Generative Engine Optimization

Production large language models retrieve and cite web pages alongside generated answers, yet the page-level features that predict citation frequency remain poorly characterised. We present an observational study of approximately 2 million LLM citations from four commercial engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI, Gemini) over six months, joined to 10,000 crawled pages from nineteen B2B SaaS workspaces. Sixty-plus features are tested using a nine-method consensus framework combining mixed-effects regression with domain fixed effects, FDR correction, stability-selection Lasso, double machine learning, generalised additive models, and temporal hold-out replication. Four findings survive all checks. First, prompt-content alignment (Jaccard overlap between page tokens and the full workspace prompt corpus, including non-citing prompts) is the dominant page-level predictor (beta = +0.37, 95% CI [+0.33, +0.41], q ~ 10^-73). Second, the standard AEO checklist (FAQ blocks, structured data, Core Web Vitals) shows positive effects in pooled data that reverse or collapse to zero once domain fixed effects are applied: Simpson's paradox with practical consequences for the AEO literature. Third, domain-level AI authority exceeds the strongest non-alignment page-level feature by a factor of six in mean absolute SHAP value. We release the analytic pipeline as a methodological contribution.

Generative artificial intelligence changes how firms reach customers, but standard marketing data do not record how often users see and notice a firm's name in generated answers. We develop Generative Marketing Mix Modeling (GMMM) to estimate the causal effects of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and Generative Engine Marketing (GEM). For GEO, GMMM combines repeated generated answers with question counts, shares of use across generative systems, and notice probabilities. For GEM, it combines records of sponsored placements with notice probabilities. GMMM compares expected business responses under alternative treatment sequences and establishes sufficient conditions for identifying the resulting effects. We investigate the empirical performance of the proposed method using simulated answers to product recommendation in English and Japanese.

How do you validate a cheap, deterministic proxy for an oracle that is expensive, rate-limited, and non-stationary? We present a protocol built on adversarial falsification gates (negative control, dose response, bounded amplification, duplication penalty, length neutrality) that define and select the proxy, fitted on a training split and confirmed held-out; around them it bounds what the proxy can never resolve, and re-measures external causal evidence on the current oracle rather than assuming it. We demonstrate it end to end on Generative Engine Optimization, where the proxy is a deterministic content score, and one step fails on that domain exactly as the protocol is built to detect: re-measuring the only published causal anchors (2023 effect sizes) on ten modern engine families shows their levers move citation on none, so the anchors are an expired external check; recalibrating to the near-zero modern vector strips the score of its lever-responsive components. What survives is the gate-enforced response surface. The gates buy a measured property: on a 500-source benchmark of adversarial edits, amplifying the score's calibrated levers gains an attacker at most 6 points, and decreases with dose; single-lever amplification is provably bounded, while the cap and cross-lever sub-additivity are empirical findings consistent with it. On detection, web-spam baselines dominate and out-of-distribution attacks evade the score, so the deployable filter layers it over them. A query-conditioned skyline bounds the score's citation signal (within-query Spearman 0.11), repositioning query-agnostic scores as quality filters rather than citation predictors. A query-leakage bug in our first ranking evaluation and a failed confidence flag are disclosed and corrected; every number reproduces offline from released artifacts at zero marginal API cost.

Generative engine optimization (GEO) enables content producers to increase the visibility of their web pages in generative search engines, but the same techniques can deliver targeted misinformation when adversaries publish ordinary-looking GEO-optimized documents that victim large language models (LLMs) retrieve and synthesize into distorted answers. No existing benchmark evaluates defenses against this threat under controlled conditions. Therefore, we present Counter-GEO-Bench, a defense benchmark that pairs 247 human-verified, quality-gated queries with information-preserving and information-distorting GEO rewrites, and evaluates defenses on attack success rate (ASR), false positive rate, and answer quality across three victim LLMs. Under Counter-GEO-Bench, three off-the-shelf defenses (Granite Guardian, Llama Guard 3, and NeMo Self-Check Fact-Checking) reduce ASR by at most 5.7% relative, while Granite Guardian's reduction is not statistically significant. Safety-taxonomy guardrails target policy violations, while GEO misinformation passes through them as fluent informational content. To this end, a lightweight benchmark baseline, C-GEO Guard, is proposed, reducing ASR by 47.6% relative with near-zero utility loss, which proves threat tractable.

