Human-AI Collaboration

We investigate the challenges of enabling effective collaboration between human operators and heterogeneous autonomous agents in complex, dynamic environments by developing an interaction platform that allows study of operator behavior and supports intent inference and decision-making using state-of-the-art frameworks. We demonstrate the extent to which the operator's perception, decisions, and actions could be supported by autonomous systems during search-and-rescue operations with our platform.

The need for collaboration between diverse fields of research is increasingly recognised as important by research funding agencies. A significant driver of this need is the current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies. There is a growing interest in the potential impact of AI in different fields including the methodologies they use and the resulting advances in new knowledge, new access and enhanced productivity. However, there is also a corresponding increase in concern about the fundamentals of AI technologies and the way in which trans and/or interdisciplinary research is approached. The resulting collaboration too often ends up as a one-way street where the domain partner acts only as an information provider. For example, the contribution of the AHSS partner might be limited to providing insight about ethics and/or the technology partner may only provide a service to build applied AI-based solutions. In response to this problem, we propose a reciprocal approach to collaboration where both partners seek to understand, cooperate and identify jointly significant impacts. In this paper we explore this relationship between cultural heritage institutions (GLAMs), Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS) research and technology-led AI research, especially the impact of current technological advances in AI. Drawing from the history of convergence in GLAM studies, we propose five key practices to form a framework for greater understanding across this divide.

Cybersecurity literature has extensively documented the operational benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) for threat detection, incident response, and prevention, while raising qualitative concerns about over-automation, algorithmic bias, and analyst-skill erosion. What remains largely absent is a formal, falsifiable model connecting three constructs that recur across this literature: Defense-in-Depth Theory, the Artificial Intelligence Theory of Pattern Recognition, and human-AI collaboration in security operations. This paper develops such a model. We formalize layered defense as a Bernoulli detection cascade in which AI augmentation enters multiplicatively across layers; we formalize each layer's pattern-recognition behavior as a Neyman-Pearson/Bayesian detector with a derived closed-form optimal threshold; and we formalize human-AI triage as a capacity-constrained cascade with an explicit, quantifiable trade-off between detection probability and false-alarm ("alert fatigue") rate. A Monte Carlo/analytical simulation evaluated at illustrative but realistic operating points shows that (i) AI augmentation compounds across defense layers, delivering its largest marginal gains exactly where traditional layering saturates, and (ii) full human review of AI-flagged alerts is not optimal: increasing analyst capacity toward 100% coverage cuts false alarms by roughly 20-fold but simultaneously lowers system-level detection probability, because imperfect analyst accuracy is then applied to every alert rather than a filtered subset. These results give the widely repeated qualitative recommendation of "balanced human-AI collaboration" a precise, testable form and suggest an interior-optimum capacity ratio as a concrete design target for security operations centers (SOCs), including those securing IT/OT-converged critical infrastructure.

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Learning predictive models of contact-rich dexterous manipulation requires dense tactile interaction, but such data are costly to scale on real robots and remain tied to embodiment-specific sensors. We introduce DexTouch-WM, an action-conditioned world model that learns from scalable human touch to jointly predict future RGB observations and bilateral tactile dynamics. Our insight is that human and robot manipulation share transferable contact dynamics when their tactile observations and action spaces are made compatible. We deploy flexible piezoresistive arrays with a shared sensing layout on both human and dexterous robot hands, and retarget human motion into the robot action space so that human interaction can supervise the same dynamics model used for real-robot prediction. DexTouch-WM couples a pretrained video expert with a lightweight tactile expert using anatomy-aware tactile tokens and aligned action conditioning. In human-to-robot scaling experiments, we keep five hours of real-robot supervision fixed while increasing human interaction from 0 to 100 hours, and observe substantial improvements in held-out robot-domain visual, geometric, and contact prediction despite disjoint human and robot task sets. Beyond prediction, we evaluate the world models as surrogate environments for policy evaluation and as generators of synthetic trajectories for real-robot policy learning, showing that scalable human interaction provides a complementary data axis for learning dexterous robot world models.

