When Content is Goliath and Algorithm is David: The Style and Semantic Effects of Generative Search Engine
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative search engines (GEs) leverage large language models (LLMs) to deliver AI-generated summaries with website citations, establishing novel traffic acquisition channels while fundamentally altering the search engine optimization landscape. To investigate the distinctive characteristics of GEs, we collect data through interactions with Google's generative and conventional search platforms, compiling a dataset of approximately ten thousand websites across both channels. Our empirical analysis reveals that GEs exhibit preferences for citing content characterized by significantly higher predictability for underlying LLMs and greater semantic similarity among selected sources. Through controlled experiments utilizing retrieval augmented generation (RAG) APIs, we demonstrate that these citation preferences emerge from intrinsic LLM tendencies to favor content aligned with their generative expression patterns. Motivated by applications of LLMs to optimize website content, we conduct additional experimentation to explore how LLM-based content polishing by website proprietors alters AI summaries, finding that such polishing paradoxically enhances information diversity within AI summaries. Finally, to assess the user-end impact of LLM-induced information increases, we design a generative search engine and recruit Prolific participants to conduct a randomized controlled experiment involving an information-seeking and writing task. We find that higher-educated users exhibit minimal changes in their final outputs' information diversity but demonstrate significantly reduced task completion time when original sites undergo polishing. Conversely, lower-educated users primarily benefit through enhanced information density in their task outputs while maintaining similar completion times across experimental groups.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2025.
Builds on
9 of 48 references.
References · 9
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2022The Vendi Score: A Diversity Evaluation Metric for Machine Learningcited by 311
- 2022Demystifying Prompts in Language Models via Perplexity Estimationcited by 216
- 2024BioMedLM: A 2.7B Parameter Language Model Trained On Biomedical Textcited by 86
- 2025Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 37
- 2024The Impact of Large Language Models on Open-source Innovation: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 13
- 2023ChatGPT vs. Google: A Comparative Study of Search Performance and User Experiencecited by 12
- 2023AI and Jobs: Has the Inflection Point Arrived? Evidence from an Online Labor Platformcited by 2
- 2024Learning to Adopt Generative AIcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond Pipelines: A Fundamental Study on the Rise of Generative-Retrieval Architectures in Web Research
- 2025Role-Augmented Intent-Driven Generative Search Engine Optimization
- 2026Optimizing Visibility in Generative Engines: A Critical Survey of Generative Engine Optimization (2023-2026)
- 2025Information Retrieval in the Age of Generative AI: The RGB Model
- 2026Think Before Writing: Feature-Level Multi-Objective Optimization for Generative Citation Visibility
- 2026Understanding ChatGPT Citations: Evidence from Production Web Search Across Model Generations ↗
- 2024Zero-Indexing Internet Search Augmented Generation for Large Language Models
- 2024Generative Retrieval with Preference Optimization for E-commerce Search