arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.15382

Understanding ChatGPT Citations: Evidence from Production Web Search Across Model Generations

Yunxuan Jiang·Shiqi Zhang·Anqi Xing·Xiangyu Chang·Xiaokui Xiao
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generative engines such as ChatGPT Web retrieve webpages to answer user queries, but only a subset are shown as citations. Understanding this retrieval-to-citation process is important for generative engine optimization (GEO), which aims to improve content visibility in generative-engine responses. However, prior studies mainly analyze final responses, leaving the internal execution process and its variation across model settings less understood. To this end, we conduct an observational study of four ChatGPT Web settings from ChatGPT 5.2 to 5.5, covering Instant and Thinking modes at the URL, hostname, and entity levels. We examine how ChatGPT rewrites queries, retrieves candidate webpages, and selects references. The Instant settings remain mostly single-round, while GPT-5.4 Thinking frequently performs multiple retrieval rounds. Across repeated runs, candidates retrieved more often are also more likely to be cited. We then evaluate Google Search and the OpenAI Responses API as external proxies. Responses API candidates provide broader coverage, while its citations more closely match sources cited by ChatGPT Web. Both proxies match ChatGPT Web better at the hostname and entity levels than at the exact-URL level. Even when combined, they recover only about one quarter of cited URLs. We further test whether these external signals remain predictive when combined. Within the external candidate set, a supervised model combining them reaches AUCs above 0.74 for GPT-5.3 and GPT-5.5 at all three levels. These findings suggest that GEO should distinguish retrieval visibility from citation visibility, account for rewritten queries and run-to-run variation, and consider hostname- and entity-level presence in addition to exact URLs. Differences across settings also suggest that GEO strategies should be re-evaluated when the deployed setting or serving environment changes.

Explore related subjects

cs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yunxuan Jiang, Shiqi Zhang, Anqi Xing, Xiangyu Chang, Xiaokui Xiao. 2026-10-11. Understanding ChatGPT Citations: Evidence from Production Web Search Across Model Generations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.15382

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task

Recently, the fast development of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has significantly advanced NLP tasks by enhancing the capabilities of conversational models. However, the application of LLMs in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. To bridge this gap, we propose LLMRec, a LLM-based recommender system designed for benchmarking LLMs on various recommendation tasks. Specifically, we benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs, such as ChatGPT, LLaMA, ChatGLM, on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. Furthermore, we investigate the effectiveness of supervised finetuning to improve LLMs' instruction compliance ability. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation. However, they demonstrated comparable performance to state-of-the-art methods in explainability-based tasks. We also conduct qualitative evaluations to further evaluate the quality of contents generated by different models, and the results show that LLMs can truly understand the provided information and generate clearer and more reasonable results. We aspire that this benchmark will serve as an inspiration for researchers to delve deeper into the potential of LLMs in enhancing recommendation performance. Our codes, processed data and benchmark results are available at https://github.com/williamliujl/LLMRec.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Ontology Interoperability: A Comprehensive Framework for Industrial-Scale Applications

Different ontologies with conflicting and overlapping concepts cause havoc in the design, develop, and deploy of ontology-driven applications. In this work, we propose a comprehensive ontology interoperability framework for industrial-scale ontology-driven applications. The framework employs three state-of-the-art semantic techniques in different phases of the ontology engineering (OE) life cycle: ontology design patterns (ODPs) in the design phase, ontology matching and versioning (OM\&OV) in the develop phase, and ontology validation (OVA) in the deploy phase, to achieve better ontology interoperability.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

ScholarQuest: A Taxonomy-Guided Benchmark for Agentic Academic Paper Search in Open Literature Environments

Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks offer limited coverage of research intents and insufficient support for scalable answer construction and reproducible multi-turn evaluation. We propose \textbf{ScholarQuest}, a taxonomy-guided benchmark constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and organized around four research intents. To construct answer sets at scale, we combine multi-source retrieval, citation expansion, and multi-stage relevance adjudication. We further build \textit{\textbf{ScholarBase}}, a million-scale literature environment with unified retrieval and citation-expansion interfaces, together with a shared multi-turn search harness. We benchmark complete literature search systems and compare language models within this harness, evaluating retrieval coverage, search efficiency, and robustness across research intents. Results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing search system achieves only 0.312 Recall@100 and 0.352 Recall@All. Comparisons under the shared harness reveal intent-dependent model strengths, with higher Planner token consumption not consistently yielding higher recall. We release the benchmark, retrieval backend, and evaluation harness for reproducible research

cs.IR↗