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is increasingly used to improve content visibility in LLM-based retrieval systems, yet its population-level effects under repeated optimization remain poorly understood. We introduce Content Homogenization under rAnking Signal Exploitation (CHASE), a controlled simulation framework for studying how content ecosystems are reshaped when creators repeatedly adapt documents to an LLM ranking signal. We use ranking as a proxy for source visibility and validate this abstraction against citations in grounded generated responses, obtaining a rank-citation AUC of 0.853 $\pm$ 0.093 across six domains. CHASE then iterates ranking, feature discrimination, rewriting, and evaluation over 20 rounds across different domains. Quality-ranking alignment decreases in all six domains: from R0 to R20, the change in Spearman's rho ranges from -0.107 to -0.018, with a mean change of -0.068, which means documents closer to the ranking feature profile become less aligned with independently judged document quality over the simulation horizon. A random-target control has shown that it is associated with adaptation toward ranking-derived incentives rather than iterative rewriting alone. The resulting ecosystem dynamics are strongly domain-dependent. Together, these findings show how repeated optimization against a fixed LLM ranking signal can reshape both content populations and the incentives faced by content creators.

Generative engines such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity answer buyer questions directly and name a shortlist of brands inside the answer. Studying how brands enter or fail to enter that shortlist requires demand-side data: what buyers in a category ask, what information they need, and which sources they trust. Existing large persona corpora are built for training-data diversity and carry neither a staged search-intent label nor a preferred-sources field, so they cannot be joined to supply-side recommendation measurements. We built and validated PersonaGen-1M, a corpus of 1,031,732 synthetic buyer personas spanning 511 industry labels and 4 market contexts, carrying 19,416,821 structured behavioral attributes, 5,160,046 of them search queries. Each persona carries a single primary_intent label covering its query set (78.3% informational, 17.4% commercial, 4.3% transactional) and a preferred_sources field naming the source types that buyer would trust. The corpus was built from roughly 40 million raw persona descriptions drawn from four public datasets through GPU-accelerated MinHash LSH plus semantic deduplication, then enriched to a fixed schema. The intent field selects the commercial-evaluation personas whose queries drive recommendation, and the preferred_sources field pairs against citation-provenance data; that join is the primary intended use, and its controlled empirical estimate is future work. Among million-scale persona corpora surveyed in August 2026, one other carries a source-preference attribute, as a six-value media-channel enum; PersonaGen-1M pairs named per-persona source lists with a staged commercial search-intent label and an attached query set. The full corpus is shared on request for non-commercial research; a stratified subset is published openly so the protocol, the schema and the validation can be inspected and reused without asking us.

Generative engines are reshaping the web ecosystem by making citations a key mechanism for allocating attention, attribution, and downstream value. This creates a strategic tension: content providers are incentivized to optimize for model citation, while platforms must preserve answer quality and trustworthy attribution. We show that this tension can escalate into citation wars. In repeated simulations, state-of-the-art generative engine optimization (GEO) attacks adapt to conventional defenses by producing citation-seeking rewrites that degrade document quality and introduce unsupported claims. To study this problem, we formulate the supplier--platform interaction as a repeated Stackelberg game with partial monitoring. A local best-response analysis identifies when citation competition approaches an inert stationary outcome. Motivated by this finding, we propose a platform--creator mechanism called VCR based on verifiable-content rewards. Rather than only penalizing suspicious rewrites, the platform also credits rewrites that surface checkable factual substance, aligning creator incentives with answer trustworthiness. Experiments on three benchmarks show that VCR consistently achieves the largest Net defense-utility score, outperforming the strongest baseline by an average of 12.1 percentage points, and produces a win--win outcome under our empirical equivalence criterion.

Generative AI (GenAI) search systems are transforming how users access information. Unlike ranking-based search systems, where users observe a ranked list of documents, GenAI search systems, given a user's question, generate an answer, often accompanied by external sources (e.g., in the form of citations). Content creators (publishers) seeking to increase exposure might behave strategically and compete with other creators for users' attention. While publishers in ranking-based systems might strategically modify their content to improve its ranking, the incentives in generative systems take on a new form. Publishers may now gain exposure through generated responses and attributions to those responses. We introduce a novel game-theoretic model of the emerging GenAI ecosystem in which publishers compete for attribution-based exposure. We study the learning dynamics of strategic content creators under better-response dynamics. We associate the convergence of learning dynamics to equilibrium with ecosystem stability. Employing the notion of potential games, we study the stability of GenAI ecosystems under several known content selection mechanisms. We demonstrate the instability of mechanisms representing real-world modern systems and characterize a mechanism that induces a stable ecosystem. We conduct extensive simulations to analyze the stability and welfare of GenAI ecosystems under various mechanisms. The simulations support our theoretical findings and reveal an interplay among stability, publisher welfare, and user welfare. In particular, stable mechanisms do not necessarily maximize welfare, demonstrating an important trade-off for platform designers. We then introduce a study illustrating that the proper selection of the GenAI mechanism enables the manifestation of desired trade-offs between publisher welfare and the different sources of user welfare.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) answer engines now field a growing share of the questions that analysts, scholars, and the public ask about issues of peace and conflict. Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to hallucinate under certain conditions, but do these errors have discernible patterns when they are asked about conflicts, and if so what can that teach us about the changing global conflict information environment? To answer, we first asked a battery of questions about 28 conflicts to five leading answer engines and scored their 5,460 answers against documented evidence. We found that the thinner the retrievable record around a given conflict, the more the engines invent, misattribute, and miscount. Thin records don't just encourage hallucination, but create structural exposure to mis- and disinformation, because they are the easiest records to warp through Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) to bias engine responses. Through an analysis of 1,048 websites that the AI LLMs pulled conflict facts from, we found that GEO source optimization is already happening, and while state-partisan digital capture remains incipient it is rapidly growing. We explain what these findings mean for scholarship with the rise of GEO information warfare, and for policy argue for a return to the deep local monitoring and translation-based research that AI tools cannot replicate, closing with a discussion of future research opportunities and challenges in this fast-moving space.

People increasingly get answers straight from AI search engines like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini rather than scrolling search results. Brands that once focused on search engine optimization (SEO) must now optimize for how these engines represent, cite, and recommend them -- a shift variously called Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), and AI Search Visibility. We treat AEO and AI Visibility as part of GEO, and study how to measure brand visibility across AI engines: what they value when they cite a brand, which sources they rely on, and what content large language models surface. The hard case is everyone outside the already-authoritative top brands -- SMEs, D2C brands, creators, and early-stage startups. We analyze 100K+ prompt responses across 100+ brands tracked on Ranqo between March and May 2026. First visibility runs form a clear three-tier brand-stature ladder: global household names (e.g., Stripe, Nike) appear in 73% of relevant AI answers on their first run; established mid-market and regional brands (e.g., Olipop, Klaviyo) in 44%; niche and small brands in just 11% -- about 30 percentage points per step. When engines cite sources, about 78% go to corporate websites; among non-corporate sources YouTube leads, ahead of Reddit, editorial media, and Wikipedia. The highest-leverage page is the ranked "best-of" listicle, the most-cited content format at about 21% of all citations. Sentiment is the unstable signal: whether a brand is framed positively or negatively flips about 6.7 times more often than whether it is mentioned at all. These findings provide a first large-scale baseline for measuring GEO: AI brand visibility can be measured, differs by platform, and varies strongly by brand maturity. We close by proposing seven v1.1 protocols to test whether specific recommendations can causally improve AI visibility.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel. We study brand dynamics in LLM recommendations using skincare products -- a category where consumers cannot easily judge quality before buying and must rely on brand reputation -- across three commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), with a robustness check on search goods. In three experiments, we find: (1) a Conditional Monopoly where well-known brands get recommended 100% of the time (IAI = 10.0) when all products have the same specifications, but this dominance disappears with less than a +0.1-star rating advantage for a competitor; (2) authority-style marketing language, including fabricated clinical-evidence claims, breaks this monopoly at a Bias Surplus Value equal to +0.17 rating points, with each model responding differently; and (3) a social dilemma in multi-brand GEO competition: when all brands adopt the same optimization strategy, individual payoff falls from +0.802 to +0.007 in our payoff proxy, and non-participating brands receive zero recommendations in our tests. Our results suggest that generative engine optimization (GEO) should be studied not only as a security risk, but also as an emerging marketing practice that shapes market competition.

