HLER: Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research via Multi-Agent Pipelines for Empirical Discovery

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.07444v1
• Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2026 03:40:34 GMT
• Title: HLER: Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research via Multi-Agent Pipelines for Empirical Discovery
• Abstract summary: We introduce HLER (Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research), a multi-agent architecture that supports empirical research automation.<n>The system orchestrates specialized agents for data auditing, data profiling, hypothesis generation, econometric analysis, manuscript drafting, and automated review.<n>Experiments show dataset-aware hypothesis generation produces feasible research questions in 87% of cases, while complete empirical manuscripts can be produced at an average API cost of $0.8-$1.5 per run.
• Score: 15.29303145822579
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have enabled agent-based systems that aim to automate scientific research workflows. Most existing approaches focus on fully autonomous discovery, where AI systems generate research ideas, conduct analyses, and produce manuscripts with minimal human involvement. However, empirical research in economics and the social sciences poses additional constraints: research questions must be grounded in available datasets, identification strategies require careful design, and human judgment remains essential for evaluating economic significance. We introduce HLER (Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research), a multi-agent architecture that supports empirical research automation while preserving critical human oversight. The system orchestrates specialized agents for data auditing, data profiling, hypothesis generation, econometric analysis, manuscript drafting, and automated review. A key design principle is dataset-aware hypothesis generation, where candidate research questions are constrained by dataset structure, variable availability, and distributional diagnostics, reducing infeasible or hallucinated hypotheses. HLER further implements a two-loop architecture: a question quality loop that screens and selects feasible hypotheses, and a research revision loop where automated review triggers re-analysis and manuscript revision. Human decision gates are embedded at key stages, allowing researchers to guide the automated pipeline. Experiments on three empirical datasets show that dataset-aware hypothesis generation produces feasible research questions in 87% of cases (versus 41% under unconstrained generation), while complete empirical manuscripts can be produced at an average API cost of $0.8-$1.5 per run. These results suggest that Human-AI collaborative pipelines may provide a practical path toward scalable empirical research.

Related papers

• Personalized Auto-Research: Towards a True AI Co-Scientist [90.01790420664169]
  Given a research goal, state-of-the-art systems remain researcher-agnostic.<n>What counts as novel, valuable, or feasible depends on the researcher.<n>We propose a framework that threads a graph-grounded researcher context through retrieval, hypothesis search, experimentation, writing, and review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T20:43:27Z)
• 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)
• AutoResearchBench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Complex Scientific Literature Discovery [55.70879973230979]
  AutoResearchBench is a benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery.<n>Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is research-oriented.<n>Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T06:05:17Z)
• Towards a Medical AI Scientist [73.6056699962416]
  We introduce Medical AI Scientist, the first autonomous research framework tailored to clinical autonomous research.<n>The framework operates under 3 research modes, namely paper-based reproduction, literature-inspired innovation, and task-driven exploration.<n>Our system achieves strong alignment between the proposed method and its implementation, while also demonstrating significantly higher success rates in executable experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T15:37:25Z)
• Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents [91.49742416116635]
  We build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses.<n>Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T16:27:17Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite [75.58737079136942]
  We present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research.<n>Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools.<n>Our evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T17:10:26Z)
• EpidemIQs: Prompt-to-Paper LLM Agents for Epidemic Modeling and Analysis [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to automate complex interdisciplinary research.<n>EpidemIQs is a novel multi-agent LLM framework that integrates user inputs and autonomously conducts literature review, analytical derivation, network modeling, invoking simulations, data visualization and analysis, and finally documentation of findings in a structured manuscript.<n>We evaluate EpidemIQs across different scenarios measuring computational cost, completion success rate, and AI and human expert reviews of generated reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T18:54:56Z)
• DatasetResearch: Benchmarking Agent Systems for Demand-Driven Dataset Discovery [26.388978716803464]
  Can AI agents transcend conventional search to systematically discover any dataset that meets specific user requirements?<n>Our benchmark and comprehensive analysis provide the foundation for the next generation of self-improving AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T12:15:08Z)
• Valid Inference with Imperfect Synthetic Data [39.10587411316875]
  We introduce a new estimator based on generalized method of moments.<n>We find that interactions between the moment residuals of synthetic data and those of real data can greatly improve estimates of the target parameter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T18:32:52Z)
• Automating Exploratory Multiomics Research via Language Models [22.302672656499315]
  PROTEUS is a fully automated system that produces data-driven hypotheses from raw data files.<n>We apply PROTEUS to clinical proteogenomics, a field where effective downstream data analysis and hypothesis proposal is crucial for producing novel discoveries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T09:44:21Z)
• A Computational Method for Measuring "Open Codes" in Qualitative Analysis [44.39424825305388]
  This paper presents a theory-informed computational method for measuring inductive coding results from humans and Generative AI (GAI)<n>It measures each coder's contribution against the merged result using four novel metrics: Coverage, Overlap, Novelty, and Divergence.<n>Our work provides a reliable pathway for ensuring methodological rigor in human-AI qualitative analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T00:44:56Z)
• BLADE: Benchmarking Language Model Agents for Data-Driven Science [21.682416167339635]
  LM-based agents equipped with planning, memory, and code execution capabilities have the potential to support data-driven science.<n>We present BLADE, a benchmark to automatically evaluate agents' multifaceted approaches to open-ended research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T02:59:35Z)
• Data-Centric AI in the Age of Large Language Models [51.20451986068925]
  This position paper proposes a data-centric viewpoint of AI research, focusing on large language models (LLMs) We make the key observation that data is instrumental in the developmental (e.g., pretraining and fine-tuning) and inferential stages (e.g., in-context learning) of LLMs. We identify four specific scenarios centered around data, covering data-centric benchmarks and data curation, data attribution, knowledge transfer, and inference contextualization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T16:34:07Z)
• Autonomous LLM-driven research from data to human-verifiable research papers [0.0]
  We build an automation platform that guides interacting through complete stepwise process. In mode provided annotated data alone, datapaper raised hypotheses, designed plans, wrote and interpreted analysis codes, generated and interpreted results. We demonstrate potential for AI-driven acceleration of scientific discovery while enhancing traceability, transparency and verifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T23:15:49Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)

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.