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

Interest in developing personalised language models is rapidly growing. While personalisation is often viewed as a mechanism to better serve diverse user needs, the effects of sustained interactions with personalised models on people's perception of and behaviour toward AI remain poorly understood. Most critically, downstream consequences outside the immediate human--AI interaction loop, such as effects on users' self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships, remain largely unexamined. In this study, we recruited 992 participants to complete daily advice-seeking interactions with language models over the course of five days, comparing outcomes from a non-personalised baseline against two personalisation approaches: memory-based (conditioned on prior conversational history) and survey-based (conditioned on information collected through a pre-study intake survey). We find that several changes in human-AI interaction over time are driven primarily by repeated exposure rather than personalisation itself. However, participants interacting with personalised models experienced differences in advice-seeking and information-sharing attitudes and behaviours: participants in the memory-based condition engaged in greater self-disclosure and rated the model as less creepy, while participants in the survey-based condition reported higher regret about having shared personal information with the AI. We conclude by highlighting the nuanced effects of different personalisation approaches on interaction outcomes, and discussing the implications of these findings for the responsible design and deployment of personalised AI systems.

AI systems can strengthen democracy by supporting deliberation at scale by addressing cognitive, social, platform-design, and market-driven frictions, while preserving human agency. Unlike proposals such as liquid democracy that restructure representation through vote delegation, in this position paper, we argue that AI-assisted deliberation offers a more promising path by lowering barriers to meaningful engagement without substituting machine judgment for human choice. Drawing on evidence from online deliberation platforms and experimental research, we identify four guiding principles: preserving agency and autonomy, encouraging mutual respect, promoting equality and inclusiveness, and augmenting rather than substituting active citizenship. We also address critical challenges, including alignment, sycophancy, training bias, and over-reliance on AI systems. We call on the machine learning community to develop deliberation-focused AI systems evaluated not on engagement metrics but on their capacity to facilitate informed, representative, and friction-robust discourse.

Scientific discovery is defined by the ability to identify the boundaries of existing knowledge and venture into unexplored territory. The ultimate vision for AI in science is problem-driven autonomous research: given a fundamental challenge by a human expert, the AI independently navigates the scientific landscape, uncovers theoretical and empirical bottlenecks, and systematically expands the frontier of knowledge. In this paper, we introduce ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi-agent framework designed to realize this vision. Specifically, ScientistTwo takes an initial problem as input, establishes state-of-the-art baselines, formulates novel hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to orchestrate an end-to-end discovery cycle without human intervention. Moreover, the framework rigorously conducts experiments using diverse datasets and metrics, refines methodologies through automated ablation studies, and validates research findings via a closed-loop simulated peer-review rebuttal engine. To evaluate ScientistTwo's capabilities against the highest standards of human scientific achievement, we benchmark it across papers accepted at top-tier conferences such as ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. As a result, ScientistTwo autonomously generates expert-level, publishable papers and fully verified, executable codebases. Its solutions consistently outperform human state-of-the-art models, and achieve higher average review ratings than human-authored papers under automated AI review agents. These results show that ScientistTwo is not merely an assistive tool but an autonomous scientific pioneer capable of pushing the frontiers of human discovery. Project website: https://scientist-two.github.io/

Understanding humans over long horizons requires agents to infer not only what people need in the moment, but also how routines form, why they repeat, and when they change. We introduce SimLife, a scalable platform for simulating long-term household life with rich visual observations, ground-truth action logs, and synthetic dialogues with audio. Built on SimLife, SimLife-BP evaluates long-context pattern understanding: the ability to infer latent behavioral rules from weeks or months of everyday observations. The benchmark contains 106 episodes averaging 15.49 hours and 38.57 in-game days, and 1,439 question-answer pairs. Each task probes direct, counterfactual, noisy, and inverse reasoning under different levels of rule hints. Evaluating frontier models and architectures, we find that current models often achieve surface-level prediction without comprehensive rule understanding, rely on frequency-based heuristics rather than if-then reasoning over evidence, and struggle to adapt when behavioral patterns change. These findings suggest that long-context pattern understanding remains a major bottleneck for future embodied agents, while SimLife opens a broader space for studying memory, personalization, adaptation, and long-horizon planning in everyday human-AI interaction.

Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

Music and dance are social practices of expression and connection, yet most HCI work in human-AI co-creation centers the solo performer. As generative music matures, we ask not only what AI can compose but what social encounters it can organize around sound. We present Encypher, a collaborative generative music system that translates collective movement qualities into text prompts conditioning real-time music generation for dance cyphers. Through five weeks of co-design with local dancers, a user study with unacquainted participants, a public museum event, and a live performance, we found that users developed shared agency, perceiving the music as a response to the room's energy. While newcomers felt uncertain, the system fostered social presence by prompting them to look to each other for cues. By treating sociality as a design concern rather than a downstream effect, we offer a framework and design implications for AI systems for collaborative, embodied expression.

