Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.15771

What Do Chinese-Language Generative Search Engines Cite and Surface? A Large-Scale Empirical Study

Tao Zhen·Yue Liu·Gege Zhang·Yixuan Niu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generative AI question-answering systems increasingly mediate information access, shifting content visibility from ranked search results to retrieval, citation, and presentation in generated answers. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of Chinese-language generative search across the Web and App interfaces of four mainstream platforms. The controlled design covers eight platform interfaces, 614 queries, and three replications per query-platform-interface combination. From 214,119 raw records, we construct a cleaned citation-level dataset of 160,860 records and analyze citation behavior, source attribution, entity exposure, and cross-interface consistency. Five findings emerge. First, brands in the citation pool were selectively surfaced in answers: the overall brand-selection rate was 8.3%, and 12.4% of retrieved sources containing contact information contributed contact information to answers. Second, content fit, cross-source occurrence count, and semantic role were relatively important in predictive models, whereas the 5118-Baidu Composite Quality Score was not the leading predictor for any examined outcome. Third, among cited pages with publication dates, fitted half-lives were approximately 39 days for high-timeliness queries and 68 days for low-timeliness queries. Fourth, approximately 13% of brand exposures could not be matched to the contemporaneous citation pool, and approximately 71% of contact-information exposures could not be matched to the crawled body text. Fifth, source sets differed systematically between the App and Web interfaces of the same platform. These results characterize how Chinese-language generative search systems select, attribute, and surface information and show that interface type is an important dimension of analysis.

Explore related subjects

cs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tao Zhen, Yue Liu, Gege Zhang, Yixuan Niu. 2026-07-17. What Do Chinese-Language Generative Search Engines Cite and Surface? A Large-Scale Empirical Study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15771

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Parameterized Dense-Sparse Fusion for Hybrid Retrieval: Tuning a Rank-Score Mix on BEIR SciFact with Qdrant

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

From Ranked Documents to Reliable Contexts: An Answer-Oriented Context Construct Framework for AI Search

Traditional Web search follows a human-facing paradigm in which users inspect ranked documents and synthesize information themselves. In AI Search, retrieved documents instead serve as inputs to a generation model, shifting the retrieval objective from ranking documents by Search Satisfaction to constructing reliable context for correct answer generation. We formulate this shift as answer-oriented context construction through a three-stage framework: (1) Answer Support identifies candidate documents that contribute information to answer generation; (2) Content Trustworthiness assesses whether this information provides a reliable basis for correct answers from source, temporal, and factual perspectives; and (3) Context Organization selects, consolidates, and structures retained information under a finite context budget for consistent and robust generation. We further develop an industrial workflow spanning prior and posterior optimization and establish a systematic evaluation protocol covering both retrieval-side context and final answers. Experiments show consistent improvements at both Retrieval and Answer levels, demonstrating the effectiveness of the framework and its industrial implementation.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Robust Fusion of Semantic and Behavioural Signals for LLM Reranking in Personalised Search

Personalised search must satisfy query intent while incorporating user context and historical interactions. LLM-based cross-encoders provide a single reranking interface, but injecting predictive behavioural statistics into their prompts can encourage shortcut learning: reliance on historical signals at the expense of semantic and user-context patterns that generalise to sparse or unseen searches. We study this problem in the personalised search system of a large-scale audio streaming platform using Query Slice Stats (QSS), an interaction-derived behavioural feature summarising historical success for query-candidate pairs. Naive QSS injection improves ranking when the feature is available but reduces robustness when it is removed. We address this with deterministic dual-sample feature-dropout training, which presents each example once with QSS included and once with QSS removed. Offline, QSS injection improves ranking quality by 13.3% when available. Dual-sample training preserves these gains while improving performance under QSS-removed evaluation by 4.0% relative to naive QSS training. In a live online test, both QSS-aware variants improve search success by roughly 2%. The aggregate test does not distinguish dual-sample from features-only training; the cold-start comparison is directionally consistent with the offline results. Paired feature-present and feature-removed training can therefore reduce the tension between exploiting strong behavioural statistics and remaining robust when they are unavailable.

cs.IR↗