Unsupervised automatic readability assessment (ARA) methods have important practical and research applications (e.g., ensuring medical or educational materials are suitable for their target audiences).In this paper, we propose a new zero-shot prompting methodology for ARA and present the first comprehensive evaluation of using large language models (LLMs) as an unsupervised ARA method by testing 10 diverse open-source LLMs (e.g., different sizes and developers) on 14 diverse datasets (e.g., different text lengths and languages).Our findings show that our proposed prompting methodology outperforms prior methods on 13 of the 14 datasets.Furthermore, we propose LAU-RAE, which combines LLM and readability formula scores to improve robustness by capturing both contextual and shallow (e.g., sentence length) features of readability.Our evaluation demonstrates that LAURAE robustly outperforms prior methods across languages, text lengths, and amounts of technical language.

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.

This paper presents a study of GDPR compliance under the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe's Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF). This framework provides digital advertising market participants a standard for sharing users' privacy consent choices. TCF is widely used across the Internet, and this paper presents a thorough experimental evaluation of both the compliance of websites with TCF and its impact on user privacy. We reviewed 2,230 websites that use TCF and accepted the automatic decline of user consent by our data collection system. Unlike previous work on GDPR compliance, we found that most websites using TCF properly record the user's consent choice. However, we found that 72.8% of the websites that were TCF compliant claimed legitimate interest as a rationale for overriding the consent choice. While legitimate interest is legal under GDPR, previous studies have shown that most users disagreed with how it is being used to collect data. Additionally, analysis of cookies set to the browsers indicates that TCF may not fully protect user privacy even when websites are compliant. Our research provides regulators and publishers with a data collection and analysis system to monitor compliance, detect non-compliance, and examine questionable practices of circumventing user consent choices using legitimate interest.