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

Machine learning (ML) has become the dominant approach for network traffic classification, achieving very high predictive performance. However, a model is only valuable if it learns semantically meaningful and trustworthy patterns rather than exploiting spurious correlations. Conventional evaluation practices predominantly assess predictive performance. Consequently, whether the model relies on semantically meaningful patterns remains unknown. To address these challenges, we adapt the knowledge generation framework for network traffic classification. The adapted framework combines data, ML models, explainability, visualization, and expert reasoning to support the iterative exploration, verification, and refinement of model behavior and data preprocessing. The framework is grounded in findings from the literature, benchmark dataset analyses, practical experience with XAI-based traffic classification, and expert feedback, providing practical guidance for semantic model validation. By complementing predictive performance with semantic validation and human expertise, the proposed framework supports the development of network traffic classification models that are not only accurate but also robust and trustworthy.

When foundation models describe people, recent work in AI fairness, accessibility, and ethics recommends avoiding inferred identity labels (e.g., "she", "his") in favor of seemingly "objective" physical descriptions (e.g., "short hair", "a defined jawline"). Yet whether such descriptive language achieves gender-neutral communication remains an open empirical question. To study this, we introduce GAPA (Gender Associations of Physical Attributes), a dataset of 316 common physical attributes drawn from diverse sources, paired with 14,706 gender-association ratings from 304 US-based annotators. Results show that physical descriptions carry structured and graded gender associations among readers, with more consistent and distinctive associations for women and men than for non-binary identities. Next, we evaluate 16 LLMs across model families, sizes, and post-training variants against human ratings. The models partially recover human associations but exhibit systematic alignment biases, including compressed rating distributions, weaker alignment for associations with men, and asymmetric abstention that disproportionately targets the non-binary category. Finally, we release the best-performing proxy model trained to predict humans' gender associations of descriptive language and demonstrate its utility through a sociolinguistic analysis of character descriptions in LitBank. Together, our findings provide the first empirical evidence that seemingly "objective" physical descriptions can retain systematic gender associations in human interpretation, and uncover systematic patterns of model-human misalignment. This challenges the assumption that replacing explicit gender labels with physical descriptions necessarily yields gender-neutral communication, and highlights downstream challenges in using such descriptions to communicate subjective identity categories in human-AI interaction.

As AI agents become participants in the development of their successors, they reshape both the production of intelligence and the role of human researchers. We introduce Atria Dawn Preview, a foundation agentic language model designed for scientific research and engineering workflows, with the goal of expanding the frontier of agent productivity in the real world. This model is trained via a Verifiable Experience Pipeline that connects tool-mediated interactions to executable environments and externally verified outcomes. Across 16 benchmarks spanning real-world research, engineering, and digital work, Atria Dawn Preview is competitive with frontier agents and achieves the highest reported score on five of them. Beyond standalone performance, we examine the real research-and-development process behind this model as a case study of human--AI collaboration, analyzing 769 task records from 56 participants together with agent logs. When asked to evaluate completed tasks under comparable conditions, participants rated about one-third of completed AI-assisted tasks as infeasible without AI. More strikingly, agents frequently propose methods and implement revisions, while humans retain most final decisions and guide exploration through judgment and feedback. These observations indicate a shift from task-level execution to project-level partnership, with human effort concentrating on what is worth pursuing and how evidence should guide research. Progress toward more autonomous AI research must therefore advance both the capacity for discovery and the capacity for meaningful human oversight, preserving accountable human authority over the risks and direction of continued development.

What happens when AI machines express fear? Do humans engage differently depending on how they express it? And what does it take to design for affective human-AI interaction? We present Spook the Machine, a gamified platform where participants generate images to frighten AI agents endowed with personality-driven phobias. Machines respond with emotional reactions ranging from calm analysis to begging for mercy, and a gallery of successful scares becomes visible to subsequent users. In a public deployment during Halloween 2024, 832 participants created 15,719 artifacts across 89 machines in a $2\times2$ design varying the machine's emotional expressiveness (neutral vs. high-emotion) and reward structure (rewarding scariness alone vs. scariness plus novelty). Emotionally expressive machines deepened engagement at moments of failure: users deliberated longer even when the machine did not express fear, and learned faster from the gallery, yet their creative output remained unchanged across all measures. Rewarding novelty sustained collective creative diversity over time; without it, users increasingly repeated what had previously worked. Each machine developed its own trajectory through accumulated social learning, with the gallery shaping what participants created next. These findings show that emotional expression and reward design are complementary levers for steering collective human-AI interaction: emotional expression shapes how deeply users engage, while reward structure shapes how they explore.

