Riley Grossman

CL
h-index30
3papers
Novelty47%
AI Score44

3 Papers

CYOct 30, 2025
Using Salient Object Detection to Identify Manipulative Cookie Banners that Circumvent GDPR

Riley Grossman, Michael Smith, Cristian Borcea et al.

The main goal of this paper is to study how often cookie banners that comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) contain aesthetic manipulation, a design tactic to draw users' attention to the button that permits personal data sharing. As a byproduct of this goal, we also evaluate how frequently the banners comply with GDPR and the recommendations of national data protection authorities regarding banner designs. We visited 2,579 websites and identified the type of cookie banner implemented. Although 45% of the relevant websites have fully compliant banners, we found aesthetic manipulation on 38% of the compliant banners. Unlike prior studies of aesthetic manipulation, we use a computer vision model for salient object detection to measure how salient (i.e., attention-drawing) each banner element is. This enables the discovery of new types of aesthetic manipulation (e.g., button placement), and leads us to conclude that aesthetic manipulation is more common than previously reported (38% vs 27% of banners). To study the effects of user and/or website location on cookie banner design, we include websites within the European Union (EU), where privacy regulation enforcement is more stringent, and websites outside the EU. We visited websites from IP addresses in the EU and from IP addresses in the United States (US). We find that 13.9% of EU websites change their banner design when the user is from the US, and EU websites are roughly 48.3% more likely to use aesthetic manipulation than non-EU websites, highlighting their innovative responses to privacy regulation.

CLApr 27Code
Zero-shot Large Language Models for Automatic Readability Assessment

Riley Grossman, Yi Chen

Unsupervised automatic readability assessment (ARA) methods have important practical and research applications (e.g., ensuring medical or educational materials are suitable for their target audiences). In this paper, we propose a new zero-shot prompting methodology for ARA and present the first comprehensive evaluation of using large language models (LLMs) as an unsupervised ARA method by testing 10 diverse open-source LLMs (e.g., different sizes and developers) on 14 diverse datasets (e.g., different text lengths and languages). Our findings show that our proposed prompting methodology outperforms prior methods on 13 of the 14 datasets. Furthermore, we propose LAURAE, which combines LLM and readability formula scores to improve robustness by capturing both contextual and shallow (e.g., sentence length) features of readability. Our evaluation demonstrates that LAURAE robustly outperforms prior methods across languages, text lengths, and amounts of technical language.

IRApr 30
How Generative AI Disrupts Search: An Empirical Study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews

Riley Grossman, Songjiang Liu, Michael K. Chen et al.

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.