Evidence (3103 claims)
Adoption
5267 claims
Productivity
4560 claims
Governance
4137 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
3103 claims
Labor Markets
2506 claims
Innovation
2354 claims
Org Design
2340 claims
Skills & Training
1945 claims
Inequality
1322 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 378 | 106 | 59 | 455 | 1007 |
| Governance & Regulation | 379 | 176 | 116 | 58 | 739 |
| Research Productivity | 240 | 96 | 34 | 294 | 668 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 370 | 82 | 63 | 35 | 553 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 296 | 118 | 66 | 29 | 513 |
| Firm Productivity | 277 | 34 | 68 | 10 | 394 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 117 | 177 | 44 | 24 | 364 |
| Output Quality | 244 | 61 | 23 | 26 | 354 |
| Market Structure | 107 | 123 | 85 | 14 | 334 |
| Decision Quality | 168 | 74 | 37 | 19 | 301 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 75 | 52 | 32 | 21 | 187 |
| Employment Level | 70 | 32 | 74 | 8 | 186 |
| Skill Acquisition | 89 | 32 | 39 | 9 | 169 |
| Firm Revenue | 96 | 34 | 22 | — | 152 |
| Innovation Output | 106 | 12 | 21 | 11 | 151 |
| Consumer Welfare | 70 | 30 | 37 | 7 | 144 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 52 | 61 | 13 | 3 | 129 |
| Inequality Measures | 24 | 68 | 31 | 4 | 127 |
| Task Allocation | 75 | 11 | 29 | 6 | 121 |
| Training Effectiveness | 55 | 12 | 12 | 16 | 96 |
| Error Rate | 42 | 48 | 6 | — | 96 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 45 | 32 | 11 | 6 | 94 |
| Task Completion Time | 78 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 89 |
| Wages & Compensation | 46 | 13 | 19 | 5 | 83 |
| Team Performance | 44 | 9 | 15 | 7 | 76 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 39 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 52 |
| Automation Exposure | 18 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 50 |
| Job Displacement | 5 | 31 | 12 | — | 48 |
| Social Protection | 21 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 39 |
| Developer Productivity | 29 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 36 |
| Worker Turnover | 10 | 12 | — | 3 | 25 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 3 | 19 | 2 | — | 24 |
| Creative Output | 15 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 24 |
| Labor Share of Income | 10 | 4 | 9 | — | 23 |
Human Ai Collab
Remove filter
Leaders' AI symbolization strengthens AI's positive effect on employees' sense of self-determination.
Moderation analysis within the same four-stage longitudinal survey of 285 finance professionals; leader AI symbolization tested as moderator of AI usage -> sense of self-determination path.
AI usage can boost innovative work behavior by enhancing employees' sense of self-determination.
Four-stage longitudinal study (survey) of finance professionals (N=285); mediation analysis testing AI usage -> sense of self-determination -> innovative work behavior, grounded in SOR theory.
Retrieval substantially improves reasoning over textual fundamentals.
Result reported from the experiments comparing zero-shot prompting to retrieval-augmented settings on fundamentals-focused questions; the paper asserts that retrieval provided substantial improvement for textual fundamentals reasoning.
Human-AI systems should be designed under a cognitive sustainability constraint so that gains in hybrid performance do not come at the cost of degradation in human expertise.
Normative recommendation in the paper based on the conceptual/mathematical framework and the identified trade-off; presented as an argument rather than empirically validated policy outcome in the excerpt.
Together, these quantities provide a low-dimensional metric space for evaluating whether human-AI systems achieve genuine synergistic performance and whether such performance is cognitively sustainable for the human component over time.
Claim about the utility of the defined metrics, supported within the paper by the conceptual/mathematical framework and the proposed metric definitions (theoretical demonstration rather than reported empirical validation in the excerpt).
The paper defines a set of operational metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), the Dependency Ratio (D), the Human Reliance Index (HRI), and the Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR).
Explicit listing of newly proposed operational metrics in the paper; this is a descriptive claim about the paper's content (theoretical definitions), no sample size or empirical estimation provided in the excerpt.
The paper introduces a conceptual and mathematical framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (AI improves hybrid human-AI performance while preserving human expertise) from cognitive delegation (reasoning is progressively outsourced to AI).
Explicit contribution claim in the paper (description of a conceptual and mathematical framework); evidence consists of the model and formal definitions presented in the paper (no external empirical validation reported in the excerpt).
Given these findings, policymakers should favor 'strategic forbearance'—apply existing laws rather than create new regulations that could stifle innovation and diffusion of AI.
Authors' normative policy recommendation based on their interpretation of the reviewed empirical literature (risk–benefit assessment); this is a prescriptive conclusion rather than an empirical finding, so no sample size applies.
