When Optimization Becomes Manipulation: Defending Generative Search against Malicious Generative Engine Optimization

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) modifies web content to increase its likelihood of being selected and cited by generative search engines. This can give strategically optimized pages visibility disproportionate to their authority or relevance and even make weak or false information appear well supported. Unlike conventional search, generative search synthesizes information into direct answers rather than presenting competing sources, which can further amplify these risks, as assessing source provenance and authority requires additional user interaction. Despite these concerns, systematic methods for detecting GEO-optimized webpages remain underexplored. We introduce 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.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rank products, documents, and recommendations for user queries, which makes manipulating these rankings a growing concern for fairness and information integrity. Research on generative engine optimization (GEO) has produced many manipulation methods, but each is evaluated on its own dataset with its own metrics, so their relative strength and detectability stay unclear. We present GEO-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates GEO ranking-manipulation attacks under one protocol. It unifies black-box prompt-based attacks (TAP, Zero-Shot), white-box gradient-based attacks (STS, RAF, StealthRank), and ten white-hat C-SEO strategies. We score every method on five datasets against a fixed open-weight ranker (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct), using metrics for both effectiveness (NRG, Success@α, Promote@α) and stealth (keyword violation rate, perplexity ratio). Our evaluation shows that effectiveness and stealth trade off across adversarial attacks, that black-box content rewriting matches or exceeds gradient-based attacks on rank promotion while producing more fluent text and can evade both keyword- and perplexity-based detection on some domains, and that the access model does not predict attack strength. By standardizing datasets, attack implementations, and metrics, GEO-Bench enables the first direct comparison across these attack paradigms and supports the development of detection methods.

Generative engine optimization (GEO) has reshaped how sellers compete for visibility in LLM-generated rankings. By embedding persuasive arguments in the content they control, sellers can influence how generative engines rank products and web pages and push their own items to the top. Existing defenses either detect harmful intent or unnatural language, which fluent GEO content often lacks, or rewrite all candidates, which alters legitimate listings without identifying the manipulated ones. However, these approaches overlook the persuasive structure through which GEO attacks influence LLM-based rankings. To address this gap, we present SCI-Defense, a framework for detecting persuasion-structured ranking manipulation, in which an LLM judge scores five persuasion devices grounded in research on influence and deception: authority, social proof, scarcity and urgency, comparative claims, and narrative purposiveness. Two lightweight gates for unnatural strings and inflated relevance complement the judge, and flagged candidates are demoted rather than rewritten, each with a record of the candidate and the criterion that triggered the flag. On 1,152 optimized CORE attacks across six Amazon product categories and six MS MARCO web domains, SCI-Defense detects 89.6% of reasoning attacks and 96.2% of review attacks at a 1.2% false positive rate and blocks 96.1% of the attacks that pushed their target into the top three. On a 120-query subset, paraphrasing and truncation block a similar share of attacks but push 4.0--4.5% of honest items out of the top three, compared with 0.6% for SCI-Defense.