Human-AI Collaboration in Science at Scale: A Global Large-scale Randomized Field Experiment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24180v1
• Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 20:06:17 GMT
• Title: Human-AI Collaboration in Science at Scale: A Global Large-scale Randomized Field Experiment
• Abstract summary: We deliver customized AI-based feedback for over 31,000 arXiv preprints.<n>Authors who received feedback had a significantly higher likelihood of revising their manuscripts.<n>These effects were strongest among authors from non-English-dominant research regions.
• Score: 30.183277651952196
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Collaboration is the defining mode of modern science, yet its core mechanism -- feedback -- remains hard to observe, difficult to scale, and unequally distributed. Here we test whether large language models (LLMs) can contribute to this hidden but vital practice and reallocate scientific feedback, an essential yet scarce resource for knowledge production. In a global large-scale randomized field experiment, we delivered customized LLM-generated feedback for over 31,000 arXiv preprints across 150 fields and more than 45,000 researchers from 133 geographic regions. Relative to controls, authors who received feedback had a significantly higher likelihood of revising their manuscripts, corresponding to a 12.55% relative increase over the baseline revision rate. Exposure to AI feedback also increased authors' subsequent use of LLM tools in their future papers, suggesting longer-run shifts in scientific practice. These effects were strongest among authors from non-English-dominant research regions, manuscripts less embedded in the scholarly literature, and teams with lower h-indexes and earlier career stages, consistent with the idea that AI feedback may provide the greatest benefit where access to timely critique is otherwise limited. Together, these findings provide causal evidence that structured AI-based interventions can transform access to scientific feedback from a largely private advantage into a more widely distributed resource, with broader implications for productivity, equity, and capacity across the global research system.

Related papers

• Return of the solo author: The changing division of labor in science in the age of generative A [0.0]
  We show that the decades-long decline in solo authorship halted and partially reversed with ChatGPT's public release in late 2022.<n>We also reveal that this is strongest in fields where coauthors' work is more readily replaceable, and weak or absent in fields that depend on physical collaboration.<n>This study offers an empirical probe of how generative AI can substitute for scientific labor, and evidence of a reconfiguration of cognitive labor within papers rather than of team size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T14:17:39Z)
• 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)
• APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System [44.44345338738518]
  The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review.<n>In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric.<n>Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T16:29:13Z)
• Towards a Science of Collective AI: LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems Need a Transition from Blind Trial-and-Error to Rigorous Science [70.3658845234978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have greatly extended the capabilities of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS)<n>Despite this rapid progress, the field still relies heavily on empirical trial-and-error.<n>This bottleneck stems from the ambiguity of attribution.<n>We propose a factor attribution paradigm to systematically identify collaboration-driving factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T04:19:52Z)
• Does GenAI Rewrite How We Write? An Empirical Study on Two-Million Preprints [15.070885964897734]
  Generative large language models (LLMs) introduce a further potential disruption by altering how manuscripts are written.<n>This paper addresses the gap through a large-scale analysis of more than 2.1 million preprints spanning 2016--2025 (115 months) across four major repositories.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs have accelerated submission and revision cycles, modestly increased linguistic complexity, and disproportionately expanded AI-related topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T01:37:40Z)
• XtraGPT: Context-Aware and Controllable Academic Paper Revision [43.263488839387584]
  We propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision centered on criteria-guided intent alignment and context-aware modeling.<n>We instantiate the framework in XtraGPT, the first suite of open-source LLMs for context-aware, instruction-guided writing assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T15:02:19Z)
• Advancing AI Research Assistants with Expert-Involved Learning [84.30323604785646]
  Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) promise to accelerate biomedical discovery, yet their reliability remains unclear.<n>We introduce ARIEL (AI Research Assistant for Expert-in-the-Loop Learning), an open-source evaluation and optimization framework.<n>We find that state-of-the-art models generate fluent but incomplete summaries, whereas LMMs struggle with detailed visual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T14:21:48Z)
• ResearchBench: Benchmarking LLMs in Scientific Discovery via Inspiration-Based Task Decomposition [67.26124739345332]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in assisting scientific research, yet their ability to discover high-quality research hypotheses remains unexamined.<n>We introduce the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLMs with a near-sufficient set of sub-tasks of scientific discovery.<n>We develop an automated framework that extracts critical components - research questions, background surveys, inspirations, and hypotheses - from scientific papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T08:09:15Z)
• SciRIFF: A Resource to Enhance Language Model Instruction-Following over Scientific Literature [97.31347312130119]
  SciRIFF (Scientific Resource for Instruction-Following and Finetuning) is a dataset of 137K instruction-following instances for training and evaluation, covering 54 tasks.<n>These tasks span five core scientific literature understanding capabilities: information extraction, summarization, question answering, claim verification, and classification.<n> SciRIFF is unique in being entirely expert-written, high-quality instruction-following dataset for extracting and synthesizing information from research literature across diverse scientific fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T21:22:08Z)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is an AI-based system for ideation and operationalization of novel work.<n>ResearchAgent automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them.<n>We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
  We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)

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.