Direction, evidence grade, and study type are AI-generated labels (gpt-5-mini), not human-verified. Syntheses are LLM-written. "Tensions" are machine-detected candidates, not confirmed contradictions. A research-acceleration tool, not peer review.
How this is built →
2Distinct papers
11Unique collaborators
2/2Semantic Scholar citation coverage
Publication span: 2026. Corpus fetch span: 2026.
Identity provenance
Provider IDs
- Semantic Scholar:
2318129705
ORCID evidence
No valid ORCID is stored.
Observed aliases (1)
- Tianjun Feng (semantic scholar, provider refresh)
Topics and outcomes in this view
Assessment themes
- Human Ai Collab: 2 papers
- Adoption: 1 paper
- Org Design: 1 paper
- Productivity: 1 paper
Claim outcomes
- Output Quality: 2 papers
- Task Allocation: 2 papers
- Other: 1 paper
- Error Rate: 1 paper
- Task Completion Time: 1 paper
Papers in the Semantic Scholar view
Latest stored Semantic Scholar author observations only. Citation counts below are from the same provider and are not combined with other services.
Scroll the table horizontally to see every column.
| Paper | Author evidence | Date | Provider citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic AI trims customer-service handling time but chips away at satisfaction: Taobao's experiment shows faster chats and improved attention to non-AI cases, yet customer ratings fall for AI-resolved conversations. Human interventions patch technical failures effectively, but struggle to assuage emotionally escalated customers unless engaged early and intensively.arxiv | Tianjun Feng provider id |
2026-05-14 | 3 |
| A new industrial PHM benchmark finds leading LLM agents complete just 68% of realistic diagnostics and prognostics tasks, plagued by tool-orchestration errors and poor generalization; top configurations show 23% incorrect sequencing, a 14.9 percentage-point drop on multi-asset reasoning, and only 42.7% success on held-out datasets.arxiv | Tianjun Feng provider id |
2026-04-02 | 2 |
Citation observation summary
Semantic Scholar supplied counts for 2 of 2 papers in this view; 0 are missing. The observed paper counts sum to 5 cumulative citations. This is a coverage summary, not an author score or h-index.