Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper critically examines the methodological foundations of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), arguing that visibility scores are artifacts of specific prompt corpora and weighting schemes rather than reflections of actual user demand. By establishing a rigorous framework for situation annotation and scoring rules, the authors highlight how language model instructions can fundamentally alter metric outcomes without changing the underlying data. This work is essential for researchers aiming to standardize evaluation metrics in information retrieval and generative AI ecosystems.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Measuring GEO Visibility: Prompt Corpora Define the Answer Market

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.06811v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: GEO (generative engine optimization) visibility scores aggregate source appearances, citations, or brand mentions in generated answers. The prompt corpus selects the situations evaluated, while weights determine their relative importance. Together they define an "answer market" that need not represent actual user demand. Prompt wording can alter retrieval, competing sources, and generated answers. Scoring then requires identifying the appearances, citations, or mentions of interest. If a language model performs this task, its instruction can change the score assigned to an unchanged answer. Our critical survey examines how these choices help define what a GEO score measures. It draws on research into whether indicators measure the intended phenomenon, total survey error, and information retrieval evaluation. The framework specifies situation annotation, prompt formulations, execution conditions, weights, and scoring rules. When weights are unknown or remain to be chosen, the framework reports sets of admissible scores. It distinguishes values compatible with data and assumptions about a target population (partial identification) from variation across weighting conventions (normative sensitivity). A citation alone does not establish a source's contribution. The article defines a comparison of answers generated with and without a source in a controlled documentary context, distinct from an intervention on the full engine with competing sources. The framework is supported by reproducible calculations. No new experiments are reported; its general empirical validity remains to be assessed.

Abstract:GEO (generative engine optimization) visibility scores aggregate source appearances, citations, or brand mentions in generated answers. The prompt corpus selects the situations evaluated, while weights determine their relative importance. Together they define an "answer market" that need not represent actual user demand. Prompt wording can alter retrieval, competing sources, and generated answers. Scoring then requires identifying the appearances, citations, or mentions of interest. If a language model performs this task, its instruction can change the score assigned to an unchanged answer. Our critical survey examines how these choices help define what a GEO score measures. It draws on research into whether indicators measure the intended phenomenon, total survey error, and information retrieval evaluation. The framework specifies situation annotation, prompt formulations, execution conditions, weights, and scoring rules. When weights are unknown or remain to be chosen, the framework reports sets of admissible scores. It distinguishes values compatible with data and assumptions about a target population (partial identification) from variation across weighting conventions (normative sensitivity). A citation alone does not establish a source's contribution. The article defines a comparison of answers generated with and without a source in a controlled documentary context, distinct from an intervention on the full engine with competing sources. The framework is supported by reproducible calculations. No new experiments are reported; its general empirical validity remains to be assessed.

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.06811 [cs.IR]

(or arXiv:2609.06811v1 [cs.IR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.06811 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

analytical_examples.json

grossman_activation_derived.csv

grossman_activation_inputs.csv

reproduce_activation_demonstrator.py

reproduce_analytical_examples.py

source_reading_register.tsv

(2 additional files not shown) You must enabled JavaScript to view entire file list.

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words

Related coverage