mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews

arXiv 2604.27790 ↗First posted 30 Apr 2026cs.IR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.

Builds on

17 of 62 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,075
  2. 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 575
  3. 2023Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Enginescited by 303
  4. 2024Bias and Unfairness in Information Retrieval Systems: New Challenges in the LLM Eracited by 98
  5. 2023Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thoughtcited by 87
  6. 2022Shopping Queries Dataset: A Large-Scale ESCI Benchmark for Improving Product Searchcited by 65
  7. 2018Tranco: A Research-Oriented Top Sites Ranking Hardened Against Manipulationcited by 63
  8. 2023GEO: Generative Engine Optimizationcited by 56
  9. 2023Neural Retrievers are Biased Towards LLM-Generated Contentcited by 38
  10. 2024Ranking Manipulation for Conversational Search Enginescited by 26
  11. 2017Measuring Personalization of Web Searchcited by 20
  12. 2024GASLITEing the Retrieval: Exploring Vulnerabilities in Dense Embedding-based Searchcited by 20
5 more
  1. 2025Generative Engine Optimization: How to Dominate AI Searchcited by 18
  2. 2023Invisible Relevance Bias: Text-Image Retrieval Models Prefer AI-Generated Imagescited by 13
  3. 2025NExT-Search: Rebuilding User Feedback Ecosystem for Generative AI Searchcited by 4
  4. 2025In a Few Words: Comparing Weak Supervision and LLMs for Short Query Intent Classificationcited by 2
  5. 2025Auditing LLM Editorial Bias in News Media Exposurecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.