Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Songjiang Liu
dblp:435/9691
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Information retrieval › retrieval models
generative retrieval |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026 |
Information retrieval › search engines
search result analysis |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026 |
Information retrieval
web search |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026 |
Information retrieval
retrieval evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews · SIGIR 2026 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI OverviewsabstractGenerative 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 |
SIGIR | 2 |