arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2602.03849

HybridQuestion: Human-AI Collaboration for Identifying High-Impact Research Questions

Abstract

The "AI Scientist" paradigm is transforming scientific research by automating key stages of the research process, from idea generation to scholarly writing. This shift is expected to accelerate discovery and expand the scope of scientific inquiry. However, a key question remains unclear: can AI scientists identify meaningful research questions? While Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied successfully to task-specific ideation, their potential to conduct strategic, long-term assessments of past breakthroughs and future questions remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we explore a human-AI hybrid solution that integrates the scalable data processing capabilities of AI with the value judgment of human experts. Our methodology is structured in three phases. The first phase, AI-Accelerated Information Gathering, leverages AI's advantage in processing vast amounts of literature to generate a hybrid information base. The second phase, Candidate Question Proposing, utilizes this synthesized data to prompt an ensemble of six diverse LLMs to propose an initial candidate pool, filtered via a cross-model voting mechanism. The third phase, Hybrid Question Selection, refines this pool through a multi-stage filtering process that progressively increases human oversight. To validate this system, we conducted an experiment aiming to identify the Top 10 Scientific Breakthroughs of 2025 and the Top 10 Scientific Questions for 2026 across five major disciplines. Our analysis reveals that while AI agents demonstrate high alignment with human experts in recognizing established breakthroughs, they exhibit greater divergence in forecasting prospective questions, suggesting that human judgment remains crucial for evaluating subjective, forward-looking challenges.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Keyu Zhao, Fengli Xu, Yong Li, Tie-Yan Liu. 2025-12-18. HybridQuestion: Human-AI Collaboration for Identifying High-Impact Research Questions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03849

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC