Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a two-stage framework for evaluating Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), breaking it down into citation selection and citation absorption. Using the geo-citation-lab dataset, the authors analyzed citation patterns across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity. They found that while Perplexity and Google cite more sources, ChatGPT exhibits higher citation influence from its selected sources, which tend to be longer, more structured, and information-rich.
ChatGPT extracts more value from each cited source than Google or Perplexity, suggesting that citation *quality* trumps citation *quantity* in generative search.
Generative search engines increasingly determine whether online information is merely discoverable, cited as a source, or actually absorbed into generated answers. This paper proposes a two-stage measurement framework for Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): citation selection, where a platform triggers search and chooses sources, and citation absorption, where a cited page contributes language, evidence, structure, or factual support to the final answer. We analyze the public geo-citation-lab dataset covering 602 controlled prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overview/Gemini, and Perplexity; 21,143 valid search-layer citations; 23,745 citation-level feature records; 18,151 successfully fetched pages; and 72 extracted features. The central descriptive finding is that citation breadth and citation depth diverge. Perplexity and Google cite more sources on average, while ChatGPT cites fewer sources but shows substantially higher average citation influence among fetched pages. High-influence pages tend to be longer, more structured, semantically aligned, and richer in extractable evidence such as definitions, numerical facts, comparisons, and procedural steps. The results suggest that GEO should be measured beyond citation counts, with answer-level absorption treated as a separate outcome.
