Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Songjiang Liu

dblp:435/9691 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-6669-5951ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › retrieval models
generative retrieval
1.012026
How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval › search engines
search result analysis
1.012026
How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval
web search
1.012026
How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval
retrieval evaluation
0.312026
How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews
abstract
Generative AI is being increasingly integrated into web search for the convenience it provides users. In this work, we aim to understand how generative AI disrupts web search by retrieving and presenting the information and sources differently from traditional search engines. We introduce a public benchmark dataset of 11,500 user queries to support our study and future research of generative search. We compare the search results returned by Google's search engine, the accompanying AI Overview (AIO), and Gemini Flash 2.5 for each query. We have made several key findings. First, we find that for 51.5% of representative, real-user queries, AIOs are generated, and are displayed above the organic search results. Controversial questions frequently result in an AIO. Second, we show that the retrieved sources are substantially different for each search engine (<0.2 average Jaccard similarity). Traditional Google search is significantly more likely to retrieve information from popular or institutional websites in government or education, while generative search engines are significantly more likely to retrieve Google-owned content. Third, we observe that websites that block Google's AI crawler are significantly less likely to be retrieved by AIOs, despite having access to the content. Finally, AIOs are less consistent when processing two runs of the same query, and are less robust to minor query edits. Our findings have important implications for understanding how generative search impacts website visibility, the effectiveness of generative engine optimization techniques, and the information users receive. We call for revenue frameworks to foster a sustainable and mutually beneficial ecosystem for publishers and generative search providers.
Riley Grossman, Songjiang Liu, Michael K. Chen 0002, Cristian Borcea, Yi Chen 0001
SIGIR2