-layer and fetch-ok denominators are reported separately.

    “Search-layer and fetch-ok denominators are reported separately.”
    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 conductreasoning
    § 13 Reproducibility and Data Availability · p. 22

    The present manuscript reports descriptive quantities traceable to the public source and distinguishes them from confirmatory models that require a fresh raw-CSV rerun.

    “The present manuscript reports descriptive quantities that are traceable to that public source and distinguishes them from confirmatory models that require a fresh raw-CSV rerun.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The public geo-citation-lab dataset and report are reliable and accurate sources for the descriptive quantities reported.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 9 Mechanistic Interpretation: The Evidence-Container Hypothesis · p. 19

    A page that is never retrieved or never selected cannot be absorbed.

    “A page that is never retrieved or never selected cannot be absorbed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.3 Statistical Validity · p. 21

    The absence of inferential quantities is a deliberate scientific choice in the current manuscript, not an omission hidden as certainty.

    “The absence of these inferential quantities is a deliberate scientific choice in the current manuscript, not an omission hidden as certainty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § E Additional Claim-Level Notes · p. 26

    The evidence-container hypothesis gains credibility because the same direction appears across length, headings, paragraphs, list density, semantic similarity, LLM relevance, definitions, numbers, comparisons, and how-to indicators.

    “The hypothesis gains credibility because the same direction appears across length, headings, paragraphs, list density, semantic similarity, LLM relevance, definitions, numbers, comparisons, and how-to indicators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 9.1 Evidence-Container Design: Operational Criteria · p. 19

    The current influence score approximates the distinction between a page that merely appears in the citation list and a page that supports multiple answer claims through paragraph coverage and text similarity.

    “The current influence score approximates this distinction through paragraph coverage and text similarity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The constructed influence_score is a valid proxy for answer-level citation absorption or influence.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 13 Reproducibility and Data Availability · p. 22

    The repository provides the dataset and analysis pipeline used to study how AI search engines select and use citations.

    “The repository provides the dataset and analysis pipeline used to study how AI search engines select and use citations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The public geo-citation-lab dataset and report are reliable and accurate sources for the descriptive quantities reported.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 10.2 External Validity · p. 21

    AI search products may change retrieval policies, citation rendering, browsing integrations, and model backends after the data snapshot.

    “AI search products may change retrieval policies, citation rendering, browsing integrations, and model backends after the data snapshot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 10.1 Internal Validity · p. 20

    The influence score is a plausible absorption proxy, but it is not direct model attention or a causal trace.

    “The score is a plausible absorption proxy, but it is not direct model attention or a causal trace.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The constructed influence_score is a valid proxy for answer-level citation absorption or influence.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § E Additional Claim-Level Notes · p. 26

    The Q&A exception prevents over-simplified format advice and strengthens the argument that evidence density is more important than surface layout.

    “The Q&A exception prevents over-simplified format advice and strengthens the argument that evidence density is more important than surface layout.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
71 of 71

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The influence_score is a valid proxy for answer-level citation absorption.

    “The influence score is a constructed observational proxy rather than a direct measure of hidden model attention, retrieval ranking, or causal dependence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The successfully fetched pages are representative of all cited pages for the absorption analysis.

    “The reported overall fetch success rate is 76.44% [16,17].”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The LLM relevance score and LLM content quality score are valid measures of page relevance and quality.

    “higher LLM-rated relevance and quality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The semantic role and usage style labels are valid categorizations of how cited pages are used.

    “Semantic role analysis reveals that the highest influence roles are definition and comparison.”
    “The usage-style table suggests that direct factual support carries higher influence than background-only use.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The evidence genre indicators accurately identify the presence of code, numbers, definitions, comparisons, and how-to content.

    “Pages containing code, numbers, definitions, comparisons, or how-to content show higher mean influence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The platform labels correspond to distinct systems whose citation behavior can be compared.

    “We analyze the public geo-citation-lab dataset, which documents 602 controlled prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The constructed influence_score is a valid proxy for answer-level citation absorption or influence.

    “The score is a plausible absorption proxy, but it is not direct model attention or a causal trace.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The public geo-citation-lab dataset and report are reliable and accurate sources for the descriptive quantities reported.

    “This study is based on the public geo-citation-lab repository and its associated public report.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The designed prompt set is adequate for the descriptive platform profiles reported.

    “The 602 prompts are designed, not randomly sampled from all user behavior.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The domain taxonomy accurately classifies domains for the domain-type influence comparisons.

    “Domain taxonomy may contain noise and platform composition effects.”
10 of 10

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12][12] Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., et al. (2020). RetrievalAugmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kai, Z., Xinyue, H., & Jingang, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2604.25707
arXiv
2604.25707
OpenAlex
W7158006291
Semantic Scholar
3ecf024ec6354bab30c64c422e2989d8573ed605
Cited by
1
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
generative search engines, generative engine optimization, source selection, citation influence, ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, perplexity

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 2026-10-21.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-21.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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