Exposing Citation Vulnerabilities in Generative Engines

Riku Mochizuki, Shusuke Komatsu, Souta Noguchi, Kazuto Ataka · Oct 8, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 2, 2026, 3:28 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 8, 2026, 8:30 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

We analyze answers generated by generative engines (GEs) from the perspectives of citation publishers and the content-injection barrier, defined as the difficulty for attackers to manipulate answers to user prompts by placing malicious content on the web. GEs integrate two functions: web search and answer generation that cites web pages using large language models. Because anyone can publish information on the web, GEs are vulnerable to poisoning attacks. Existing studies of citation evaluation focus on how faithfully answer content reflects cited sources, leaving unexamined which web sources should be selected as citations to defend against poisoning attacks. To fill this gap, we introduce evaluation criteria that assess poisoning threats using the citation information contained in answers. Our criteria classify the publisher attributes of citations to estimate the content-injection barrier thereby revealing the threat of poisoning attacks in current GEs. We conduct experiments in political domains in Japan and the United States (U.S.) using our criteria and show that citations from official party websites (primary sources) are approximately \(25\%\)--\(45\%\) in the U.S. and \(60\%\)--\(65\%\) in Japan, indicating that U.S. political answers are at higher risk of poisoning attacks. We also find that sources with low content-injection barriers are frequently cited yet are poorly reflected in answer content. To mitigate this threat, we discuss how publishers of primary sources can increase exposure of their web content in answers and show that well-known techniques are limited by language differences.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

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

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

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

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit 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

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

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

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.