Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.10125

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

Anthea Dathe·Kiran Hoffmann·Aline Mangold
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anthea Dathe, Kiran Hoffmann, Aline Mangold. 2026-05-12. Useful for Exploration, Risky for Precision: Evaluating AI Tools in Academic Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10125

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI

Large language models (LLMs) are often praised for exhibiting near-human performance on a wide range of tasks and valued for their ability to hold a general conversation. The rise of agentic AI systems is, however, ushering in a mass of applications in which language models perform a small number of specialized tasks repetitively and with little variation. Here we lay out the position that small language models (SLMs) are sufficiently powerful, inherently more suitable, and necessarily more economical for many invocations in agentic systems, and are therefore the future of agentic AI. Our argumentation is grounded in the current level of capabilities exhibited by SLMs, the common architectures of agentic systems, and the economy of LM deployment. We further argue that in situations where general-purpose conversational abilities are essential, heterogeneous agentic systems (i.e., agents invoking multiple different models) are the natural choice. We discuss the potential barriers for the adoption of SLMs in agentic systems and outline a general LLM-to-SLM agent conversion algorithm. Our position, formulated as a value statement, highlights the significance of the operational and economic impact even a partial shift from LLMs to SLMs is to have on the AI agent industry. We aim to stimulate the discussion on the effective use of AI resources and hope to advance the efforts to lower the costs of AI of the present day. Calling for both contributions to and critique of our position, we commit to publishing all such correspondence at https://research.nvidia.com/labs/lpr/slm-agents.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

EndoCogniAgent: Closed-Loop Agentic Reasoning with Self-Consistency Validation for Endoscopic Diagnosis

Endoscopic diagnosis is an iterative process in which clinicians acquire, compare, and verify local visual evidence before reaching a conclusion. Current AI systems do not adequately support this process because fine-grained evidence acquisition and multi-step reasoning remain weakly coupled, complicating reconciliation of image-derived findings with their textual interpretations. This gives rise to two failure modes, hallucinated evidence and uncorrected error accumulation, that undermine diagnostic reliability. We propose EndoCogniAgent, a closed-loop agentic framework that formulates endoscopic diagnosis as a controlled state update process for integrating complementary visual and textual evidence. At each reasoning round, a central planner selects an evidence acquisition action, specialized expert tools extract spatial and semantic observations as structured textual evidence, and a self-consistency validation mechanism examines this evidence along two dimensions, knowledge consistency against the input image and temporal consistency with prior validated findings, before updating the diagnostic state. Validated observations are admitted into the evolving state to condition subsequent planning, while insufficiently supported or conflicting findings are retained with corrective feedback that redirects the planner toward additional verification. We further introduce EndoAgentBench, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 6,132 question-answer pairs from 11 endoscopic datasets, to evaluate diagnostic agents across a comprehensive diagnostic chain, from fine-grained visual perception to high-level diagnostic reasoning. EndoCogniAgent achieves 85.23% overall accuracy on perception tasks and 71.13% clinical acceptance rate on reasoning tasks. Blinded clinician evaluation further shows consistent improvements in diagnostic response quality over the evaluated baselines.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Navigating Taxonomic Expansions of Entity Sets Driven by Knowledge Bases

Recognizing similarities among entities is central to both human cognition and computational intelligence. Within this broader landscape, Entity Set Expansion is one prominent task aimed at taking an initial set of (tuples of) entities and identifying additional ones that share relevant semantic properties with the former, potentially repeating the process to form increasingly broader sets. However, this ``linear'' approach does not unveil the richer ``taxonomic'' structures present in knowledge resources. A recent logic-based framework introduces the notion of an expansion graph: a rooted directed acyclic graph where each node represents a semantic generalization labeled by a logical formula, and edges encode strict semantic inclusion. This structure supports taxonomic expansions of entity sets driven by knowledge bases. Yet, the potentially large size of such graphs may make full materialization impractical in real-world scenarios. To overcome this, we formalize reasoning tasks that check whether two tuples belong to comparable, incomparable, or the same nodes in the graph. Our results show that these tasks are intractable in general, that they remain intractable when the number of input tuples is bounded, and that they become solvable in polynomial time when the descriptions of the entities are small as well. The bounds we establish are tight. This enables local, incremental navigation of expansion graphs, supporting practical applications without requiring full graph construction.

cs.AI↗