Modern science has moved decisively toward larger and more collaborative research teams. Yet an influential 2019 study reported that small teams are more disruptive than large teams, a conclusion difficult to reconcile with both the well-known trend toward increasing collaboration and the disproportionately large teams behind widely recognized disruptive research, such as work that has been awarded Nobel Prizes. Here we show that the reported disruptive advantage of small teams is largely an artifact of measurement rather than a fact about teams. Analyzing about 60 million scientific publications, we find that larger teams cite more references and that the standard disruption index declines mechanically as reference lists lengthen. Equalizing reference-count distributions across team sizes reverses the negative gradient within the index's own framework. Evaluating each paper against one reference at a time yields a reference-robust measure that distinguishes recognized breakthroughs from ordinary papers more sharply and more consistently than the standard disruption index across six independently curated benchmarks, including the Nobel Prize. Under this validated measurement, scientific disruption increases with team size across four scientific domains and in every decade from the 1970s to the 2010s. For scientific publications, we conclude that larger teams are more, not less, disruptive.
Yueqi Xie, Tao Qi Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Jingwei Yi Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, Xiyuan Yang, Ryan Whalen University of Hong Kong, Junming Huang Princeton University, Qian Ding Tsinghua University and Microsoft, Yu Xie 等 10 位作者
With the growing prevalence of generative AI, an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. To further enhance real-world applicability, we extend the framework to estimate the minimal necessary human contribution for any text without requiring human input and validate its effectiveness. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表