A Design Science Blueprint for an Orchestrated AI Assistant in Doctoral Supervision

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19227v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 04:20:35 GMT
• Title: A Design Science Blueprint for an Orchestrated AI Assistant in Doctoral Supervision
• Abstract summary: This study presents a design science blueprint for an orchestrated AI assistant and co-pilot in doctoral supervision that acts as a socio-technical mediator.<n>Risks in such a system exist, and among others, include AI over-reliance and the potential for the illusion of learning.<n>The contribution is an ex ante, literature-grounded design with workflow and governance rules that institutions can implement and trial across disciplines.
• Score: 7.136113739927491
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study presents a design science blueprint for an orchestrated AI assistant and co-pilot in doctoral supervision that acts as a socio-technical mediator. Design requirements are derived from Stakeholder Theory and bounded by Academic Integrity. We consolidated recent evidence on supervision gaps and student wellbeing, then mapped issues to adjacent large language model capabilities using a transparent severity-mitigability triage. The artefact assembles existing capabilities into one accountable agentic AI workflow that proposes retrieval-augmented generation and temporal knowledge graphs, as well as mixture-of-experts routing as a solution stack of technologies to address existing doctoral supervision pain points. Additionally, a student context store is proposed, which introduces behaviour patches that turn tacit guidance into auditable practice and student-set thresholds that trigger progress summaries, while keeping authorship and final judgement with people. We specify a student-initiated moderation loop in which assistant outputs are routed to a supervisor for review and patching, and we analyse a reconfigured stakeholder ecosystem that makes information explicit and accountable. Risks in such a system exist, and among others, include AI over-reliance and the potential for the illusion of learning, while guardrails are proposed. The contribution is an ex ante, literature-grounded design with workflow and governance rules that institutions can implement and trial across disciplines.

