Answer Bubbles: Information Exposure in AI-Mediated Search

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.

Google AI Overviews (AIOs) are arguably the most widely encountered deployment of generative AI, reaching over 2 billion users who may not realize the answers they see are AI-generated. Where search engines have traditionally surfaced ranked sources and left users to evaluate them, AIOs synthesize and deliver a single answer - giving Google unprecedented editorial control over what users read and know. We present a large-scale longitudinal measurement study, issuing 55,393 trending queries across 19 topical categories over a 40-day window (March 13 - April 21, 2026). We report four main findings. First, overall AIO activation is 13.7%, rising to 64.7% for question-form queries, while politically sensitive topics see markedly lower rates. Second, AIO-cited domains are more credible than co-displayed first-page results, yet nearly 30% do not appear in those results at all, indicating a source selection mechanism distinct from Google's ranking algorithm. Third, decomposing responses into 98,020 atomic claims, 11.0% are unsupported by the cited pages - with omission the dominant failure mode - and source quality and claim fidelity are largely independent. Fourth, well over half of AIO-cited pages carry display advertising, meaning publishers lose revenue when AIOs suppress the click-through, even as Google's own sponsored ads continue to appear on the same page. Together, these findings document a rapid transformation of the online information ecosystem whose consequences for epistemic security remain poorly understood.

AI-powered answer engines are inherently non-deterministic: identical queries submitted at different times can produce different responses and cite different sources. Despite this stochastic behavior, current approaches to measuring domain visibility in generative search typically rely on single-run point estimates of citation share and prevalence, implicitly treating them as fixed values. This paper argues that citation visibility metrics should be treated as sample estimators of an underlying response distribution rather than fixed values. We conduct an empirical study of citation variability across three generative search platforms--Perplexity Search, OpenAI SearchGPT, and Google Gemini--using repeated sampling across three consumer product topics. Two sampling regimes are employed: daily collections over nine days and high-frequency sampling at ten-minute intervals. We show that citation distributions follow a power-law form and exhibit substantial variability across repeated samples. Bootstrap confidence intervals reveal that many apparent differences between domains fall within the noise floor of the measurement process. Distribution-wide rank stability analysis further demonstrates that citation rankings are unstable across samples, not only among top-ranked domains but throughout the frequently cited domain set. These findings demonstrate that single-run visibility metrics provide a misleadingly precise picture of domain performance in generative search. We argue that citation visibility must be reported with uncertainty estimates and provide practical guidance for sample sizes required to achieve interpretable confidence intervals.