Diagnosing and Repairing Citation Failures in Generative Engine Optimization

Zhihua Tian, Yuhan Chen, Yao Tang, Jian Liu, Ruoxi Jia · Mar 10, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) aims to improve content visibility in AI-generated responses. However, existing methods measure contribution-how much a document influences a response-rather than citation, the mechanism that actually drives traffic back to creators. Also, these methods apply generic rewriting rules uniformly, failing to diagnose why individual document are not cited. This paper introduces a diagnostic approach to GEO that asks why a document fails to be cited and intervenes accordingly. We develop a unified framework comprising: (1) the first taxonomy of citation failure modes spanning different stages of a citation pipeline; (2) AgentGEO, an agentic system that diagnoses failures using this taxonomy, selects targeted repairs from a corresponding tool library, and iterates until citation is achieved; and (3) a document-centric benchmark evaluating whether optimizations generalize across held-out queries. AgentGEO achieves over 40% relative improvement in citation rates while modifying only 5% of content, compared to 25% for baselines. Our analysis reveals that generic optimization can harm long-tail content and some documents face challenges that optimization alone cannot fully address-findings with implications for equitable visibility in AI-mediated information access.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.