The Original Generative Engine Optimization Paper (arXiv 2311.09735), Digested

The paper is "GEO: Generative Engine Optimization" by Aggarwal et al., first posted to arXiv in 2023 as 2311.09735 and published at KDD 2024. It gave the field its name. Most vendor decks that say "GEO works" trace back to it, usually through the claim that GEO delivers up to 40% more visibility.

The question it asked was narrow: if a source document is rewritten in certain ways, does a generative engine use more of it in the answer? That is a fair research question. It is not the question most marketing leads think it answered, which is whether rewriting a page makes AI search find and cite the brand.

The gap between those two questions is the whole story. Read the paper as a study of generation, the final stage of an AI answer, and it holds up as a lab result. Read it as a study of discoverability and it falls apart. Our guide to generative engine optimization, explained honestly sets out the four stages if you want the full frame.

The authors built their own two-step engine. Step one supplied a set of source documents. Step two had a language model write an answer from them. The researchers then rewrote one source, reran the answer, and measured how much of that source showed up.

Three details matter.

• No live retrieval. The sources were handed to the model. No search index decided which pages entered the context. The paper skips the stage where most brands actually lose.
• The one real-engine test was not organic. The paper's "in the wild" Perplexity test uploaded source text as files, "since perplexity.ai does not allow the user to specify source URLs." So even that test put the content directly in front of the model.
• The metric is circular. The main measure, Position-Adjusted Word Count, scores how many words from a source appear in the answer, weighted by position. Several rewrites add words to the source. When the answer repeats some of them, the score rises. The metric partly counts the intervention back to itself.

None of this is hidden. It is in the paper. It just rarely survives the trip into a sales slide.

Two results get quoted. Here is what the paper supports.

The 30 to 40% band

The paper reports gains in a 30 to 40% band across three methods. It does not report the itemised +41%, +40% and +30% figures that circulate in GEO marketing. Those numbers are not in the source. If a deck attributes a precise per-tactic uplift to this paper, the deck is wrong.

Keyword stuffing

Keyword stuffing lowered the paper's own metric: 17.8 against a 19.5 baseline on Position-Adjusted Word Count. This is the most transferable result in the paper, and it points the opposite way from old SEO habits. It also lines up with Google's October 2026 guidance, which tells site owners they don't need to chase every long-tail keyword variant for AI features.

What the numbers mean

Both findings describe how a model treats a document that is already in its context. They are Stage 3 findings: generation and citation. They say nothing about Stage 1 (can a crawler fetch the page) or Stage 2 (does retrieval pull it in for a query).

The paper does not show that any rewrite gets a page into a live AI answer. It never tested that. Its engine never queried an index, and its Perplexity test bypassed Perplexity's retrieval.

It also does not show durable effects. The models it tested are two generations old as of October 2026. Nothing here has been replicated on current ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini models.

And it does not hold up against later, better-designed work:

• C-SEO Bench, a NeurIPS 2025 benchmark, found most conversational SEO methods "not only largely ineffective but also frequently have a negative impact on document ranking." Moving a document up the context list mattered far more.
• The 252,000-trial factorial found that "formatting-only edits have little impact," with topical relevance and list position driving who gets cited first.
• The critical survey of 45 GEO studies concluded that already-retrieved content can change its citation, "but no reviewed technique shows a stable, longitudinal, cross-platform causal effect on organic discoverability."

The pattern is consistent. Lab gains live inside the context window. For a side-by-side view, see lab GEO studies vs live engines.

Stop citing the 40% figure. It was measured in a lab engine on content already in context, with a metric that counts added words. Repeating it to a board or a client sets an expectation no live engine has been shown to meet. Our breakdown of the 40% GEO visibility claim covers where the number travels and how it changes on the way.

Then put effort where the evidence is strong: access. Those levers work by removing blocks, and the engine operators document them.

1. Check per-bot robots.txt. Rules are per crawler. OpenAI says GPTBot governs training and OAI-SearchBot governs ChatGPT search, and "each setting is independent of the others." A blanket AI block can remove you from ChatGPT search.
2. Check your firewall and CDN. A WAF can return 403 to a crawler that robots.txt allows. The AI Crawler Checker requests a page as each AI crawler and shows which ones get turned away.
3. Check rendering. Vercel found ChatGPT and Claude crawlers fetch JavaScript files but "don't execute them." Content that only appears after JavaScript runs may be invisible to them.
4. Check snippet controls. A stray noindex, nosnippet or data-nosnippet keeps content out of AI answers.
5. State key facts plainly. A price or one-line definition on a fetchable page gives an engine a sentence it can quote. That is the only positive experimental signal for on-page content, and it is not a guarantee.

What stays out of your control: which pages retrieval picks for a query, and what the model writes. Fix the blocks, then measure each engine separately.

Who wrote the GEO paper? The paper is credited to Aggarwal et al. It was posted to arXiv as 2311.09735 in 2023 and published at KDD 2024. It coined the term generative engine optimization. Its influence comes from being first, not from testing live AI search. Later studies with stronger designs, including C-SEO Bench and a 252,000-trial factorial, found rewrite tactics weak or harmful.

What is Position-Adjusted Word Count? Position-Adjusted Word Count is the paper's main metric. It scores how many words from a source appear in a generated answer, weighted by where they appear. The problem is that several tested rewrites add words to the source. When the answer reuses them, the score goes up. So the metric partly measures the intervention itself rather than an independent outcome like a user seeing your brand.

Did the GEO paper test Perplexity? Yes, once, and not in a way that reflects organic search. The authors uploaded source text to Perplexity as files, because Perplexity did not let users specify source URLs. That puts the content straight into the model's context. It skips the step where Perplexity's own retrieval decides which pages to use, which is the step that matters for a brand.

Is any part of the GEO paper useful to marketers? The keyword stuffing result is. Stuffing lowered the paper's own metric, 17.8 against a 19.5 baseline, which is a useful warning against old SEO habits. The broader lesson is about method: always ask whether a GEO study touched a live index. If the sources were preloaded, the finding describes generation, not discoverability.

Where does the +41% GEO statistic come from? Not from this paper. The paper reports a 30 to 40% band across three methods. The itemised +41%, +40% and +30% figures that circulate in GEO marketing do not appear in it. If a vendor quotes a precise per-tactic uplift and cites arXiv 2311.09735, treat the number as unsupported and ask for the table it came from.