Large language models increasingly operate in settings where humans are active collaborators rather than passive task providers. We introduce HAS-Framework, a graph-based framework that represents humans and LLM-powered agents as first-class participants with explicit roles, permissions, communication paths, and action authority. Building on this framework, HAS-Bench evaluates Human-Agent Systems under configurable human participation across agency levels, interaction channels, and persona policies. The benchmark measures both task outcomes and process-level collaboration behavior, including clarification quality, feedback utilization, control calibration, safety, initiative, and interaction cost. Experiments across six domains show that human participation can substantially improve task completion and failure recovery, but the gains depend on when, how, and by whom human input is exercised.
As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.
Benjamin Sturgeon, Daniel Samuelson, Jacob Haimes +1
Evaluating LLM agents in realistic service scenarios requires complex task dependencies, imperfect user behavior, and an evaluation that accommodates multiple valid solutions. We introduce CRAB-Bench (Constraint-based Realistic Agent Benchmark) and RUSE (Realistic User Simulation Engine) to address this gap. CRAB-Bench generates tasks via a constraint graph over multiple interdependent entities with structured distractors, requiring agents to reason carefully over thousands of misleading candidates where only a tiny fraction of solutions are valid. RUSE replaces cooperative, template-like simulators with realistic users grounded in human behavioral studies, instantiated across diverse personas and four behavioral dimensions. Experiments on four frontier LLM agents show that the best model achieves only 61% pass@1 on CRAB-Bench, and switching to RUSE causes further drops of up to 57%, concentrated in task-solving ability rather than conversational quality. Information Disclosure is the most damaging behavioral dimension, and agents interacting with RUSE are less likely to admit mistakes, instead masking errors through implicit corrections.
Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.