Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly woven into expert cognitive work in daily research, yet we know little about how human expertise should adapt when an AI system can execute substantial technical reasoning on its own. Here we use statistical proof development, a demanding and structured form of expert reasoning, as a window into this broader question. Drawing on day-to-day proof problems, we find that current general-purpose LLMs occupy a useful but limited role: they can execute technical components given a precisely formulated problem and targeted guidance, but become unreliable when the problem is open-ended or requires a long reasoning chain with multiple interdependent steps. This execution-strategy gap is rooted in what makes research-level statistical proof distinctive: unlike pure mathematics, where problems arrive pre-formulated and often demand novel techniques, statistical proof requires first modeling a scientific question into a statistical framework with appropriate assumptions, and then identifying and adapting the right strategy from a repertoire of reusable domain-specific tools. Each step requires deep expertise in both the statistical literature and the real-world context being modeled. In such work, current AI assistance does not reduce the need for human expertise; it relocates that expertise to where human decision-making matters most, such as problem formulation and verification of AI-generated results, and may raise the bar for both. These findings yield practical suggestions for how statisticians can structure AI-assisted proof workflows, and point to a broader community agenda for shared resources, better AI tools, and training the next generation of researchers. Using statistical proof as a window, our study has implications for how experts structure human-AI collaboration in technical cognitive domains more broadly.

翻译：暂无翻译