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) lets content owners rewrite web content to increase their visibility in generative systems. In recommendation agents, this creates a risk that seller-controlled sources make flawed products appear better supported than they are. We study this risk by asking whether recommendation agents preserve utility-aligned decisions when seller-controlled sources are rewritten for GEO. To make this question measurable, we construct SafeGEO, an evaluation suite with 22 GEO attack variants across 600 recommendation cases. We empirically show that GEO attacks can promote flawed target products. On average, they increase the rate at which such flawed products enter the recommendation set by up to 83.2%. We further study whether agent-side design choices can mitigate this risk and show that simple defenses, including defensive prompting and structured evidence checks, reduce harmful target promotion by up to 39.2%. These gains are substantial but do not restore the no-GEO performance, showing that GEO remains a serious risk despite developer-side mitigation.

Large language model (LLM) "answer engines" such as ChatGPT now send measurable referral traffic to the open web, and a practice analogous to search engine optimization, here called Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), has emerged. Public AEO success stories typically quote large raw growth multiples, but raw referral growth is confounded by the rapid platform-level growth of the answer engines themselves. We report a longitudinal field study on a single high-traffic domain (glasp.co) whose corpus of hundreds of thousands of YouTube question-and-answer pages received a defined bundle of AEO interventions in January 2026 (detailed in Section 4). Because the interventions were concentrated on one subset of the site, the untreated remainder of the same domain acts as a contemporaneous control that absorbs the platform tailwind. Using first-party analytics and server logs rather than probabilistic third-party estimators, we find: (1) raw growth is dominated by the platform tailwind: on monthly aggregates total ChatGPT referrals grew 5.7x while untreated pages on the same domain grew 3.5x over the same window; (2) an interrupted time-series model on the weekly treated/control ratio estimates a discrete, intervention-aligned level increase of 1.82x (95% CI 1.31-2.54, HAC p=0.001), robust across engagement-filtered traffic (2.27x) and alternative specifications; (3) however, a conservative placebo-in-time permutation test yields p=0.16, so the effect is suggestive, not conclusive, given a short and noisy pre-period; and (4) Google organic clicks to treated pages did not fall beyond the ambient site-wide trend and indexation was preserved, consistent with the SEO-protection rule. The methodological message, separating treatment from platform tailwind with an on-domain control, matters more than any single multiple, and implies that headline AEO multiples substantially overstate causal effect.

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.

AI answer engines generate answers from retrieved pages but cite only a few sources. This makes visibility depend not just on ranking, but on being cited. We study competitive Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): when two retrieved candidates compete, what makes one more likely to be cited first? We build a controlled two-document retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) testbed that injects exactly two candidate sources into the model context and measures which source is referenced by the first citation marker in the output. Across six LLMs we execute 252,000 trials, repeated paired comparisons under one factorial program over 18 content factors. In each trial the two sources differ in exactly one factor; we use brand anonymization and counterbalanced source order to separate content effects from position bias. Mixed-effects models show that topical relevance and list position are the biggest drivers of being cited first. Including explicit price information and a recent timestamp also helps consistently. Completeness and trust cues add smaller gains, while formatting-only edits have little impact. We release a reproducible evaluation protocol and a prioritized GEO checklist for practitioners, and we exercised it in an early internal pilot at Sprinklr, where teams reported positive qualitative feedback on workflow usability.