Generative AI lowers entry costs for startups, facilitating new firm entry and product development.
Cited empirical and descriptive evidence in the literature review indicating reduced development costs and faster product prototyping enabled by AI tools; the brief does not provide a pooled sample size or a single quantitative estimate.
Generative AI significantly boosts productivity in specific tasks like coding, writing, and customer service—often by 15% to 50%.
Synthesis/review of empirical literature through 2025 (multiple empirical studies of task-level impacts, including field and lab studies and observational analyses); the brief reports aggregate reported effect ranges but does not list a single pooled sample size.
The AgentDS benchmark datasets are open-sourced and available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/lainmn/AgentDS.
Paper includes link to the open-source datasets and the AgentDS website.
The strongest solutions arise from human-AI collaboration.
Analysis of competition results showing top-performing submissions employed human-AI collaborative approaches rather than AI-only baselines (results from 29 teams / 80 participants).
We introduce AgentDS, a benchmark and competition designed to evaluate both AI agents and human-AI collaboration performance in domain-specific data science.
Paper describes the creation of the AgentDS benchmark and an associated competition as the study's primary methodological contribution.
Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) agents have significantly automated data science workflow.
Statement in the paper referencing recent developments in LLMs and AI agents; presented as motivation rather than validated empirically within the paper.
Data science plays a critical role in transforming complex data into actionable insights across numerous domains.
Background statement in the paper (no empirical test or dataset provided to support this claim).
LLM-generated peer reviews assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher than human reviews.
Analysis of scores in the conference peer review dataset comparing LLM-generated vs human reviews; the excerpt states an average increase of one full point but does not include sample size or scale range.
About 21% of scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference were AI-generated (LLM-generated) in the wild.
Analysis of peer reviews from a recent top AI conference reported in the paper; the excerpt reports the 21% figure but does not give total number of reviews in the excerpt.
Even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning.
Experiment in which LLMs were given expert feedback and explicit instructions to perform only grammar edits; comparisons show significant semantic alteration despite constrained instructions; sample size not provided.
Using a dataset of human-written essays (collected in 2021 before widespread LLM release), asking an LLM to revise essays based on human-written feedback induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning.
Controlled experiments applying LLM revision to a pre-LLM essay dataset and comparing pre- and post-revision content/semantics; dataset described as collected in 2021 but sample size not stated in the excerpt.
In a human user study, extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question.
Human user study reported in the paper; the excerpt gives the quantified result (nearly 70% increase) but does not report sample size here.
LLMs consistently alter the intended meaning of human writing.
Experiments in which human-written essays were revised by LLMs (including prompts asking only for grammar edits) and comparison of pre- and post-LLM text semantics; exact sample sizes not stated in the excerpt.
LLMs alter the voice and tone of human writing.
Reported results from a human user study and subsequent experiments comparing original human-written text to LLM-assisted/LLM-revised text; sample sizes not provided in the excerpt.
Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing.
Statement in paper (likely based on external usage statistics or surveys cited by authors); no sample size reported in the provided text.
End-to-end verified pipelines can produce provably correct code from informal specifications.
The paper surveys early research demonstrating pipelines that go from informal specifications to formally verified code; the provided text does not include experimental sample sizes or benchmarks.
AI-generated postconditions catch real-world bugs missed by prior methods.
Surveyed early research asserted by the paper indicating empirical instances where AI-generated postconditions found bugs that other methods missed; no numeric details provided in the excerpt.
Interactive test-driven formalization improves program correctness.
Paper surveys early research that reportedly demonstrates this effect (described as 'interactive test-driven formalization that improves program correctness'); the excerpt does not include specific study details or sample sizes.
The central bottleneck is validating specifications: since there is no oracle for specification correctness other than the user, we need semi-automated metrics that can assess specification quality with or without code, through lightweight user interaction and proxy artifacts such as tests.
Analytical claim and research agenda item in the paper; motivates need for new metrics and interaction designs. No empirical validation or sample size reported in the excerpt.
Intent formalization offers a tradeoff spectrum suitable to the reliability needs of different contexts: from lightweight tests that disambiguate likely misinterpretations, through full functional specifications for formal verification, to domain-specific languages from which correct code is synthesized automatically.
Conceptual framework proposed in the paper describing a spectrum of specification formality; presented as an argument rather than an empirical finding, with no sample sizes provided in the excerpt.
Intent formalization — translating informal user intent into checkable formal specifications — is the key challenge that will determine whether AI makes software more reliable or merely more abundant.
Normative argument presented by the authors as the central thesis of the paper; no empirical study or sample size cited in the provided text.
Agentic AI systems can now generate code with remarkable fluency.
Authoritative assertion in the paper based on contemporary observations of large code-generating models; no empirical sample size or benchmark numbers reported in the text provided.
The initially selected candidates determine both the benchmark of success and the direction of improvement.
Theoretical result asserted by the authors based on analysis of the closed-loop system (paper's analytical finding).
Rejected individuals exert effort to improve actionable features along directions implied by the decision rule.
Model assumption and dynamic behavior encoded in the proposed framework (assumption/behavioral mechanism in the model).
External inputs that bypass internal filtering shorten recognition delays (i.e., speed up detection of regime shifts).
Model extensions/analysis showing that when some inputs are allowed to bypass internal exclusion mechanisms, the dynamics of anchor updating detect regime changes faster; result comes from theoretical model manipulations, not empirical testing.
In a preregistered mediation model, perceived accountability mediated the AI-over-questionnaire effect on goal progress (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]).
Mediation analysis preregistered and reported in the paper using data from the RCT (N = 517); indirect effect estimate 0.15 with 95% confidence interval [0.04, 0.31].
The AI chatbot produced significantly higher goal progress than the no-support control at two-week follow-up.
Between-groups comparison in the preregistered RCT (N = 517); reported effect size d = 0.33 and p = .016 for AI vs control on goal progress measured at two-week follow-up.
The authors provide a demo video, a hosted website, and an installable package demonstrating JobMatchAI.
Paper explicitly states availability of a demo video, a hosted website, and an installable package. No links, access dates, or artifact verification details are provided in the excerpt.
The authors provide a hybrid retrieval stack combining BM25, a skill knowledge graph, and semantic components to evaluate skill generalization.
Paper describes a hybrid retrieval stack composed of BM25, a knowledge graph, and semantic retrieval components intended for evaluation of skill generalization. No evaluation metrics or comparisons are included in the excerpt.
The authors release JobSearch-XS benchmark.
Paper explicitly states release of the JobSearch-XS benchmark. No dataset size, annotation protocol, or access URL provided in the excerpt.
JobMatchAI integrates Transformer embeddings, skill knowledge graphs, and interpretable reranking.
Statement in paper describing system architecture and components (implementation claim). No quantitative implementation details or component-level ablation results provided in the supplied excerpt.
TDAD (Test-Driven Agentic Development) combines abstract-syntax-tree (AST) based code-test graph construction with weighted impact analysis to surface the tests most likely affected by a proposed change.
Description of the tool/methodology and its implementation (TDAD is presented as an open-source tool in the paper).
On the LoCoMo benchmark, the architecture achieves 74.8% overall accuracy.
Benchmark evaluation reported in the paper using the LoCoMo benchmark with a reported overall accuracy of 74.8%.
Adversarial governance compliance was 100%.
Adversarial compliance testing reported in the paper (linked to the adversarial query experiments); reported compliance = 100%.
There was zero cross-entity leakage across 500 adversarial queries.
Adversarial testing reported in the paper: 500 adversarial queries used to test cross-entity leakage; result = zero leakage.
Progressive context delivery yielded a 50% token reduction.
Reported experimental result in the controlled experiments indicating token usage reduction from progressive delivery = 50%.
Governance routing precision was 92% in the experiments.
Reported experimental metric from the controlled experiments (N=250, five content types) showing governance routing precision = 92%.
The system achieved 99.6% fact recall (with complementary dual-modality coverage) in the controlled experiments.
Reported experimental result from the controlled experiments (N=250, five content types) as stated in the paper.
The study's strengths include multimethod triangulation, a very large behavioral dataset (150 million interactions), and controlled simulation experiments informed by empirical observation.
Methods reported: mixed‑methods sequential design with (1) 6‑month lab ethnography (n = 23), (2) computational analysis of 150 million customer interactions, and (3) empirically grounded agent‑based simulation experiments.
The Algorithmic Canvas is an operational medium where segmentation, targeting, and positioning parameters co‑evolve through iterative human–AI collaboration.
Design and implementation described in the study; observation of Canvas‑mediated interactions during a 6‑month lab ethnography inside a Fortune 500 company (n = 23).
Autopoietic STP + Algorithmic Canvas approach is 44% more resilient to market shocks than traditional, process‑based STP (p < 0.01).
Agent‑based simulations and comparative analyses informed by empirical calibration; supported by large‑scale behavioral data (150 million customer interactions) and simulation experiments. Statistical test reported with p < 0.01. Exact number of simulation runs and full test details not specified in the summary.
Rigorous research priorities include randomized controlled trials with long-run follow-ups, cost-effectiveness studies, structural adoption models, and validated metrics for feedback quality and learning durability.
Actionable research recommendations produced by the 50-scholar interdisciplinary meeting; prescriptive synthesis rather than empirical results.