HybridQuestion: Human-AI Collaboration for Identifying High-Impact Research Questions
This addresses the challenge of strategic research planning for scientists and researchers, though it is incremental as it builds on existing AI ideation methods.
The paper tackles the problem of whether AI can identify meaningful research questions by developing a human-AI hybrid system that processes literature and proposes questions, finding that AI aligns well with humans on recognizing past breakthroughs but diverges more on forecasting future questions.
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.