Related papers

• On Automated and Explainable Provenance of AI-Generated Code [56.818202904805446]
  We argue that the next generation of CodeGenAI tools must be built on a foundation of explainable provenance.<n>We describe a research program combining large-scale empirical studies with post-hoc causal and interpretability techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:50:31Z)
• Educating the Agentic Engineer: Curricula, Collaboration, and Continuous Learning in the AI Era [0.0]
  Generative and agentic artificial intelligence (AI) are reconfiguring software and systems engineering from a discipline centered on human authorship to one focused on directing, verifying, and governing autonomous systems.<n>This article presents an integrative conceptual synthesis across engineering education, computing education, human-AI interaction, human factors, and the learning sciences to derive an evidence-grounded educational architecture for this archetype.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T16:45:36Z)
• Generative AI as a Design Variable: An Evidence-Centered Framework for Principled Governance in STEM Assessment [4.027696535560039]
  Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents a governance challenge for STEM assessment.<n>Unrestricted GenAI access enables task outsourcing that undermines the validity of traditional assessments.<n>This paper proposes a framework that treats GenAI as a design variable within the assessment argument rather than an external threat to it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T03:06:34Z)
• Beyond AI Delegation: A Prompt Pattern Framework for Productive Struggle and Evaluative Judgement in Secure Coding Education [0.45706494756895794]
  Large language models make it easy for students to delegate writing, analysis, and problem-solving to automated systems.<n>We introduce a practical framework that helps educators keep GenAI in the course without removing the cognitive demands that make it worthwhile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T07:35:49Z)
• AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide [107.0834449839233]
  We present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle.<n>We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy.<n>We show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:08:26Z)
• AI to Learn 2.0: A Deliverable-Oriented Governance Framework and Maturity Rubric for Opaque AI in Learning-Intensive Domains [0.0]
  Generative AI is entering research, education, and professional work faster than current governance frameworks can specify how AI-assisted outputs should be judged.<n>This paper proposes AI to Learn 2.0, a deliverable-oriented governance framework for AI-assisted work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T11:44:43Z)
• Steering LLMs via Scalable Interactive Oversight [74.12746881843044]
  Large Language Models increasingly automate complex, long-horizon tasks such as emphvibe coding, a supervision gap has emerged.<n>It presents a critical challenge in scalable oversight: enabling humans to responsibly steer AI systems on tasks that surpass their own ability to specify or verify.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T04:52:00Z)
• On the Paradoxical Interference between Instruction-Following and Task Solving [50.75960598434753]
  Instruction following aims to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent by specifying explicit constraints on how tasks should be performed.<n>We reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: instruction following can paradoxically interfere with LLMs' task-solving capability.<n>We propose a metric, SUSTAINSCORE, to quantify the interference of instruction following with task solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T17:48:56Z)
• The Competence Crisis: A Design Fiction on AI-Assisted Research in Software Engineering [1.7892096882914865]
  Rising publication pressure and the routine use of generative AI tools are reshaping how software engineering research is produced, assessed, and taught.<n>This vision paper employs Design Fiction as a methodological lens to examine how such concerns might materialise if current practices persist.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T14:07:19Z)
• The Vibe-Check Protocol: Quantifying Cognitive Offloading in AI Programming [5.584060970507507]
  Vibe Coding'' is a paradigm where developers articulate high-level intent through natural language and delegate implementation to AI agents.<n>This paper proposes a theoretical framework to investigate the research question: textitIs Vibe Coding a better way to learn software engineering?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T06:13:41Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Reasoning Is All You Need for Urban Planning AI [3.3943213418026126]
  This paper presents the Agentic Urban Planning AI Framework for reasoning-capable planning agents.<n>It integrates three cognitive layers (Perception, Foundation, Reasoning) with six logic components (Analysis, Generation, Verification, Evaluation, Collaboration, Decision) through a multi-agents collaboration framework.<n>We show how AI agents can augment human planners by systematically exploring solution spaces, verifying regulatory compliance, and deliberating over trade-offs transparently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T15:59:06Z)
• Beyond Automation: Socratic AI, Epistemic Agency, and the Implications of the Emergence of Orchestrated Multi-Agent Learning Architectures [0.0]
  Generative AI is no longer a peripheral tool in higher education.<n>This paper presents findings from a controlled experiment evaluating a Socratic AI Tutor.<n>Students using the Tutor reported significantly greater support for critical, independent, and reflective thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T07:49:03Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Reflexive Prompt Engineering: A Framework for Responsible Prompt Engineering and Interaction Design [0.0]
  Article examines how strategic prompt engineering can embed ethical and legal considerations directly into AI interactions.<n>It proposes a framework for responsible prompt engineering that encompasses five interconnected components.<n>The analysis reveals that effective prompt engineering requires a delicate balance between technical precision and ethical consciousness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T18:51:32Z)
• Training Turn-by-Turn Verifiers for Dialogue Tutoring Agents: The Curious Case of LLMs as Your Coding Tutors [29.04639728020965]
  We propose a novel agent workflow, Trace-and-Verify (TRAVER), which combines knowledge tracing to estimate a student's knowledge state and turn-by-turn verification to ensure effective guidance toward task completion.<n>Our approach can be extended beyond coding, providing valuable insights into advancing tutoring agents for human task learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T22:13:00Z)
• Challenges for Responsible AI Design and Workflow Integration in Healthcare: A Case Study of Automatic Feeding Tube Qualification in Radiology [35.284458448940796]
  Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are feeding tubes that are inserted through the nose into the stomach to deliver nutrition or medication. Recent AI developments demonstrate the feasibility of robustly detecting NGT placement from Chest X-ray images. We present a human-centered approach to the problem and describe insights derived following contextual inquiry and in-depth interviews with 15 clinical stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T14:16:22Z)
• Ask-AC: An Initiative Advisor-in-the-Loop Actor-Critic Framework [41.04606578479283]
  We introduce a novel initiative advisor-in-the-loop actor-critic framework, termed as Ask-AC. At the heart of Ask-AC are two complementary components, namely action requester and adaptive state selector. Experimental results on both stationary and non-stationary environments demonstrate that the proposed framework significantly improves the learning efficiency of the agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T10:58:11Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.