Generative AI Use in Professional Graduate Thesis Writing: Adoption, Perceived Outcomes, and the Role of a Research-Specialized Agent

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02792v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 06:58:22 GMT
• Title: Generative AI Use in Professional Graduate Thesis Writing: Adoption, Perceived Outcomes, and the Role of a Research-Specialized Agent
• Abstract summary: Survey of generative AI use among 83 MBA thesis students in Japan.<n>95.2% reported at least some use and 77.1% heavy use.<n>Students engaged AI across the full research-writing workflow.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper reports a survey of generative AI use among 83 MBA thesis students in Japan (target population 230; 36.1% response rate), conducted after thesis examiner evaluation. AI use was nearly universal: 95.2% reported at least some use and 77.1% heavy use. Students engaged AI across the full research-writing workflow - literature review, drafting, and consultation when stuck - reporting benefits centered on clearer argument and structure (82.3%), better revision quality (73.4%), and faster writing (70.9%), with a mean perceived quality improvement of 6.27 out of 7. Concerns about output accuracy (75.9%) and citation handling persisted alongside these gains. Among respondents who rated GAMER PAT, a research-specialized agent, against other AI, preferences significantly favored it for inquiry deepening and structural organization (both p < 0.05, exact binomial). A preliminary qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews further reveals active epistemic vigilance strategies and differentiated tool use across thesis phases. The central implication is not adoption itself but a shift in the educational challenge toward verification, source governance, and AI tool design - with GAMER PAT offering preliminary evidence that research-specialized scaffolding matters.

Related papers

• PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress [130.58520199343707]
  PaperDoctor is an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations.<n>First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments.<n>Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion.<n>Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:08:11Z)
• Bringing analytic rigor to agentic AI for science: The Brain Researcher platform for neuroimaging data analysis [59.44063760362954]
  We present Brain Researcher, an agentic research harness operating in a neuroimaging researcher's computational environment.<n>In benchmarks, Brain Researcher increased first-choice tool-selection accuracy across seven models by 70.2 percentage points.<n>In collaborator-led and self-evolving studies, multiverse analyses exposed analytic-choice sensitivity, and scientific review classified claims as accepted, qualified, revised, blocked, rejected or deferred.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T11:13:27Z)
• SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents [56.400332595452966]
  We introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures.<n>SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks.<n>We propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T09:09:00Z)
• 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)
• AI, Metacognition, and the Verification Bottleneck: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study of Human Problem-Solving [0.0]
  This pilot study tracked how generative AI reshapes problem-solving over six months in an academic setting.<n>Results generalize primarily to early-adopter, academically affiliated populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:49:04Z)
• Can Deep Research Agents Find and Organize? Evaluating the Synthesis Gap with Expert Taxonomies [57.11324429385405]
  We introduce TaxoBench, a diagnostic benchmark derived from 72 computer science surveys.<n>We manually extract expert-authored taxonomy trees containing 3,815 precisely categorized citations as ground truth.<n>Best agent recalls only 20.9% of expert-selected papers, and even with perfect input, the best model achieves only 0.31 ARI in organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T11:57:09Z)
• Reducing research bureaucracy in UK higher education: Can generative AI assist with the internal evaluation of quality? [0.0]
  This paper examines the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to assist with internal review processes for research quality evaluations in UK higher education.<n>We present an experimental methodology using ChatGPT to score and rank business and management papers from REF 2021 submissions, "reverse engineering" the assessment by comparing AI-generated scores with known institutional results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T15:48:04Z)
• Predicting ChatGPT Use in Assignments: Implications for AI-Aware Assessment Design [0.0]
  The study reveals that frequent use of ChatGPT for learning new concepts correlates with potential overreliance.<n>We propose discipline-specific guidelines and reimagined assessment strategies to balance innovation with academic rigor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-16T11:09:38Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)
• Agent-as-Tool: A Study on the Hierarchical Decision Making with Reinforcement Learning [1.1331292553789585]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as one of the most significant technological advancements in artificial intelligence.<n>We propose a hierarchical framework Agent-as-tool that detaches the tool calling process and the reasoning process.<n>Our work had achieved comparable results with only a slight reinforcement fine-tuning on 180 samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T08:49:43Z)
• Patterns and Purposes: A Cross-Journal Analysis of AI Tool Usage in Academic Writing [0.266512000865131]
  This study analyzed 168 AI declarations from 8,859 articles across 27 categories.<n>ChatGPT dominates academic writing assistance (77% usage), with significant differences in tool usage between native and non-native English speakers.<n>The study reveals that improving readability (51%) and grammar checking (22%) are the primary purposes of AI tool usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T02:44:33Z)

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.