Evidence (4175 claims)
Adoption
8570 claims
Productivity
7631 claims
Governance
6869 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
6491 claims
Org Design
4175 claims
Innovation
4114 claims
Labor Markets
3566 claims
Skills & Training
2966 claims
Inequality
2066 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 758 | 199 | 100 | 900 | 2007 |
| Governance & Regulation | 826 | 400 | 191 | 122 | 1563 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 777 | 193 | 124 | 84 | 1189 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 635 | 233 | 124 | 97 | 1098 |
| Research Productivity | 422 | 128 | 57 | 336 | 954 |
| Output Quality | 476 | 179 | 59 | 47 | 761 |
| Decision Quality | 328 | 177 | 81 | 47 | 640 |
| Firm Productivity | 435 | 57 | 88 | 20 | 606 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 218 | 277 | 65 | 33 | 599 |
| Market Structure | 180 | 170 | 123 | 24 | 502 |
| Task Allocation | 213 | 64 | 72 | 33 | 387 |
| Skill Acquisition | 170 | 61 | 61 | 17 | 309 |
| Innovation Output | 203 | 27 | 43 | 18 | 292 |
| Employment Level | 105 | 54 | 107 | 13 | 281 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 131 | 69 | 43 | 26 | 276 |
| Consumer Welfare | 117 | 63 | 42 | 11 | 233 |
| Firm Revenue | 153 | 48 | 26 | 3 | 230 |
| Task Completion Time | 173 | 31 | 8 | 12 | 225 |
| Inequality Measures | 44 | 122 | 49 | 6 | 221 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 89 | 65 | 22 | 12 | 188 |
| Error Rate | 69 | 92 | 10 | 2 | 173 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 77 | 69 | 14 | 5 | 165 |
| Automation Exposure | 56 | 56 | 26 | 13 | 154 |
| Training Effectiveness | 94 | 21 | 13 | 19 | 149 |
| Wages & Compensation | 77 | 36 | 25 | 6 | 144 |
| Team Performance | 86 | 17 | 27 | 10 | 141 |
| Developer Productivity | 95 | 17 | 14 | 6 | 133 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 113 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 52 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 70 |
| Creative Output | 31 | 18 | 8 | 3 | 61 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 5 | 46 | 6 | 1 | 58 |
| Social Protection | 27 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 53 |
| Labor Share of Income | 17 | 19 | 17 | — | 53 |
| Worker Turnover | 11 | 12 | — | 3 | 26 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Org Design
Remove filter
Adoption intention for AI marketing strongly predicts brand loyalty (Adoption Intention → Brand Loyalty: standardized β = 0.717, p < .001).
Cross-sectional survey (n = 450 Gen Z); SEM (SPSS AMOS); reported standardized path coefficient β = 0.717 with p < .001.
Trust in AI-driven marketing directly increases Generation Z consumers' brand loyalty (Trust → Brand Loyalty: standardized β = 0.410, p < .001).
Cross-sectional survey (n = 450 Gen Z); SEM (SPSS AMOS); reported standardized path coefficient β = 0.410 with p < .001.
Trust in AI-driven marketing has a strong positive effect on Generation Z consumers' intention to adopt AI marketing (Trust → Adoption Intention: standardized β = 0.718, p < .001).
Cross-sectional survey (n = 450 Generation Z respondents); analysis via Structural Equation Modeling (SPSS AMOS); reported standardized path coefficient β = 0.718 with p < .001.
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.
Policy recommendations include standards on explainability, audit trails, certification for finance/tax AI systems, stronger data governance, and public–private coordination to update regulatory guidance.
Paper's policy and governance recommendations drawn from case findings and literature synthesis; prescriptive content rather than evaluated interventions.
Deployments should build governance, explainability, and auditability into systems and start with pilots on high-volume, well-structured tasks before scaling.
Paper recommendations based on case experience and analytic framing; advocated strategy rather than empirically validated at scale within the paper.
To mitigate risks and realize benefits, AI systems in finance/tax should combine AI with human-in-the-loop controls and clear escalation paths.
Prescriptive recommendation grounded in case lessons and literature on safe AI deployment; presented as a best-practice guideline rather than tested intervention.
Technical building blocks leveraged in these deployments include large language models (LLMs), OCR plus structured information extraction, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and knowledge bases, and process automation/RPA.
Explicit technical characteristics section and case descriptions in the paper identify these components as core to implementations.
Generative AI is used for risk control and audit functions, including real-time monitoring, fraud detection, KYC/AML screening, and automated exception reporting.
Reported use-cases in the two case organizations and corroborating industry reports discussed in the literature review portion of the paper.
For tax declaration, generative AI enables extraction of tax-relevant facts from invoices and contracts, drafting of tax returns, compliance checks, and scenario simulations.
Case examples and literature synthesis describing OCR + information extraction and LLM-assisted drafting workflows used in practice.
Generative AI is applied to fund management tasks such as cashflow forecasting, anomaly detection, and automated workflows for payments and collections.
Case descriptions and technical mapping in the paper showing implementations at the sharing center and professional services firm level.
Accounting automation use-cases include automated bookkeeping, reconciliations, journal entry suggestion, and error detection using LLMs and document understanding.
Detailed scope mapping and case examples in Xiaomi and Deloitte illustrating these accounting applications; supported by literature review of technical capabilities.
Realizing those AI-driven gains in Vietnam requires legal and institutional redesigns.
Close reading of Vietnam's constitutional provisions, administrative statutes, procedural rules and judicial doctrine (doctrinal legal analysis) combined with comparative lessons from other jurisdictions; no quantitative data.
CABP (Context-Aware Broker Protocol) extends JSON-RPC with identity-scoped request routing via a six-stage broker pipeline to ensure correct identity and policy propagation.
Design and protocol specification included in the paper; formal description and broker-pipeline semantics documented as a deliverable.
The mechanism generalizes to another field: models trained on economics publication records reach ~70% accuracy on a similar benchmark.
Analogue of the management experiment performed in economics: models fine-tuned on economics journal publication records were evaluated on an economics benchmark and achieved approximately 70% accuracy. (Exact dataset sizes, benchmarks, and train/test splits not specified in the provided text.)
Fine-tuned models trained on publication records each outperform every frontier model and the expert panel; the best single model achieves 59% accuracy on the benchmark.
Language models fine-tuned on historical journal accept/reject records were evaluated on the held-out four-tier benchmark; reported performance shows each fine-tuned model exceeds the frontier-model average and the human-panel baseline, with the best model at 59% accuracy. (Exact training set size and benchmark sample count not specified here.)
Panels of journal editors and editorial board members reach 42% accuracy by majority vote on the same four-tier benchmark.
Human baseline obtained by soliciting judgments from journal editors and editorial board members on the held-out benchmark and computing majority-vote accuracy (reported as 42%). (Number of human raters and benchmark size not given in supplied text.)
Fine-tuning language models on historical journal publication decisions recovers an evaluative "scientific taste" that frontier (zero-shot) models and expert editor panels cannot reliably reproduce.
Fine-tuned models were trained on years of journal publication decisions (institutional accept/reject records) and evaluated on a held-out four-tier benchmark of management research pitches; performance compared to zero-shot evaluations of frontier models and to panels of journal editors (majority-vote). (Sample sizes for training records and held-out benchmark not specified in the provided text.)
The A-ToM mechanism operates by estimating a partner's likely ToM order from interaction history and using that estimate to predict the partner's next action which then informs the agent's policy choices.
Method description and implementation details provided in the paper: estimator over ToM orders based on past interactions + conditional action prediction feeding into decision-making; validated in the reported experiments.
Empirical evaluation was performed across four coordination environments: a repeated matrix game, two grid navigation tasks, and an Overcooked task.
Methods section describes these four benchmark environments used for all reported comparisons between fixed-order agents and A-ToM agents; evaluation metrics were joint payoffs and task-specific success measures.
In the human–human benchmark, repeated pre-play communication substantially increases cooperation.
Reference benchmark data from Dvorak & Fehrler (2024), human–human sample n = 108, showing higher cooperation under repeated communication relative to less frequent communication; comparison reported in the paper.
