arXiv Machine Learning By Chen Xu, Zitian Guo, Chenyan Xiong

Mechanism Design for Generative Engines: From Exploitation toward Win-Win Outcomes

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 11390v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative engines are reshaping the web ecosystem by making citations a key mechanism for allocating attention, attribution, and downstream value.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Sep 4

When Optimization Becomes Manipulation: Defending Generative Search against Malicious Generative Engine Optimization

The paper introduces GEO Defender, a two‑stage defense system designed to protect generative search engines from malicious Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) attacks that rewrite web documents to manipulate generated answers. GEO Defender comprises a Shield Reranker, which learns a defensive residual to demote GEO‑rewritten documents while maintaining relevance, and a Training‑Free Shield Generation component that creates a natural‑language library guiding the target LLM’s source usage during inference. Experiments on both closed‑source and open‑source large language models show that GEO Defender dramatically lowers attack success rates from 50.32% to 6.20%, preserves over 94% of benign evidence usage, and maintains answer quality while generalizing to unseen attacks.

By Haozhang Li, Yangguang Shao, Xinjie Lin, Zhong Guan, Mi Zhou, Junzheng Shi
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Attribution in Scientific Literature: New Benchmark and Methods

The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution under different evidence conditions. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to balance reliability and responsiveness. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs across various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but increases abstention, while adversarial metadata can push hallucination rates above 85%. Human evaluation confirms a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.

By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Abstention vs. Hallucination: Benchmarking LLM Source Attribution for Scientific Citations

The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark comprising 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution by large language models. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to assess the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Experiments on proprietary and open-source LLMs under various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but may increase abstention, while retrieval-augmented variants often maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation reveals a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.

By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur