Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistency

Background. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for screening in evidence synthesis, where false negatives can remove relevant studies before full-text assessment. We compared human and LLM title-and-abstract screening workflows in a preregistered study embedded in a conceptually complex scoping review. Methods. After a conservative title-only screen, 1,131 records were screened by one review lead, four trained assistants screening non-overlapping subsets, and seven complete LLM runs using different models and processing configurations, including a nominally identical repeat run. We compared retained workload, operational recall against 316 verified eligible records, agreement, run-to-run consistency, and procedural burden. Because eligibility was verified only for records advanced and assessed in the parent review, recall estimates were operational. Results. No workflow recovered all verified eligible records. The human workflows and two GPT-5.4 file-batch runs retained 42.2-45.0% of records while achieving 82.3-82.9% recall. Gemini 3.1 file batches achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. All-at-once configurations recovered fewer eligible records than corresponding file-batch configurations. Two nominally identical GPT-5.4 file-batch runs agreed on 91.7% of records but differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible records retained by only one run. Discussion. LLM screening performance depended on the implemented workflow, not model identity alone. Processing configuration, workload, record-level variation, and human-LLM decision integration are therefore substantive properties of deployed systems. For high-recall tasks, LLMs are better suited to validated, auditable, human-supervised workflows than autonomous exclusion.

Are Concept Bottleneck Models Effective as Decision-Support Systems?

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are interpretable-by-design neural networks that detect human-understandable concepts from the input and use them to generate predictions. By allowing users to inspect the concepts underlying a prediction and explore how predictions change under alternative concept configurations, CBMs have emerged as one of the most prominent approaches to supporting human-AI collaboration. However, user studies investigating their actual effectiveness as decision-support systems remain limited. We present two large-scale user studies (N participants = 705, N observations = 6,959) evaluating how concept-based explanations and user interventions on the model's concepts affect the performance of the human-AI team in two distinct binary classification tasks. Our results show that CBMs, and particularly their interactive component, can improve human-AI team accuracy relative to both unaided human performance and performance with non-interpretable AI support. However, these benefits emerge only under certain conditions: classification tasks perceived as difficult, easily identifiable concepts, and active interaction with the model. We also discuss how inaccurate concept detection may undermine users' trust in the model. Overall, this work provides practical guidance for the deployment of CBMs as effective decision-support tools.

Hybrid Panels: Toward Human-AI Collaboration in Survey Research

Large-scale population surveys are essential for generating robust social and scientific insights, yet they face significant challenges, including declining response rates, increasing data collection costs, long delays between data collection and data provision, and the risk of nonresponse bias. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have opened up new opportunities for AI-supported survey infrastructures where the goal is to overcome these challenges without limiting the data quality. A promising AI-enabled survey infrastructure for which we build a first pilot is a hybrid panel. A hybrid panel is a longitudinal AI-enabled survey which allows to iteratively improve the alignment between large language models (LLMs) and the population they aim to simulate and use the errors to inform the design and implementation of the next survey wave (e.g., inform the participant recruitment, assignment of questions to participants). It incorporates both human participants and LLMs as fundamental elements of its design. In this research note, we introduce the concept of a hybrid panel by providing a definition and outlining an overarching framework, spanning data collection to data validation. We detail results from a first pilot study to illustrate (open) challenges that we identify for hybrid panels.

Grouping the Stochastic Machine: Precision, Not Capability, as the Frontier Metric for AI Systems

Frontier language models are compared, marketed, and benchmarked on capability -- what their best or average output can achieve. I argue this measures the wrong axis. The models have saturated accuracy: their mean output lands on the target. What now separates one system from another in practice is precision: how tightly concentrated their outputs are around that target across repeated, identical requests. Borrowing the marksman's distinction, capability is where the average shot lands; reliability is the size of the group. I make three claims. First, precision, not capability, is the frontier differentiator between systems, and benchmark culture systematically fails to measure it, reporting central tendency rather than spread. Second, precision is measurable, cheaply and without circularity, by running a fixed suite of deterministically scored tasks many times at fixed temperature and computing the per-task consistency of outcomes -- no model-in-the-loop grader required. Third, the measurement is not merely descriptive but decision-guiding: it separates consistent failures (a tight group off-centre, correctable by the operating discipline of Paper 1 -- a sight adjustment) from scattered failures (a wide group, correctable only by changing the model or its sampling -- a rifle problem). I define a grouping metric, specify a harness, and show how tracking a human-AI pair's grouping over time yields the compounding signal that Paper 1's field study requires. A first real run, since replicated, illustrates both the method and its most important limit: one measured gap was closed completely by a single rule (0/5 -> 5/5), while a suite of tasks authored from the rules themselves found no value, because a frontier model already embodies explicit good practice -- establishing that a discipline's worth is found by measurement on real work, not constructed from its own rulebook.

Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents

To anticipate socio-technical risks from AI agents, organizations need taxonomies to classify them. However, existing AI risk taxonomies focus on broad risks and do not capture job-specific risks introduced by agents. To address this gap, we make three main contributions. First, we developed a multi-layer framework from a literature review of AI agents. The framework models three core components and their interactions: agents, goals, and environment. Second, we embedded this framework in a structured prompt and applied it to descriptions of 2,078 job tasks from the O*NET database, producing 8,356 risk scenarios labeled by severity and deployment mode (automation or augmentation). We validated these scenarios with 45 workers across 10 job roles and an independent LLM judge, confirming their plausibility and alignment with job tasks. Finally, we extended an existing taxonomy to create a 15-category taxonomy of workplace AI agent risks that covers all our risk scenarios. Our analysis highlights four findings. First, augmentation is not inherently safe because overreliance on agents can gradually erode workers' skills and oversight. Second, Erroneous Agent Actions accounts for the largest share of risk scenarios and has the highest concentration of severe risks. Many arise at the human-agent boundary. Third, automation is associated mainly with organizational risks, while augmentation is associated mainly with risks to workers. Fourth, workers found our taxonomy easier to use for a risk classification task than two other taxonomies and preferred it in 64% of non-tied comparisons with a recent generative AI risk taxonomy. These findings show that workplace AI agent risks do not arise from agents alone; they also depend on how people work with agents and how agents are deployed. Safer workplaces require not only safer agents but also carefully designed human-AI agent collaboration.

Chat Debugging: An Exploratory Study of Human-AI Collaboration to Debug Analog Circuits

This research paper describes an exploratory study on the effectiveness of Chat Debugging: troubleshooting malfunctioning analog circuits on breadboards and printed circuit boards (PCB) by undergraduates through conversations with public-domain large language models (LLMs). Through thematic analysis of students' voluntarily shared chat logs when debugging pre-determined buggy circuits under exam and time pressure, we discovered multimodal usage patterns by students and considerable domain knowledge and sensible debugging suggestions offered by off-the-shelf LLMs. Meanwhile, we also identified major gaps in LLM technologies and students' skills during human-AI collaborative debugging, such as LLMs' limitations in 2D/3D image-based reasoning, unjustified tone of confidence, and students' deficits in fundamental concepts and critical thinking.

The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration

The discovery of scaling laws has highlighted the extraordinary potential of AI systems with a striking empirical pattern: as AI systems scale, their capabilities tend to improve predictably. Yet, in real-world applications, AI rarely operates in isolation; instead, it often works alongside humans, raising the question of whether these gains persist in human-AI collaboration. In this work, we develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance. We demonstrate that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up-provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities. Human misperception, however, can fundamentally alter this relationship: i) when humans over-perceive the AI's capabilities, a scaling paradox may arise, in which greater AI scale reduces overall system performance and amplifies firm-level profit losses, and (ii) when humans under-perceive the AI's capabilities, performance still improves with scale but at a substantially slower rate. We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment, whose effectiveness depends on the economics of AI deployment and the direction of human misperception. These findings suggest that organizations may benefit more from managing the human-AI interface than from simply investing in larger, more expensive AI systems. More broadly, our results suggest that AI scaling should be viewed not only as a technological challenge, but also as a behavioral and operational one, and caution against the view that larger AI systems will automatically lead to better operational outcomes. Whether AI scaling creates value ultimately depends on how increased AI capabilities shape human beliefs and collaborative efforts.

Human diversity fuels collective creativity that large language models cannot simulate or sustain

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

Humanly: A Configurable and Traceable Environment for Human-AI Collaborative Writing

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

Can an AI System Be Creative? A Critical Perspective from Art and Engineering

This paper examines the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be creative, approached from the dual perspective of a researcher trained in electrical engineering, pattern recognition, machine learning, and neural networks, who has also spent most of his life engaged in the arts as actor, stage and film director, writer, composer, and visual artist, and in philosophy. Drawing on Margaret Boden's foundational framework, both her three properties of creativity (novelty, surprise, and value) and her three types of creative processes (combinatorial, exploratory, and transformational), the paper argues that AI systems are structurally incapable of creativity in its strongest sense. While they exhibit genuine capability in the domain of combinatorial creativity, they are significantly bounded in exploratory creativity, and fundamentally incapable of transformational creativity. The paper further argues that the most important limitation of current AI systems is not the absence of novelty per se, but the absence of any mechanism for serendipity, accident, or the unexpected, all of which play a central role in the phenomenology of creativity, and the absence of any subject position from which to recognize and welcome such chance events. The paper concludes by proposing a model of human, AI creative collaboration that is both realistic and generative, illustrated by several concrete experiments. The paper is itself a demonstration of the thesis it advances: it was composed through a deliberate human AI collaborative process, which is described in the methodological note that opens it.

Man, Machine, and Masterpiece: Artistic Ownership in the AI Era

The integration of AI-driven systems in creative work has sparked debates among artists and legal communities about notions of ownership. Yet there remains little consensus on how ownership should be defined and attributed when human and AI contributions are intertwined. To provoke critical reflection on these tensions, we designed ArtSplit, a provotype that explicitly quantifies human and AI contributions across different stages of creative work. Rather than aiming to resolve ownership, the provotype was used to elicit artists' responses to the idea of attributing ownership through measurable actions in the creative workflow. We argue that quantification fails to align with artists' understandings of creative intent and agency, and that efforts to measure ownership risk diluting long-standing assumptions through which artists understand and practice creative work. This critique challenges the impulse to transform a historically and socially situated relation into a technical problem.

When Bots Join the Team: Bot Adoption and the Institutional Fabric of Open-Source Software Projects

AI agents are joining human teams, raising a basic question: when an automated agent becomes a regular participant, does group organization strengthen or weaken? We study this question in open-source software, where bots open pull requests, review code, and merge changes alongside people, leaving a public record of every interaction. Treating bots as participants rather than tools, we examine 2,991 GitHub projects for two years before and after each adopted its first bot. We measure three capabilities that institutional theory links to durable coordination - repeated engagement, social memory, and role differentiation - and two outcomes: conflict cascades and output distinctiveness. Bot adoption is followed by more repeated collaboration, greater recognition of specific bots in discussion, fewer conflict cascades, and more distinctive outputs. These changes cluster around adoption rather than accumulating gradually. Because we lack an untreated comparison group, we interpret the results as precisely timed associations, not causal effects. Two patterns are difficult for alternative explanations to account for: capabilities predict outcomes according to their function - coordination versus differentiation - rather than whether humans or bots provide them, and human-side capabilities account for the bot-conflict association but not the bot-distinctiveness association. The findings are consistent with a specific interpretation: predictable, rule-based agents can become part of a community's social infrastructure. The bot is the occasion; social organization is the mechanism.

AI-assisted pre-review of open-source software submissions: an experience report from BOSC 2026

Most conferences rely on peer-review of submissions, but as generative AI makes it easier than ever to prepare submission materials, some conferences are seeing an overwhelming surge of submissions. We wanted to see if generative AI could help our conference's volunteer reviewers by pre-reviewing abstracts for certain criteria. The Bioinformatics Open Source Conference (BOSC) was well-positioned to experiment with this, as we already had a detailed rubric used by reviewers to evaluate submitted abstracts on multiple criteria, including openness (public availability of the code or other content associated with the project), valid open source license, and "runnability" (how easy it is to download, build, and run the project - an important measure of reusability). For BOSC 2026, we built bosc-pre-review, an agentic skill that assessed six review criteria, and Runabilly, which builds and tests each project in a disposable Docker container for safety. The AI only gathered evidence to present to the reviewers; humans made every decision regarding the acceptance of the abstracts. After the review period, we surveyed the reviewers to determine how useful they found the pre-review. Most of those who responded said they found it useful, but they preferred to check the AI's conclusions against their own, rather than accepting the AI results unquestioningly.

Neutralizing Structural Inequality in the Nigerian FinTech Sector

Algorithmic decision systems in financial services often rely on data proxies that inadvertently encode structural inequalities. This paper introduces a hierarchical human-AI triage model for Point of Sale fraud detection in the Nigerian FinTech sector. Adopting a We Are All Equal worldview, we address the challenge of discrimination laundering, wherein the system misinterprets infrastructure related aleatoric noise such as rural network timeouts as fraudulent intent. We implement a three-tier routing policy utilizing a calibrated ensemble model as a primary filter. The policy routes transactions characterized by epistemic uncertainty such as cold start new accounts to specialist analysts while reserving high stakes cases for a senior supervisor. To manage finite human capacity, we utilize a dynamic shadow price to ration human attention and implement a random audit mechanism to prevent human skill atrophy. Our experimental results demonstrate a statistically significant 1.88\% complementarity gap and a 24.79\% percentage point gain in fraud recall over an autonomous baseline. Crucially, the model reduces the regional performance gap from 19.43 to 2.88 percentage points, neutralizing structural bias. Hierarchical collaboration provides a robust mechanism for substantive equality of opportunity, ensuring that rural accounts are not excluded from the digital economy due to environmental brute luck.

AI Evaluation Should Work With Humans

This position paper argues that the dominant paradigm of AI evaluation (which focuses on superhuman autonomous performance and so implicitly targets the goal of replacing humans) is guiding AI development in the wrong direction. Instead, the AI community should pivot to evaluating the performance of human--AI teams. We argue that this collaborative shift will foster AI systems that act as true complements to human capabilities and therefore lead to far better societal outcomes than will the current process.

Teaming Up with AI: Coordination and Cooperation

Successful diffusion of AI in the workforce hinges on the economic value that AI brings to human endeavors. Bringing AI into the workforce is more than deploying a powerful new technology -- it is launching a new form of collaboration. Each human worker is now endowed with a team of AI agents; work can be delegated to these agents, and the role of the human shifts towards managing and monitoring. How can we maximize the economic value from collaboration with AI in the workforce? How can we make it a "true" collaboration that empowers human workers rather than replacing them? We take an approach that combines the fields of theoretical computer science and economics, highlighting the potential of algorithmic tools grounded in economic principles to improve the effectiveness of human-AI collective work. We consider two tiers of tools: (1) tools for better coordination, via algorithmic management of interdependencies; (2) tools for better cooperation, via contractual incentive alignment. We show how a principled approach based on algorithmic and economic research enhances both coordination and cooperation, charting a pathway for future research to inform AI markets.

Managing the Human Fallback: Skill Investment Under Improving AI and Worker Mobility

When firms deploy autonomous AI, they must decide how much work to leave to the system and how much to keep workers engaged. This decision affects current output and future human capital. We develop a parsimonious two-period model in which AI may outperform the worker when it functions, but may fail with positive probability. A firm chooses worker engagement; engagement lowers current output for below-benchmark workers, but changes future skill through learning and erosion. We distinguish two dimensions of AI progress: capability, the system's output when it works, and reliability, the probability that it works. In a single-firm benchmark, engagement is valuable only as fallback investment. The firm engages the least-skilled workers most, because they have the largest skill gaps and are least costly to bring toward a useful fallback level. With worker mobility, engagement also affects labor-market sorting: workers prefer jobs that build more valuable skill trajectories. This sorting motive targets higher-skill workers near the AI frontier, where skill gains are more valuable and engagement is less costly. Mobility can therefore reverse the engagement pattern, shifting investment from the least-skilled toward the most-skilled workers below the AI benchmark. Mobility also reshapes how AI progress affects engagement: greater capability raises engagement by increasing the value of the skill trajectory a firm offers, whereas greater reliability can raise or lower it because it reduces fallback need while also changing learning opportunities. Under worker mobility, human-AI work design becomes a problem of human-capital investment, in which allocating work today shapes future skill.

Harnessing Abundance: A Generativity Perspective on Human-GenAI Collaboration

Research on human-GenAI collaboration yields conflicting findings: GenAI can enhance creativity yet reduce collective diversity, with uneven benefits across skill levels. Rather than treating these as contradictions, we argue they reflect a core feature of GenAI: abundance. GenAI makes ideas, drafts, and recombinations plentiful, potentially expanding the hypothesis space and surfacing unanticipated possibilities. However, abundance alone doesn't ensure better outcomes. We propose generative fit as a unifying mechanism explaining when abundance yields productive creativity and when it backfires. Drawing on Generativity Theory, generative fit captures how well a system's generative potential complements a community's generative capacities. We develop a conceptual framework for collaborative human-GenAI settings where participants share goals, depend on one another, and must integrate diverse contributions. By mapping abundance to cognitive, social, and organizational factors of collective creativity, we explain apparent tradeoffs and offer actionable implications for designing workflows that convert abundance into valued creative outcomes.