Using the proportional veto core provides formal protection for minority blocs by giving them proportional blocking power, thus encoding a proportional fairness guarantee compared to simple majoritarian rules.
Definition and properties of the proportional veto core presented in the paper; conceptual discussion comparing veto/proportionality guarantees to majoritarian outcomes.
The paper characterizes the information cost of aggregating preferences when AI can generate essentially unlimited candidate alternatives by providing tight sample-complexity bounds and lower bounds.
The combination of sampling-model formalization, sample-complexity upper bounds, and matching lower bounds constitutes a formal characterization of the information (sample) requirements.
The authors prove an upper bound on the number of samples/queries required by their algorithm as a function of accuracy, confidence, and problem parameters.
Theoretical analysis in the paper deriving explicit sample-complexity upper bounds (stated as functions of accuracy/confidence and relevant parameters).
Under only query (sampling) access to the unknown joint distribution of voters and alternatives, there is an efficient sampling-based algorithm that, with high probability, returns an alternative in the approximate proportional veto core.
Constructive algorithm and correctness proof in the paper showing the algorithm returns an approximate core alternative with high probability under the sampling access model.
The paper formalizes the proportional veto core for settings with an infinite alternative space and voters whose preferences are drawn from an unknown distribution.
Formal model and definitions presented in the paper: extension of the proportional veto core to an infinite alternative space and definitions for sampling-appropriate approximate proportional veto core.
The paper provides concrete, regulation-inspired policy examples (e.g., content prohibition, sensitive data exfiltration) showing how they map into the Policy function.
Worked, illustrative examples included in the paper mapping regulatory constraints to the Policy(agent_id, partial_path, proposed_action, org_state) formalism.
Runtime policy evaluation can intercept, score, log, allow/modify/block actions, and update organizational state as part of an agent's execution loop (reference implementation architecture).
Reference implementation design described in the paper (runtime policy evaluator hooks, logging, enforcement actions); architectural reasoning and pseudo-workflows provided; no production deployment data.
Policies can be formalized as deterministic functions p_violation = Policy(agent_id, partial_path, proposed_action, org_state) that return a probability or score of violation for a proposed next action.
Formal definition and mapping in the paper; worked examples showing how regulatory-style constraints map into this function; no large-scale empirical validation.
Effective governance for agentic LLM systems requires treating the execution path as the central object and performing runtime evaluation of proposed next actions given the partial path.
Theoretical argument and formal proposal of runtime policy evaluator that takes (agent_id, partial_path, proposed_action, org_state) and returns a violation probability; reference architecture described; illustrative examples.
Explicit enforcement of signal constraints in DeePC provides a safety/operational advantage over many pure learning approaches that do not explicitly enforce hard constraints.
Algorithmic formulation includes constraints in the optimization; paper contrasts this with unconstrained learning-based controllers and demonstrates constrained, feasible actuation in simulation.
DeePC can compute traffic-light actuation sequences that respect hard operational and safety constraints (e.g., phasing, minimum/maximum green times).
Formulation of DeePC as a constrained optimization problem in the paper with explicit constraint terms for signal phasing and safety; implemented in simulation experiments where constraints are enforced in the controller optimization.
Reframing urban traffic dynamics with behavioral systems theory allows system evolution to be learned and predicted directly from measured input–output data (no explicit model identification).
Theoretical exposition in the paper showing that traffic trajectories can be represented as linear combinations of past measured trajectories via Hankel/data matrices; used as the basis for predictive control (DeePC).
Applying DeePC yields measurable improvements in system-level outcomes (reduced total travel time and CO2 emissions) in a very large, high-fidelity microscopic simulation of Zürich.
Simulation experiments in a city-scale, high-fidelity microscopic closed-loop simulator of Zürich comparing DeePC-controlled signals against baseline controllers (e.g., fixed-time or standard adaptive schemes); reported reductions in aggregated metrics (total travel time and CO2 emissions).
A model-free traffic control approach (DeePC) can steer urban traffic via dynamic traffic-light control without building explicit traffic models.
