Papers
arxiv:2606.28356

SafeGEO: Understanding Generative Engine Optimization Risks in Recommendation Agents

Published on Jun 8
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) attacks can significantly increase the likelihood of flawed products being recommended, though simple defensive measures provide partial protection.

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) lets content owners rewrite web content to increase their visibility in generative systems. In recommendation agents, this creates a risk that seller-controlled sources make flawed products appear better supported than they are. We study this risk by asking whether recommendation agents preserve utility-aligned decisions when seller-controlled sources are rewritten for GEO. To make this question measurable, we construct SafeGEO, an evaluation suite with 22 GEO attack variants across 600 recommendation cases. We empirically show that GEO attacks can promote flawed target products. On average, they increase the rate at which such flawed products enter the recommendation set by up to 83.2%. We further study whether agent-side design choices can mitigate this risk and show that simple defenses, including defensive prompting and structured evidence checks, reduce harmful target promotion by up to 39.2%. These gains are substantial but do not restore the no-GEO performance, showing that GEO remains a serious risk despite developer-side mitigation.

Community

Paper author

Author here. We presented SafeGEO as an oral at EMNLP 2026 in Budapest on October 25. Thank you to everyone who came to Room F9–10.

The question: if a seller edits only its own product page, does a recommendation agent still pick what the user asked for? Across eight realistic GEO strategies, an unsuitable product reached the top three in 73–91% of cases on four systems; with matched truthful edits, 3–13% (September 4, 2026 results). An evidence check for each candidate helped most (Qwen3.6 27B: 78.3% → 39.1%), but not down to the 8.1% truthful baseline.

SafeGEO comes from Humanity’s Last Choice, an open research community studying whether AI recommendations hold when the options’ pages are edited to win the model. Our follow-up position paper proposes a common evaluation standard for GEO: 2610.23541. If you have a system to evaluate, a domain to add or a question, we’d be glad to hear from you.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2606.28356
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.28356 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 1

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.28356 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.