Measuring GEO Visibility: Prompt Corpora Define the Answer Market

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06811v1
• Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2026 20:07:53 GMT
• Title: Measuring GEO Visibility: Prompt Corpora Define the Answer Market
• Abstract summary: GEO (generative engine optimization) visibility scores aggregate source appearances, citations, or brand mentions in generated answers.<n>The framework specifies situation annotation, prompt formulations, execution conditions, weights, and scoring rules.<n>The article defines a comparison of answers generated with and without a source in a controlled documentary context.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Noēsis: Deterministic-First Retrieval with Two-Tier Context Hydration for Factuality-Critical Queries on Small Local Models [0.0]
  We present Noesis, the deterministic-first query plane of the Noesis architecture.<n>Noesis makes every deterministic judgment before generation.<n>Every reported value is traceable to its exact source and position by construction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T15:49:16Z)
• HiEviDR-Bench: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research [52.87128503345243]
  We introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research.<n>HiEviDR-Bench represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation.<n>We develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T23:50:46Z)
• What Gets Cited: Competitive GEO in AI Answer Engines [0.866627581195388]
  When two retrieved candidates compete, what makes one more likely to be cited first?<n>We build a controlled two-document retrieval-augmented generation testbed that injects exactly two candidate sources into the model context.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T07:20:08Z)
• Controllable Evidence Selection in Retrieval-Augmented Question Answering via Deterministic Utility Gating [0.0]
  This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering.<n>The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE)<n>In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:20:15Z)
• The Judge Who Never Admits: Hidden Shortcuts in LLM-based Evaluation [17.386684382460242]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as reasoning, question answering, and creative writing.<n>We test this ideal via controlled cue perturbations-synthetic metadata labels injected into evaluation prompts for six judge models.<n>We study six cue families: source, temporal, age, gender, ethnicity, and educational status.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T14:45:23Z)
• Contextualized Evaluations: Judging Language Model Responses to Underspecified Queries [85.81295563405433]
  We present a protocol that synthetically constructs context surrounding an under-specified query and provides it during evaluation.<n>We find that the presence of context can 1) alter conclusions drawn from evaluation, even flipping benchmark rankings between model pairs, 2) nudge evaluators to make fewer judgments based on surface-level criteria, like style, and 3) provide new insights about model behavior across diverse contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T18:58:38Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• MQAG: Multiple-choice Question Answering and Generation for Assessing Information Consistency in Summarization [55.60306377044225]
  State-of-the-art summarization systems can generate highly fluent summaries. These summaries, however, may contain factual inconsistencies and/or information not present in the source. We introduce an alternative scheme based on standard information-theoretic measures in which the information present in the source and summary is directly compared.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T23:08:25Z)
• KPQA: A Metric for Generative Question Answering Using Keyphrase Weights [64.54593491919248]
  KPQA-metric is a new metric for evaluating correctness of generative question answering systems. Our new metric assigns different weights to each token via keyphrase prediction. We show that our proposed metric has a significantly higher correlation with human judgments than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T03:24:36Z)
• Extending Text Informativeness Measures to Passage Interestingness Evaluation (Language Model vs. Word Embedding) [1.2998637003026272]
  This paper defines the concept of Interestingness as a generalization of Informativeness. We then study the ability of state of the art Informativeness measures to cope with this generalization. We prove that the CLEF-INEX Tweet Contextualization 2012 Logarithm Similarity measure provides best results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T18:22:48Z)
• Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries [80.65186293015135]
  We propose an automatic evaluation protocol called QAGS (pronounced "kags") to identify factual inconsistencies in a generated summary. QAGS is based on the intuition that if we ask questions about a summary and its source, we will receive similar answers if the summary is factually consistent with the source. We believe QAGS is a promising tool in automatically generating usable and factually consistent text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-08T20:01:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.