Algorithmic/theoretical development (behavioral systems theory + DeePC) and controller-in-loop experiments in a high-fidelity microscopic closed-loop simulator of Zürich demonstrating closed-loop control using only input–output trajectory data (Hankel matrices) rather than parametric model identification.
BenchPreS can be used as an evaluative tool for mechanism designers and regulators to measure and compare models' context‑sensitivity to guide incentives, penalties, or certification regimes.
Methodological claim about the benchmark's applicability: BenchPreS produces MR and AAR metrics that can be used for comparisons; paper suggests use in policy/design contexts.
BenchPreS provides a benchmark and evaluation protocol that systematically varies stored user preference, interaction partner (self vs third party), and normative requirement to assess appropriate suppression or application of preferences.
Dataset construction and evaluation procedure described: scenario generation varying preference, partner, and normative appropriateness; MR and AAR computed across the scenario set.
Historical transitions in standard work hours (e.g., six-day to five-day week) show that phased implementation, collective bargaining, and complementary policies can make work-time reductions feasible and economically beneficial.
Historical analyses and case studies of past industrialized-country workweek transitions cited in the synthesis; evidence drawn from historical institutional records and prior economic histories rather than a unified econometric analysis.
Economists and researchers should measure organizational mediators (governance, mentoring practices, learning processes) alongside AI adoption and use empirical designs such as difference-in-differences with phased rollouts, randomized mentoring/training interventions, matched employer–employee panels, and IV exploiting exogenous shocks to innovation backing to identify causal effects.
Methodological recommendations and proposed empirical designs contained in the paper; no implementation or empirical results reported.
The integrated framework links multi-level outcomes: micro (individual skills, task performance), meso (team coordination, workflows), and macro (organizational strategy, innovation, productivity) effects to adaptive structuration processes and affordance actualization.
Framework specification and theoretical mapping across levels in the conceptual paper; no empirical validation or sample.
The paper develops a conceptual framework that integrates Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) and Affordance Actualization Theory (AAT) to explain how effective human–AI collaboration can be structured within organizations.
Conceptual/theoretical synthesis and literature integration combining AST and AAT streams; no original empirical data or sample reported (theoretical development).
The paper advances augmentation debates by articulating the leader’s practical role when decision lead‑agency shifts between humans and AI and by detailing systemic HR changes needed to sustain performance, legitimacy and well‑being.
Stated contribution of the conceptual synthesis comparing existing augmentation and leadership literatures and providing an HR‑focused framework; descriptive of the paper's intellectual contribution.
Core practice 4 — Embed governance: make accountability, bias testing, privacy safeguards, audit trails, escalation thresholds and human oversight explicit and routine.
Prescriptive governance practice grounded in literature on algorithmic accountability and risk management and in practitioner examples; presented without original empirical validation.
Core practice 3 — Manage the human–AI relationship: build adoption, psychological safety and calibrated trust; address automation anxiety and misuse.
Framework recommendation synthesizing organizational‑psychology and technology adoption literature plus practitioner observations; not tested empirically in the paper.
Core practice 2 — Treat AI outputs as hypotheses: require human sensemaking and validation rather than blind adoption of model outputs.
Prescriptive practice derived from reviewed research and practitioner cases emphasizing human oversight; presented as framework guidance rather than empirically validated intervention.
Core practice 1 — Allocate work by comparative advantage: assign tasks to humans or AI based on relative strengths (e.g., speed, pattern detection, contextual judgement).
Conceptual component of the framework drawn from synthesis of empirical findings in prior human–AI and task allocation literature and practitioner examples; no new empirical testing in the paper.
AI methods have improved molecular property prediction, protein structure modelling, ADME/Tox prediction, NLP-based extraction from literature, virtual screening, and generative chemistry, accelerating early-stage tasks.
Compilation of benchmarking results, method-comparison studies, and applied case studies cited in the paper across these specific application areas.
AI has materially improved efficiency, decision-making, and early-stage productivity in drug discovery, especially in hit discovery, property prediction, and protein modelling.
Synthesis of published benchmarking studies and industry case studies reported in the paper (e.g., improvements in virtual screening throughput, property-prediction benchmarks, and protein-structure prediction results such as those from folding competitions and tool evaluations).