AI-powered answer engines are inherently non-deterministic: identical queries submitted at different times can produce different responses and cite different sources. Despite this stochastic behavior, current approaches to measuring domain visibility in generative search typically rely on single-run point estimates of citation share and prevalence, implicitly treating them as fixed values. This paper argues that citation visibility metrics should be treated as sample estimators of an underlying response distribution rather than fixed values. We conduct an empirical study of citation variability across three generative search platforms--Perplexity Search, OpenAI SearchGPT, and Google Gemini--using repeated sampling across three consumer product topics. Two sampling regimes are employed: daily collections over nine days and high-frequency sampling at ten-minute intervals. We show that citation distributions follow a power-law form and exhibit substantial variability across repeated samples. Bootstrap confidence intervals reveal that many apparent differences between domains fall within the noise floor of the measurement process. Distribution-wide rank stability analysis further demonstrates that citation rankings are unstable across samples, not only among top-ranked domains but throughout the frequently cited domain set. These findings demonstrate that single-run visibility metrics provide a misleadingly precise picture of domain performance in generative search. We argue that citation visibility must be reported with uncertainty estimates and provide practical guidance for sample sizes required to achieve interpretable confidence intervals.
Figures & tables
Topic
Total Queries
Unique Queries
Repetition Rate
bird feeders
200
172
14.0%
multivitamins for adults
200
152
24.0%
running gear
200
185
7.5%
Table 1: Query generation summary: total queries, unique queries, and repetition rate per topic.
Citations
Platform
Topic
Mean Responses
Mean
Median
Std
Min
Max
Gemini
bird feeders
198.8
42.6
37.0
22.7
6
158
Gemini
multivitamins
198.6
39.6
36.0
19.6
3
197
Gemini
running gear
199.0
43.1
40.0
21.0
1
202
SearchGPT
bird feeders
196.2
7.1
7.0
2.7
1
18
SearchGPT
multivitamins
193.9
5.9
5.0
2.0
1
15
Table 2: Summary statistics for the daily sampling regime: responses and citations by topic and platform.
Citations
Platform
Topic
Mean Responses
Mean
Median
Std
Min
Max
Gemini
running gear
198.8
47.1
42.0
23.9
1
213
SearchGPT
running gear
190.8
6.7
5.0
2.7
1
40
Perplexity
running gear
199.9
22.7
22.0
8.8
3
63
Table 3: Summary statistics for the high-frequency sampling regime: responses and citations by platform.
Platform
Topic
Queries
Pairs
Median Jaccard
Identical Rate
Zero Overlap Rate
Mean Intersection
Mean Unique Domains
Gemini
bird feeders
189
6,804
0.31
0.07
0.35
4.90
10.54
Gemini
multivitamins
192
6,912
0.29
0.01
0.80
4.49
10.55
Gemini
running gear
192
6,912
0.29
0.10
1.62
4.73
10.88
SearchGPT
bird feeders
180
6,480
0.40
7.25
6.08
2.50
4.38
SearchGPT
multivitamins
180
6,480
0.38
8.02
7.19
2.03
3.76
SearchGPT
running gear
169
6,084
0.33
5.34
8.93
2.04
4.04
Table 4: Response-level citation matching. Rows give per-platform Jaccard overlap statistics across repeated runs of the same query, including identical citation rate, zero-overlap rate, and median Jaccard index. Matching is at the domain level.
Figure 1: Pairwise citation set similarity (domain-level Jaccard) across repeated runs of the same query: rows = platform, columns = topic.
Figure 2: Citation set similarity vs. citations per response: rows = platform, columns = topic. Jaccard similarity is largely independent of the number of citations.
Figure 3: Citation visibility over time: high-frequency samples. Topic: running gear. Top row: citation share; bottom row: citation prevalence. Left: Gemini (25 samples, 2026-Mar-04); center: SearchGPT (25 samples, same window); right: Perplexity (25 samples, same window). Top-ranked domains shown as colored lines.