A brand whose customers use both ChatGPT and Claude for product recommendations faces a strategic choice: a single optimization playbook, or one per provider? Across 215 commercially-framed prompts in four measurement batches, the two providers disagree on which brands they recommend roughly two-thirds of the time (cross-provider recommendation Jaccard 0.35, below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline). The picks diverge. But when neither provider recommends a brand, we classify the failure into one of three modes -- discoverability (the brand never reaches the model), compellingness (it reaches the model but isn't mentioned), or positioning (it's mentioned but not recommended) -- and on 7,763 such joint failures, both providers diagnose the same failure mode 95.1% of the time (clustered 95% CI [94.3%, 95.7%]). Agreement rises monotonically with falling brand prominence, from 81% [78.2%, 84.0%] on category leaders to 99.6% [99.3%, 99.9%] on long-tail regional brands. The two providers reach their picks by measurably different generative routes -- Anthropic recommends from priors 43-52% of the time, OpenAI 8-29% -- but they converge on the failure diagnosis where it matters most for the long tail. Work that addresses the diagnosed failure mode lifts visibility on both providers; positioning - and content-level work for category leaders is more provider-specific.

AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude are recommendation engines, not search engines: they answer commercial queries by directly nominating brands rather than returning a list of links. Marketing to AI is therefore a broader problem than "show up in search" -- positioning, content, and product fit matter as much as discoverability. We audit ~37,000 production runs across four model configurations and 215 commercially-framed prompts spanning 19 sectors, evaluated against a 533-brand reference catalog stratified into five prominence tiers (L1 category leaders to L5 regional players) sourced from external authority lists. The ladder proxies a brand's awareness footprint within its sector, not revenue or market share. The failure mode differs sharply by tier. L1 brands appear in nearly every relevant retrieval but win only 25-41% of the recommendation slots they reach -- the leverage is differentiation, not visibility. L2 challengers carry the highest conversion rates of any tier (37-52%) but lose to persona-mediated substitution on the Anthropic models. L3 mid-market brands are the inflection level: aggregate coverage drops to 88%, conversion to 34-40%, and persona effects peak. L4 specialists and L5 regional players face catastrophic invisibility -- 48-52% never surface in any of the 37,000 runs. No uniform optimization recipe wins; the right marketing investment depends on where the brand sits on the prominence ladder.

Large language model (LLM) answer engines are increasingly used for information seeking, shifting visibility from ranked lists to synthesized answers. This enables Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), which targets LLM answer engines' evidence pool and generation. We analyze the search engine optimization (SEO) to GEO transition to identify two risks: (i) concentrated influence from low contestability and system sensitivity, and (ii) undisclosed commercial influence embedded in evidence and reasoning. We then formalize a general GEO pipeline to locate where optimization acts and compare academic and industry practices, revealing a third risk: (iii) academic-industry blind spots driven by visibility and evaluation asymmetries between offline setups and deployed systems. This position argues the need for answer-level governance and measurement: stronger contestability, high-precision disclosure, black-box auditing of material influence, and deployment-aligned metrics for exposure persistence.

