Diagnosing and Repairing Citation Failures in Generative Engine Optimization
Organizations: Virginia Tech · Zhejiang University
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.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Doc-centric | HTML | Train/Test Split |
| GEO-Bench ( Aggarwal et al., 2024 ) | |||
| E-commerce ( Wu et al., 2025 ) | |||
| Researchy-GEO ( Wu et al., 2025 ) | |||
| CC-GSEO-Bench ( Chen et al., 2025b ) | |||
| (Ours) |
| In-context | Attribute first then generate | |||||||||||||
| CR | Contribution | Faithfulness | CR | Contribution | Faithfulness | |||||||||
| Method | CR | Word | Pos | Wordpos | TF-IDF | Embed | Jaccard | CR | Word | Pos | Wordpos | TF-IDF | Embed | Jaccard |
| Vanilla | 56.58 | 16.28 | 16.28 | 16.39 | - | - | - | 60.20 | 23.69 | 28.72 | 23.57 | - | - | - |
| Technical Terms | 55.84 | 14.78 | 14.73 | 14.60 | 73.32 | 85.64 | 21.37 | 57.33 | 22.25 | 27.87 | 22.03 | 74.39 | 86.98 | 21.98 |
| Cite Sources | 60.52 | 17.01 | 16.96 | 16.89 | 92.76 | 93.62 | 65.62 | 59.21 | 24.04 | 29.02 | 23.79 | 92.33 | 92.95 | 64.60 |
| Keyword Stuffing | 62.44 | 17.83 | 17.74 | 17.82 | 82.85 | 88.95 | 30.04 | 65.62 | 28.09 | 33.39 | 27.81 | 82.16 | 86.92 | 28.39 |
| Model | Metric | Vanilla | AutoGEO | (ours) |
| GPT | CR | 56.58 | 68.80 | 79.52 |
| Word | 16.28 | 17.87 | 20.29 | |
| Pos | 16.28 | 18.53 | 21.08 | |
| Wordpos | 16.39 | 17.65 | 20.28 | |
| Precision | 48.63 | 56.79 | 58.43 | |
| Recall | 64.62 | 68.99 | 67.10 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Citation | Contribution | Faithfulness | ||||||
| Setting | Method | CR | Word | Pos | Wordpos | TF-IDF | Embed | Jaccard |
| MIMIQ-OOD | Vanilla | 57.14 | 25.19 | 25.01 | 24.94 | - | - | - |
| Easy-to-Understand | 68.06 | 24.48 | 24.79 | 24.70 | 81.60 | 86.42 | 30.24 | |
| Statistics Addition | 58.57 | 20.72 | 21.03 | 20.93 | 96.07 | 94.39 | 70.75 | |
| Quotation Addition | 60.71 | 21.06 | 21.19 | 21.24 | 96.70 | 94.64 | 75.14 | |
| Fluency Optimization | 59.69 | 20.80 | 21.31 | 21.11 | 92.40 | 92.73 | 49.20 | |
| Citation | Contribution | Faithfulness | |||||
| Method | CR | Word | Pos | Wordpos | TF-IDF | Embed | Jaccard |
| Vanilla | 69.98 | 26.09 | 25.98 | 25.93 | – | – | – |
| 84.29 | 35.18 | 34.89 | 34.54 | 94.91 | 90.32 | 75.36 | |
| Improv. | +14.31 | +9.09 | +8.91 | +8.61 | – | – | – |
| Citation | Contribution | Faithfulness | |||||
| Config | CR | Word | Pos | Wordpos | TF-IDF | Embed | Jaccard |
| Vanilla | 56.58 | 16.28 | 16.28 | 16.39 | - | - | - |
| w/o Memory | 75.94 | 22.21 | 22.28 | 22.09 | 96.89 | 94.39 | 84.51 |
| w/ Memory | 79.32 | 22.69 | 22.66 | 22.53 | 96.95 | 95.45 | 84.86 |
| Batch 1 | 74.53 | 25.56 | 25.57 | 25.52 | 93.41 | 88.77 | 77.05 |
| Batch 5 | 80.86 | 23.39 | 23.40 | 23.23 | 96.87 | 94.14 | 83.35 |
| # Training Queries | Mean | Std. Dev. | Abs. Improv. | Rel. Improv. |
| 0 | 0.6837 | 0.2050 | – | – |
| 10 | 0.7200 | 0.2112 | 0.0363 | 5.30% |
| 20 | 0.7214 | 0.1994 | 0.0377 | 5.51% |
| 40 | 0.7614 | 0.1910 | 0.0777 | 11.36% |
| 60 | 0.7729 | 0.1767 | 0.0891 | 13.04% |
| 80 | 0.8044 | 0.1625 | 0.1207 | 17.65% |
Generative Engine Optimization
Generative Engine Optimization studies how to make web content visible, cited, and accurately represented in AI-generated search answers.
See all 40 papersGEO-Flag: Detecting and Measuring GEO-Optimized Web Content
GEOFlagBench, a benchmark of 3,200 web content instances spanning 400 queries, four domains, and eight GEO optimizer families, and use it to systematically evaluate existing GEO detection methods. Although the strongest baseline achieves an aggregate F1 of 0.880, method-level and authorship-conditioned evaluations reveal substantial weaknesses and potential reliance on authorship-related shortcuts. We therefore propose Intervention-Paired Training (IPT), which supervises detector responses to GEO interventions and non-GEO AI polishing; on ModernBERT, IPT improves F1 from 0.862 to 0.944 and worst-group accuracy from 0.725 to 0.883. We develop a GEO-gated Agent system for auditing the Source Tier and verifiability of Citation URLs in detected GEO pages. Finally, we deploy the complete pipeline on released Google Search and Gemini-grounded retrieval results for 1,000 real-user queries. Across 10,095 available pages, we estimate an overall GEO prevalence of 8.90%, reaching 16.36% among pages modified in 2026. Our results establish a foundation for systematically detecting, auditing, and measuring GEO in real-world search ecosystems.