Figure 4: Citation share over time: daily samples. Top domains by topic and platform. 3×3 grid: rows = topics (bird feeders, multivitamins for adults, running gear), columns = platforms (Gemini, SearchGPT, Perplexity). Top 5 domains per panel shown as colored lines. Samples span Feb 3–11, 2026.
Figure 5: Correlation structure of visibility metrics. 3×3 scatter grid: rows = metric pairs (citation count vs. share; citation count vs. prevalence; citation share vs. prevalence), columns = platforms. One point per domain per sample. Spearman ρ annotated per panel.
Figure 6: Domain count by number of samples cited. 3×3 grid: rows = topics, columns = platforms. Bar charts showing the number of domains appearing in exactly 1, 2, …, 9 of the nine daily samples. Outlined bar marks the all-9-samples bin (frequently cited domains).
Figure 8: Ranked citation share distributions with frequently-cited domain classification. 3×3 grid: rows = topics, columns = platforms. Baseline sample only. Filled circles: frequently-cited domains (cited in all 9 samples). Faint points: tail domains. Domain counts per panel annotated in legend.
Figure 9: Log-space dispersion summary. Panel A: platform-topic summary of mean and median log-std. Panel B: domain-level log-std strip plot, one strip per platform-topic combination (9 strips).
Platform
Mean Domain Log-std
Median Domain Log-std
Gemini
0.504
0.469
SearchGPT
0.417
0.397
Perplexity
0.421
0.378
Table 5: Platform-level log-std summary. Mean and median domain log-std aggregated across all topics and frequently-cited domains, by platform.
Figure 10: 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for citation share. 3×3 grid: rows = topics, columns = platforms. For each panel, the dots represent the point estimates from the baseline sample, the error bars show the 95% confidence intervals (1,000 bootstrap replicates), and the red tick marks show the cross-sample mean across all nine daily jobs.
Figure 11: CI width as a function of number of queries. 3×2 grid: rows = topics (bird feeders, multivitamins for adults, running gear), left column = citation share, right column = citation prevalence. One line per platform (Gemini: blue; SearchGPT: orange; Perplexity: green). Gray dashed curve: 1/n reference. Red dotted horizontal line: target width (share: 0.05; prevalence: 0.15).
Figure 12: Distribution-wide rank stability: rank correlation across consecutive job pairs. 3×3 grid: rows = topics (bird feeders, multivitamins for adults, running gear), columns = platforms (Gemini, SearchGPT, Perplexity). Blue line with 95% CI band: Spearman rank correlation for each consecutive job pair. Red dashed line: stability threshold ( ρ=0.9 ). Gray shading: insufficient data pairs (CI width >0.25 ). Yellow diamond: span comparison (first vs. last job).
Platform
Topic
Pairs
Sufficient
Stable
Mean Rank ρ
Mean CI Width
Span Rank ρ
Span Drift
Gemini
bird feeders
8
8
4
0.866
0.150
0.689
TRUE
Gemini
multivitamins
8
8
2
0.806
0.209
0.726
TRUE
Gemini
running gear
8
8
7
0.913
0.127
0.900
TRUE
SearchGPT
bird feeders
8
5
0
0.905
0.225
0.744
FALSE
SearchGPT
multivitamins
8
0
0
—
—
0.677
FALSE
SearchGPT
running gear
8
0
0
—
—
0.727
FALSE
Table 6: Distribution-wide rank stability summary, one row per platform-topic combination. Pairs = total consecutive job pairs; Sufficient = pairs with bootstrap CI width ≤0.25 ; Stable = sufficient pairs with Spearman ρ≥0.9 ; Mean Rank ρ and Mean CI Width are averaged over sufficient pairs; Span Rank ρ compares the first and last job; Span Drift indicates whether a statistically and practically significant drift was detected over the nine-day window.
