Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.30588

Orchestrating GenAI for Interdisciplinary Research

Shirley Anugrah Hayati·Moyan Zhou·Patricia Anugrah Setiani·Ruizi Wang·Joseph Chee Chang·Dongyeop Kang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As researchers tackle interdisciplinary problems, they face the need to deepen expertise in primary areas while rapidly acquiring knowledge in secondary domains. Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly positioned to meet this need, from general-purpose chat assistants to Deep Research tools marketed as autonomous research agents. Prior work has examined how researchers use GenAI to support single-discipline or general research tasks. However, we know little about the goals and GenAI practices in interdisciplinary research. We conducted a longitudinal study and semi-structured interviews with 15 interdisciplinary researchers to examine how interdisciplinary researchers actually orchestrate GenAI. Findings show that researchers leaned on GenAI to fill knowledge gaps while maintaining epistemic agency for novelty discovery. We also uncovered an expertise paradox: GenAI outputs were hardest to verify when most needed. Our empirical insights motivate GenAI designs that calibrate verification to researchers' expertise, nudge toward cross-domain synthesis, and adapt prompting and outputs to disciplinary conventions.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shirley Anugrah Hayati, Moyan Zhou, Patricia Anugrah Setiani, Ruizi Wang, Joseph Chee Chang, Dongyeop Kang. 2026-09-24. Orchestrating GenAI for Interdisciplinary Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30588

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

What Current AI Benchmarks Leave Unmeasured: Modality, Search, Citations, and Implications (for Safety Evaluations)

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21\% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

From Instructional Intent to Classroom-Ready Lessons: Investigating Teacher-AI Collaboration in Lesson Authoring for Secondary Computing Education

Generative AI is increasingly studied as a tool for supporting lesson authoring; the creation and adaptation of classroom materials, yet little is known about how it should fit into secondary computing teachers' subject-specific practices. We conducted two complementary qualitative studies with eight secondary computing teachers: focus groups examining existing authoring practices and a think-aloud study using LessonBuilder, a structured AI-supported lesson authoring system, as a research probe. We found that teachers' instructional intentions developed through creating, inspecting, and adapting materials, while teachers selectively delegated tasks to AI and retained responsibility for judging classroom readiness. The think-aloud sessions further showed how examining AI-generated materials prompted teachers to clarify and refine their intentions, making authoring an ongoing negotiation between what teachers intended and what the AI produced. In the context of computing lessons, classroom readiness also involved considering how programming materials and supporting guidance matched students' understanding and intended learning goals. We synthesize these findings into a conceptual model explaining how teachers coordinate instructional intent, AI assistance, and judgments of classroom readiness during lesson authoring. We derive design recommendations for supporting this coordination while preserving teacher control and addressing computing-specific authoring needs.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Beyond the Monolithic Interface: A Research Agenda for Plural Conversational AI

The current paradigm of artificial intelligence (AI) design elevates conversational chatbot interfaces, making them the default mode through which hundreds of millions of people interact with AI systems globally. This narrative review identifies three related harms produced by the single-voice chatbot interface, drawing on insights from literature in cognitive science, political studies, AI alignment, game design and human computer interaction. Firstly, cognitive offloading of user thinking, secondly, ideological narrowing of user beliefs, and thirdly, epistemic compression of cultural and value diversity. We then propose multi-persona interfaces, in which multiple personas are presented to the user simultaneously, as a cost-effective intervention that addresses all three harms at once. We ground this intervention in traditions the AI literature has largely overlooked, drawing on techniques from game design and participatory simulation, including the magic circle, role differentiation, and persona embodiment. We propose a taxonomy for the future design of multi-persona interfaces, and call for a research agenda that closes the gap between technical pluralistic alignment methods and empirical studies of human-AI interactions with pluralistic interfaces.

cs.HC↗