Useful for Exploration, Risky for Precision: Evaluating AI Tools in Academic Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10125v2
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 06:44:12 GMT
• Title: Useful for Exploration, Risky for Precision: Evaluating AI Tools in Academic Research
• Abstract summary: The present work proposes and applies a benchmarking framework combining human-centered and computer-centered metrics to evaluate AI-based Q&A and literature review tools for research use.<n>The findings suggest that Q&A tools can offer valuable overviews and generally accurate summaries; however, they are not always reliable for precise information extraction.<n>The findings underscore the importance of explainability features to enhance transparency, verification efficiency and careful integration of AI tools into researchers.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being incorporated into scientific research workflows with the potential to enhance efficiency in tasks such as document analysis, question answering (Q&A), and literature search. However, system outputs are often difficult to verify, lack transparency in their generation and remain prone to errors. Suitable benchmarks are needed to document and evaluate arising issues. Nevertheless, existing benchmarking approaches are not adequately capturing human-centered criteria such as usability, interpretability, and integration into research workflows. To address this gap, the present work proposes and applies a benchmarking framework combining human-centered and computer-centered metrics to evaluate AI-based Q&A and literature review tools for research use. The findings suggest that Q&A tools can offer valuable overviews and generally accurate summaries; however, they are not always reliable for precise information extraction. Explainable AI (xAI) accuracy was particularly low, meaning highlighted source passages frequently failed to correspond to generated answers. This shifted the burden of validation back onto the researcher. Literature review tools supported exploratory searches but showed low reproducibility, limited transparency regarding chosen sources and databases, and inconsistent source quality, making them unsuitable for systematic reviews. A comparison of these tool groups reveals a similar pattern: while AI tools can enhance efficiency in the early stages of the research workflow and shallow tasks, their outputs still require human verification. The findings underscore the importance of explainability features to enhance transparency, verification efficiency and careful integration of AI tools into researchers' workflows. Further, human-centered evaluation remains an important concern to ensure practical applicability.

Related papers

• 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)
• More Than "Means to an End": Supporting Reasoning with Transparently Designed AI Data Science Processes [12.407870690451027]
  We reflect on two AI data science systems designed for the medical setting.<n>We find that success in these systems was driven by constructing AI around intentionally-designed intermediate artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T23:47:54Z)
• AIDABench: AI Data Analytics Benchmark [62.45908988324612]
  AIDABench is a benchmark for evaluating AI systems on complex data analytics tasks in an end-to-end manner.<n>AIDABench encompasses 600+ diverse document analysis tasks across three core capability dimensions: question answering, data visualization, and file generation.<n>We evaluate 11 state-of-the-art models on AIDABench, spanning both proprietary (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro Preview) and open-source (e.g., Qwen3-Max-2026-01-23-Thinking) families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T08:58:05Z)
• Rethinking Artifact Evaluation for Software Engineering in the Age of Generative AI [20.515496306312873]
  We argue that artifact evaluation should be treated as a first-class component of peer review.<n>We frame peer review as an attention allocation problem, examine how generative AI weakens narrative quality as a signal of rigor, and argue that artifact evaluation should play a more prominent role in peer review decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T09:36:52Z)
• BrowseComp-Plus: A More Fair and Transparent Evaluation Benchmark of Deep-Research Agent [74.10138164281618]
  BrowseComp-Plus is a benchmark derived from BrowseComp, employing a fixed, carefully curated corpus.<n>This benchmark allows comprehensive evaluation and disentangled analysis of deep research agents and retrieval methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T17:55:11Z)
• Efficacy of AI RAG Tools for Complex Information Extraction and Data Annotation Tasks: A Case Study Using Banks Public Disclosures [0.0]
  We replicate an existing, challenging real-world annotation task with complex multi-part criteria on thousands of pages of public disclosure documents.<n>We find that when extrapolated to the full task, these methods could save up to 268 hours compared to the human-only approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T22:06:11Z)
• 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)
• ScholarMate: A Mixed-Initiative Tool for Qualitative Knowledge Work and Information Sensemaking [2.1783708115247866]
  We present ScholarMate, an interactive system designed to augment qualitative analysis by unifying AI assistance with human oversight.<n> ScholarMate enables researchers to dynamically arrange and interact with text snippets on a non-linear canvas, leveraging AI for theme suggestions, multi-level summarization, and evidence-based theme naming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T21:11:40Z)
• Horizon Scans can be accelerated using novel information retrieval and artificial intelligence tools [0.0]
  The study introduces SCANAR and AIDOC, open-source Python-based tools designed to improve horizon scanning.<n> SCANAR automates the retrieval and processing of news articles, offering functionalities such as de-duplication and unsupervised relevancy ranking.<n> AIDOC aids filtration by leveraging AI to reorder textual data based on relevancy, employing neural networks for semantic similarity, and subsequently prioritizing likely relevant entries for human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T11:33:08Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• Explainable Authorship Identification in Cultural Heritage Applications: Analysis of a New Perspective [48.031678295495574]
  We explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques on three different AId tasks. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T20:51:15Z)

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.