跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 07:27 — 2026-11-04 07:27(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv: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

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.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.IR · cs.CL · cs.CY · cs.HC
arXiv ↗PDF ↗