Contemporary AI lacks the imagination to diverge or negate in science

Bold claims that AI will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, yet large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop evidence is scarce. Here we mount the largest evaluation to date, inviting authors of 121,640 recent preprints in biology, medicine, chemistry, and social science to judge large language model (LLM)-generated ideas derived from their own papers. 6,749 representative scientists returned 25,139 rating sets on novelty, feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas while reasoning models explore a wider hypothesis space, but no model spontaneously proposes null hypotheses, a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas resembling their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more than life scientists; senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is earned, as LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields demanding context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators, including LLM-as-a-judge and state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, agree weakly with expert judgment. Retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures nuances of taste, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the consistency of human peer reviewers. An analysis of 39 million papers from 2010 to 2025 links survey findings to macro-level patterns: following ChatGPT's release, null claims are sharply suppressed and ideas contract. Agent-based simulations further suggest that saturated fields should especially prize human uniqueness. For all the hype, today's AI for science remains a collaborator whose imagination and judgment benefit from human grounding.

AI Assistance for Human Review of Default Judgments

Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year. Unfortunately, such manual reviews are time-consuming and prone to error. In an audit of 188 debt collection cases granted default judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles, we find that 4% contained major defects that should have entirely prevented default judgment, 10% contained inconsistencies requiring reduced judgments, and 32% contained errors requiring amendment prior to judgment. To support courthouses in default judgment review, we collaborated with courthouse attorneys and judges in designing a Default Assistant. The Default Assistant employs large language models to evaluate a case with respect to predetermined legal requirements and provide cited recommendations for an expert user's review. We equip users to verify these recommendations by grounding the assistant's explanations in cited quotes and tables from the original case filings. We conduct a controlled study with 66 law students that conservatively simulates court review, with more time and resources than court staff. We nevertheless find users aided by the Default Assistant were 6.0% more accurate on the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 1.0e-4). Simultaneously, users were 25.9% faster in reviewing the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 2.5e-10). Statutory requirements demanding extensive document search realized the largest gains, with error reductions and time savings from AI assistance up to 62% and 34%, respectively, relative to unassisted user performance and with differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our work provides a proof-of-concept that AI assistants with citations have the potential to help resource-constrained courts conduct default judgment review more accurately and efficiently.

A Framework for Measuring Appropriate Reliance on Set-Valued AI Advice

Appropriate reliance on AI advice has become a central research theme in human-AI collaboration. Existing frameworks have focused exclusively on point predictions as AI advice. However, set-valued AI advice (e.g., discrete sets or continuous intervals) is increasingly being used to communicate uncertainty and improve human decision making. In this paper, we develop the first formal framework for measuring appropriate reliance on set-valued AI advice within the sequential judge-advisor paradigm, spanning both classification and regression tasks. For classification, we first introduce the dimensions that are necessary for evaluating set-valued AI advice. We then define two metrics: correct reliance rate on AI and correct reliance rate on self, which jointly characterize appropriate reliance in this setting. For regression, we introduce quantity of AI reliance and quality of AI reliance, which respectively measure whether a decision maker utilized the AI advice and whether their reliance helped them get closer to the ground truth relative to their initial estimate. Through the application of our framework, we demonstrate how these metrics capture important nuances in human-AI collaboration that existing measures overlook.

Human-AI Co-Mentorship in Project-Based Learning: A Case Study in Financial Forecasting

This paper reflects on a AI research project carried out by a team of high-school and early-undergraduate students under the mentorship of graduate researchers and ably assisted by AI tools. We share our experience in not only on the learning experience for the high school students, but also on how AI tools accelerated the process that enabled the high school students to focus on higher order problem formulation and solution. Although the participants entered the project with limited background in both AI and finance, they showed strong enthusiasm for technical market analysis and ETF price prediction. Traditional learning settings would first teach the necessary methods in a classroom setting and only later let students apply them. In contrast, our project emphasized workflow design: students identified the sequence of steps needed to address the problem and then used AI-driven tools to execute each step. We note that the high school students developed the necessary code through iterating with the AI tools, and we used our daily stand-ups to debug and answer conceptual questions. Each of the student was able to dig deeper into their area of interest whether computer science or finance, while collaboratively making a significant advance over the summer of 2025. This project was an important pedagogical exercise on how AI tools can be used for mentoring high school students, allowing them to focus on their specific interests and using the daily stand-ups to focus on problem definition and conceptual understanding. Despite their limited technical qualifications, the students were able to leverage AI tools to build meaningful models with real-world application.