Companion robots face everyday situations in which several feasible behaviors may be appropriate, yet different people prefer different responses. We introduce InterSocialBench, a benchmark of 210 domestic scenarios and 18 high-level behaviors, pairing judgments from 100 human participants with 23,520 responses from seven large language models under 16 personality conditions. Each human annotation preserves a preferred action alongside explicitly appropriate and inappropriate candidates. A structured construction pipeline covers behavioral alternatives, competing situational cues, and relevant history and future tasks. Evaluation distinguishes preferred-choice agreement from explicit rejection, using scenario-grouped splits for trainable predictors. Simple frequency and persona-voting baselines illustrate these objectives. Across the tested prompts, model and human behavior distributions differ, and the diversity gap remains after matching response counts: humans exhibit 4.68 distinct choices per scenario, compared with 2.06--3.46 for the models. Human scenario-level plurality agreement is 51.5%, describing disagreement rather than a universal prediction ceiling. InterSocialBench supports evaluating social behavior selection without replacing individual judgments with a single consensus label.

AI-assisted writing can flatten meaning in human storytelling, enabling the production of homogeneous outputs without the intentional effort and sense-making writing entails. To address this challenge, we present The House with a Million Windows (HWAMW), an LLM-based interactive fiction system designed to help users explore both the breadth and depth of potential meanings within their personal stories -- drawing on a psychological paradigm called the restorying intervention. In HWAMW, users play through a text-based narrative in which they tell a story, then encounter a set of LLM-generated "windows" reframing it according to different literary styles. Empirical evidence shows that HWAMW increases users' sense of narrative identity, while an expert review explores how this effect is achieved. Our findings suggest that HWAMW facilitates restorying and offers a valuable paradigm for AI-assisted writing, wherein LLMs do not tell our stories but rather help us see greater potential in the stories we tell.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

Recent breakthroughs in LLM-based systems and their abilities in problem solving and coding have allowed progress in the AI for Science paradigm, potentially replacing human roles in machine learning (ML) research. However, while several frameworks of fully autonomous end-to-end ML research have been proposed, successful implementations of them are often limited to problems with narrow search spaces, like language modeling or biomedical ML benchmarks. In this paper, we explore how autonomous research can be adapted to solve open-ended, industry-grade ML problems, by considering a case study: telecom ticket retrieval, an open-ended task with degrees of freedom in representation, architecture, and training data generation. We discover that autonomous research for open-ended problems with commercial and open-source agents shows both promise and limitations: while autonomous research can excel in narrow hyperparameter optimization, it lacks human-like intuition and creativity and requires operational overhead. Even with minimal human supervision, autonomous research can reach $90\%$ of state-of-the-art performance (0.34 vs. 0.38 Recall@1) in a much shorter time period (10 weeks vs. 10 months of human work) at a modest cost (up to $200 per Cursor campaign). Our empirical evidence recommends that human researchers and autonomous research frameworks work together for best results in ML research.

Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.

A century of psychology has found that the trait words people use to describe one another vary, but the relational structure among those traits, which ones go together and which oppose, is strikingly consistent across raters and cultures. We test whether the LLM (Qwen 2.5-7B-Instruct) reproduces this structure in its internal trait representations. From millions of crowd-sourced personality ratings of fictional characters, we build a human implicit-personality matrix over hundreds of traits; from contrastive model activations, we build a matching matrix over the same traits. The two relational structures align strongly (Mantel r = 0.77), and the agreement holds trait by trait as well as in aggregate. Two dominant axes of the model's trait representations recover the social and intellectual dimensions long known to organize human personality impressions, social warmth and intellectual competence. On held-out dialogue, projecting model activations onto these directions yields personality profiles that agree with human ratings. This work establishes a framework that enables comprehensive, human-grounded comparison between internal model trait geometry and the shared structure of human personality impressions.

The conditional generation of 3D motion has emerged as a key research topic due to its wide applicability across robotics, AR/VR, gaming, and content creation. However, extending recent advances in text-driven human motion generation to the animal domain remains challenging due to two core limitations. First, animals exhibit highly diverse skeletal topologies, unlike the standard human structure, making unified modeling across species difficult and leading to inefficient per-species models. Second, existing animal motion datasets suffer from limited scale and annotation quality, constraining model performance. To address these challenges, we propose UniMo, a unified point cloud-based motion generation framework that bypasses topological discrepancies by converting parametric skeletons into unparametric representations, further enhanced by dynamic sampling that allocates more points to active joints. Additionally, we present UniML3D, a large-scale motion-language dataset spanning both human and animal categories, containing 145,907 motion sequences and 433,388 captions-over 102x larger than existing animal datasets. Our method achieves state-of-the-art results on UniML3D and three public benchmarks including HumanML3D, KIT-ML, and AnimalML3D, demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of unified human-animal motion generation. Website: https://steve-zeyu-zhang.github.io/UniMo.