Web-enabled LLM agents are changing how online information influences search outcomes. Existing Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) studies mainly focus on individual webpages. However, agentic web search is not a single-document setting: an agent may issue queries, crawl pages, follow links, reformulate searches, and synthesize evidence across multiple browsing steps. Influence therefore depends not only on page content, but also on how pages are organized, connected, and encountered along the agent's browsing trajectory. We study this shift through Ecosystem Generative Engine Optimization (EcoGEO), which treats GEO as an environment-level influence problem for web-enabled LLM agents. To instantiate this perspective, we propose TRACE, a Trajectory-Aware Coordinated Evidence Ecosystem. Given a recommendation query and a fictional target product, our method builds a controlled evidence environment that coordinates an agent-facing navigation entry page with heterogeneous support pages. These pages use shared terminology, internal links, and consistent product attributes to introduce, verify, and reinforce the target product. We evaluate our method on OPR-Bench, a benchmark for open-ended product recommendation. Experiments show that it consistently outperforms page-level GEO baselines in final target recommendation. Trajectory-level metrics further show increased initial target-result crawls, target-specific follow-up searches, and internal-link crawls, suggesting that the gains come from shaping the agent's evidence-acquisition process rather than merely adding more target-related content. Overall, our findings support an ecosystem research paradigm for GEO, where web-enabled LLM agents are studied in relation to the broader evidence environments that guide search, browsing, and answer synthesis.

Generative AI is being increasingly integrated into web search for the convenience it provides users. In this work, we aim to understand how generative AI disrupts web search by retrieving and presenting the information and sources differently from traditional search engines. We introduce a public benchmark dataset of 11,500 user queries to support our study and future research of generative search. We compare the search results returned by Google's search engine, the accompanying AI Overview (AIO), and Gemini Flash 2.5 for each query. We have made several key findings. First, we find that for 51.5% of representative, real-user queries, AIOs are generated, and are displayed above the organic search results. Controversial questions frequently result in an AIO. Second, we show that the retrieved sources are substantially different for each search engine (<0.2 average Jaccard similarity). Traditional Google search is significantly more likely to retrieve information from popular or institutional websites in government or education, while generative search engines are significantly more likely to retrieve Google-owned content. Third, we observe that websites that block Google's AI crawler are significantly less likely to be retrieved by AIOs, despite having access to the content. Finally, AIOs are less consistent when processing two runs of the same query, and are less robust to minor query edits. Our findings have important implications for understanding how generative search impacts website visibility, the effectiveness of generative engine optimization techniques, and the information users receive. We call for revenue frameworks to foster a sustainable and mutually beneficial ecosystem for publishers and generative search providers.

Generative engines (GEs) are reshaping information access by replacing ranked links with citation-grounded answers, yet current Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) methods optimize each instance in isolation, unable to accumulate or transfer effective strategies across tasks and engines. We reframe GEO as a strategy learning problem and propose MAGEO, a multi-agent framework in which coordinated planning, editing, and fidelity-aware evaluation serve as the execution layer, while validated editing patterns are progressively distilled into reusable, engine-specific optimization skills. To enable controlled assessment, we introduce a Twin Branch Evaluation Protocol for causal attribution of content edits and DSV-CF, a dual-axis metric that unifies semantic visibility with attribution accuracy. We further release MSME-GEO-Bench, a multi-scenario, multi-engine benchmark grounded in real-world queries. Experiments on three mainstream engines show that MAGEO substantially outperforms heuristic baselines in both visibility and citation fidelity, with ablations confirming that engine-specific preference modeling and strategy reuse are central to these gains, suggesting a scalable learning-driven paradigm for trustworthy GEO. Code is available at https://github.com/Wu-beining/MAGEO

Generative answer engines expose content through selective citation rather than ranked retrieval, fundamentally altering how visibility is determined. This shift calls for new optimization methods beyond traditional search engine optimization. Existing generative engine optimization (GEO) approaches primarily rely on token-level text rewriting, offering limited interpretability and weak control over the trade-off between citation visibility and content quality. We propose FeatGEO, a feature-level, multi-objective optimization framework that abstracts webpages into interpretable structural, content, and linguistic properties. Instead of directly editing text, FeatGEO optimizes over this feature space and uses a language model to realize feature configurations into natural language, decoupling high-level optimization from surface-level generation. Experiments on GEO-Bench across three generative engines demonstrate that FeatGEO consistently improves citation visibility while maintaining or improving content quality, substantially outperforming token-level baselines. Further analyses show that citation behavior is more strongly influenced by document-level content properties than by isolated lexical edits, and that the learned feature configurations generalize across language models of different scales.