Alignment-Process-Outcome: Rethinking How AIs and Humans Collaborate
Authors: Haichang Li, Anjun Zhu, Arpit Narechania
Organizations: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA · Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
In real-world collaboration, alignment, process structure, and outcome quality do not exhibit a simple linear or one-to-one correspondence: similar alignment may accompany either rapid convergence or extensive multi-branch exploration, and lead to different results. Existing accounts often isolate these dimensions or focus on specific participant types, limiting structural accounts of collaboration. We reconceptualize collaboration through two complementary lenses. The task lens models collaboration as trajectory evolution in a structured task space, revealing patterns such as advancement, branching, and backtracking. The intent lens examines how individual intents are expressed within shared contexts and enter situated decisions. Together, these lenses clarify the structural relationships among alignment, decision-making, and trajectory structure. Rather than reducing collaboration to outcome quality or treating alignment as the sole objective, we propose a unified dynamic view of the relationships among alignment, process, and outcome, and use it to re-examine collaboration structure across Human-Human, AI-AI, and Human-AI settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of our two-lens view of collaboration flow. Left: the task lens models collaboration as a trajectory evolving in a task space from the Problem Root toward the Solution Circle. Top-right: the intent lens shows how participants’ implicit intents become explicit and aggregate into a collective intent. Bottom-right: examples of potential trajectory updates at a local decision point in the task space (e.g., forward progression, backtracking, revisiting prior alternatives, and branching). A three-part conceptual diagram of collaboration flow. Left: a circular task space showing a trajectory from the Problem Root to the Solution Circle. Top-right: an intent lens pipeline where participants’ implicit intents are expressed through interaction channels and aggregated into a collective intent. Bottom-right: multiple possible local trajectory updates, including forward progress, backtracking, revisiting earlier alternatives, and branching into different paths.
Current alignment approaches typically focus on emulating human behavior using static representations of human preferences, failing to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of real-world human-AI interactions. In this paper, we argue for a shift from static and emulative to interactive and complementary alignment, where preferences emerge through interaction and alignment is defined not by satisfying preferences alone. We first formalize this gap by contrasting existing alignment with a trajectory-level view in which human and model behavior co-evolve over time. Because these interaction dynamics have not been adequately captured within existing ML formulations, we ground this perspective in insights from an interdisciplinary workshop. We draw on lessons from social-science accounts of human-human collaboration and then argue that human-AI systems amplify these dynamics, introducing new asymmetries that make reasoning about uncertainty harder and introduce new coordination challenges. Based on these lessons and new challenges, we conclude by outlining a research agenda for developing AI systems that align with humans in interaction, requiring an interdisciplinary synthesis of machine learning and the social and decision sciences.
Valerie Chen, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Anita Williams Woolley +4
1Carnegie Mellon University · University of California, Irvine
Automated AI agents are increasingly capable, yet many scientific and professional tasks require human judgment and contextual expertise. We use simulated shared-workspace human-AI teams as a controlled testbed for studying how collaboration structure shapes team behavior. Using the Collaborative Gym environment with tasks from DiscoveryBench, we vary team compositions and collaboration structures across 1,482 sessions. We find that adding additional collaborators can lower performance when coordination structure is absent. We then evaluate collaboration scaffolding that combines shared group memory with simulated human-in-the-loop (HITL) gates, where selected actions require approval from a designated simulated participant. This scaffolding improves performance, most clearly in three-person teams, with clearer responsibility signals and stronger routing of expertise to team actions. Overall, our results suggest that coordination structure is central to whether available capability improves team outcomes.
We introduce Rationalize, a role-pair framework for shared semantic reasoning between humans and AI models in data-driven sensemaking. Building on ideas in human-machine teaming and critical thinking, we conceptualize human-AI interaction as a series of complementary role pairs (Explorer-Guide, Investigator-Informant, Teacher-Student, Judge-Advocate) operating in a shared reasoning space. In this space, human analysts and AI models (such as LLMs) make purposes, questions, assumptions, evidence, inferences, and implications explicit, facilitating alignment not only at the output level but at the level of rationalization of intent and action by each side. We relate these role pairs to the bidirectional human-AI alignment framework, illustrating how "aligning AI to humans" and "aligning humans to AI" differ by role, and sketch a collaborative research agenda for alignment design and assessment using element-level and role-specific approaches.