Figure 13: Citation share over time—content-change status. 3×3 grid: rows = topics, columns = platforms. Top-5 frequently-cited domains per panel. Daily samples. Marker shapes encode content status: circle = unchanged (hash identical to previous job); square = changed ( ≥ 1 URL hash differs); triangle = unknown (no hash data for this or previous job). Triangles are confined to the first job in every panel.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Response
Based on expert reviews for 2026, the top-rated multivitamins for adults vary by category and specific needs: Overall Best Multivitamins. Performance Lab® NutriGenesis® Multi is recommended as the best overall multivitamin supplement, offering 27 vitamins and minerals in gender-specific formulations for men and women with clean, plant-based delivery [1]. Ritual Essential for Men is rated as the best overall multivitamin specifically for men [3], while Inessa Advanced multivitamin (£29.99) earns top marks as a premium option with a 5/5 star rating [2]. Top-Rated by Category. Best for meeting daily recommended values: Swallow daily multivitamin (5/5 stars) [2]. Best one-a-day: HealthSpan Gold A-Z multivitamin (5/5 stars) at 13p per day [2]. Best for women: Dr Vegan Women’s ProMulti (5/5 stars) [2]. Best all-rounder capsule: Viridian High-5 (4.5/5 stars) [2]. Best budget option: Healthspan Multivitality Pro (4/5 stars) at 19p per day [2]. For those over 50, Centrum Silver Adults 50+ and Thorne Multi 50+ Daily are recommended by experts [3][4]. [1] https://www.performancelab.com/blogs/multi/best-multivitamin [2] https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/review/best-multivitamins [3] https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19545998/best-multivitamins-for-men/ [4] https://www.cspi.org/article/multiple-choice-how-find-best-multivitamin
Appendix
Table A.1: Perplexity citation example. Response to the query “top rated multivitamins for adults by experts.
Response
Selecting the right multivitamin can be challenging due to the multitude of options available. Based on expert reviews and evaluations from 2026, here are some top-rated multivitamins for adults: Thorne Basic Nutrients 2/Day. A comprehensive multivitamin providing 21 essential vitamins and minerals, including all eight B vitamins and vitamins A, C, D, E, and K. Notably, it offers 250% of the daily value for vitamin D. (health.yahoo.com — https://health.yahoo.com/wellness/nutrition/vitamins-supplements/article/best-multivitamin-for-2025-202710445.html ) Nature Made Multivitamin For Him. An affordable, one-a-day multivitamin tailored for men, containing 22 essential nutrients, including vitamin D, zinc, and selenium. USP-verified for purity and potency. (health.yahoo.com — https://health.yahoo.com/wellness/nutrition/vitamins-supplements/article/best-multivitamin-men-211005605.html ) Perelel Women’s Daily Trio. A multivitamin designed specifically for women, offering a blend of essential nutrients to support overall health. (health.yahoo.com — https://health.yahoo.com/wellness/nutrition/vitamins-supplements/article/best-multivitamin-for-2025-202710445.html ) Nordic Naturals Men’s Multivitamin. Tailored for men’s health, this multivitamin includes saw palmetto and nettle extract to support prostate health, along with essential nutrients like vitamin D and B vitamins. Third-party tested. (health.yahoo.com) Garden of Life Organics Women’s Once Daily. A USDA-certified organic multivitamin formulated for women, providing over 17 essential nutrients sourced from whole foods. (health.yahoo.com) When choosing a multivitamin, consider factors such as your specific health needs, dietary restrictions, and lifestyle. It is advisable to consult with a healthcare professional to determine the most suitable option for you.
Appendix
Table A.2: SearchGPT citation example. Response to the query “top rated multivitamins for adults by experts.
Global Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation University of St. Gallen 9000 St.Gallen, Switzerland · Marketing und Customer Insight University of St. Gallen 9000 St.Gallen, Switzerland
New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ, USA · Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore · Indiana University Bloomington Bloomington, IN, USA