Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.39339

Does the Citation Matter? Quality, Grounding, and Physician-Rubric Accuracy of Google's AI Overviews for Medical Information

Sam Agnoli·Brigid Reilly·Lily Barna·Emőke-Ágnes Horvát
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Google's AI Overviews (AIOs) are the first result users encounter when searching the web, shifting the work of selecting and evaluating sources from the user to Gemini. This may be especially consequential for health information, given that Google's traditional algorithm was designed to prioritize quality sources, and inaccurate information carries health risks. We evaluated 3,611 benchmark health questions, comparing each AIO against that question's top five traditional results on source selection and quality. We also evaluated the AIOs' statement grounding in their cited sources and how accurate AIOs were against physician-written rubrics. Overviews appeared for 96.4% of questions but drew on substantially different evidence than traditional search: only 44.4% of the top five results were cited by the corresponding AIO, which instead overrepresented commercial health publishers (e.g., WebMD, Healthline) at the expense of academic and government sources (e.g., Cleveland Clinic, National Health Service). AIO-cited pages scored lower than traditional results on four of six well-established credibility criteria. The grounding of AIO statements to their sources was poor: after correcting for classifier error, an estimated 56.7% of cited statements were supported by their cited page, and a further 20.8% of all statements were factual claims with no citation at all. When AIOs were graded against physicians' rubrics, they earned 38.2% of all available points (e.g., accuracy 54.2%, completeness 21.6%), and among the subset of AIOs whose physician rubric anticipated a specific inaccurate or potentially harmful claim, 22.2% of AIOs contained the harmful content. Notably, the accuracy of AIOs was unrelated to the grounding of their statements. We recommend AIO literacy interventions for users and holding AIOs at least to Google's own health-ranking standards.

Explore related subjects

cs.IRcs.CLcs.CYcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sam Agnoli, Brigid Reilly, Lily Barna, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2026-10-29. Does the Citation Matter? Quality, Grounding, and Physician-Rubric Accuracy of Google's AI Overviews for Medical Information. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39339

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of Generative AI: From One-Shot Recommendations to Conversational Group Decision Support

More than twenty-five years ago, early ideas emerged on how to design systems that provide recommendations to groups of users rather than individuals. Since then, a wide range of algorithmic approaches has been proposed to elicit individual preferences, aggregate them, and generate group recommendations. However, despite this substantial body of work, relatively few examples of real-world group recommender systems are in use. This observation invites reflection on the assumptions of the academic research, particularly regarding how inter-group communication unfolds and how recommendation-supported decisions should be made. In this essay, we suggest that some of these assumptions and corresponding system designs may not fully align with users' needs or expectations. We therefore outline a forward-looking perspective that explores how insights from group-decision making research and recent advances in Generative AI, including systems such as ChatGPT, could better inform the design of group recommender systems. As one possible direction, we consider settings in which human group members interact and exchange information through a chat based interface, while an AI-based agent supports the decision-making process. Such an approach may contribute to design more natural group and system interactions, and could help facilitate a broader adoption of group recommender systems in practice.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Membership Inference Attacks on Recommender System: A Survey

Recommender systems (RecSys) have been widely applied to various applications, including E-commerce, finance, healthcare, social media and have become increasingly influential in shaping user behavior and decision-making, highlighting their growing impact in various domains. However, recent studies have shown that RecSys are vulnerable to membership inference attacks (MIAs), which aim to infer whether user interaction record was used to train a target model or not. MIAs on RecSys models can directly lead to a privacy breach. For example, via identifying the fact that a purchase record that has been used to train a RecSys associated with a specific user, an attacker can infer that user's special quirks. In recent years, MIAs have been shown to be effective on other ML tasks, e.g., classification models and natural language processing. However, traditional MIAs are ill-suited for RecSys due to the unseen posterior probability. Although MIAs on RecSys form a newly emerging and rapidly growing research area, there has been no systematic survey on this topic yet. In this article, we conduct the first comprehensive survey on RecSys MIAs. This survey offers a comprehensive review of the latest advancements in RecSys MIAs, exploring the design principles, challenges, attack and defense associated with this emerging field. We provide a unified taxonomy that categorizes different RecSys MIAs based on their characterizations and discuss their pros and cons. Based on the limitations and gaps identified in this survey, we point out several promising future research directions to inspire the researchers who wish to follow this area. This survey not only serves as a reference for the research community but also provides a clear description for researchers outside this research domain.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Contrastive Retrieval Heads for Improved Attention-Based Reranking

The strong zero-shot and long-context capabilities of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have paved the way for highly effective re-ranking systems. Attention-based re-rankers leverage attention weights from transformer heads to produce relevance scores, but not all heads are created equally: many contribute noise and redundancy, thus limiting performance. To address this, we introduce CoRe heads, a small set of retrieval heads identified via a contrastive scoring metric that explicitly rewards high attention heads that correlate with relevant documents, while downplaying nodes with higher attention that correlate with irrelevant documents. This relative ranking criterion isolates the most discriminative heads for re-ranking and yields a state-of-the-art list-wise re-ranker. Extensive experiments with three LLMs show that aggregated signals from CoRe heads, constituting less than 1% of all heads, substantially improve re-ranking accuracy over strong baselines. We further find that CoRe heads are concentrated in middle layers, and pruning the computation of final 50% of model layers preserves accuracy while significantly reducing inference time and memory usage.

cs.IR↗