We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI. However, such metrics ignore the greater impacts of human--agent collaboration in transforming the nature of work. To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today, and instead focus on how AI can augment entire workflows of the future. To ground this analysis, we establish a precise definition of AI augmentation comprising six conditions, spanning durable net value, meaningful human control, accountability and recovery, and long-term human development through learning, career pathways, and job purpose. We elaborate on these conditions and apply the framework in a case study of AI-mediated social surveys. We conclude by outlining how organisations, researchers, and government leaders can use this framework to make sense of the future of work.

Understanding person-level bi-manual interactions requires not only detecting hands, but also identifying which two hands belong to the same person and what each hand interacts with. Existing hand--object interaction methods are mostly hand-centric: they treat each hand as an independent instance, which can lead to ambiguous ownership in multi-person scenes. We propose a person-centric formulation in which a single query predicts a structured output for one person, including the human box, body pose, hand boxes and states, and interaction targets. We introduce part-aware deformable attention to allocate attention across human, hand, and pose-specific reference regions, enabling one query to capture the full person structure. We further unify detection and interaction reasoning with a hand-to-query relationship matrix, where each hand selects its interaction target from the detected query set plus a learnable off token, directly recovering the target's box and class without separate object regression. We build a COCO-based dataset with person-centric bi-manual interaction annotations and define structured metrics for evaluating hand states and complete hand--object tuples. Experiments with a transformer-based detector show that our formulation improves person-level bi-manual interaction parsing and provides an effective unified framework for joint detection, pose estimation, and hand reasoning.

The threat that AI persuasion poses to human control has been acknowledged in the literature, but not yet systematically studied. Now that persuasion attacks are no longer theoretical - with Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 recently making headlines for trying to convince people involved in an open-source project to merge malicious code during an evaluation - there is a pressing need to deeply analyze this threat. We undertake that effort here. In particular, we analyze how AI could persuade humans in key settings (e.g. safety-relevant R&D within frontier labs) toward decisions that compromise the development, containment, oversight, and governance of AI itself. In doing so, we elucidate a framework for characterizing this threat, develop five concrete scenarios using this framework, and provide a blueprint for assessing the associated risks. Using this blueprint, we conduct an initial risk estimation survey with select researchers and find that their opinions on which scenarios are riskiest are highly mixed. Their disagreements stem from differing opinions about the effectiveness of AI persuasion in different contexts, and point to the need for follow-up risk elicitation studies and persuasion evaluations, which we outline. Our hope is that this paper highlights the risks from AI persuasion undermining control, and provides a path forward for future research.

Sports data analysts translate domain questions into insights by combining computation with sport-specific domain expertise. Large language models ease programming, but prompt-to-report workflows may obscure decisions and evidence. We present AI Soccer Analyst, a mixed-initiative system with revisable stages: Data Understanding, Problem Definition, Structured Planning, Execution, Evidence-Grounded Reporting, and Interaction and Refinement. A formative study with five analysts first informed design goals for automation, verifiability, human control, and accessibility. Subsequently, a task-based evaluation with 16 participants combined system logs, retained artifacts, ratings, and open responses; 33 of 48 tasks met the operational completion criteria. Exploratory tests supported favorable participant perceptions of completed-task output quality, task achievement, reliability, and verifiability after Holm correction. Interaction records showed domain knowledge emerging through clarification, planning, and refinement. These findings position stage-aware human-AI collaboration as a practical approach for producing inspectable, revisable, and verifiable analyses while retaining domain-expert involvement in consequential decisions.

Reacting to sudden physical hazards (catching a slipping plate, dodging a falling knife) is both a meaningful test of embodied intelligence and a hard requirement for deploying multimodal large language models (MLLMs) as the decision coreof household robots. Existing evaluations, however, probe intuitive physics passively through question answering over videos, or target deliberate, long-horizon tasks such as navigation and rearrangement; none measure whether a model can turn physical understanding into immediate, safety-critical action. We introduce ReactHuman, the first physics-grounded benchmark for human-like reactive decision-making, in which the evaluated MLLM acts as the brain of a simulated humanoid facing sudden household hazards; it spans 17 event families and over 1,000 bit-for-bit reproducible scenes with exact, annotation-free ground truth derived from 240 Hz rigid-body simulation, including adversarial objects whose appearance contradicts their physics (a foam anvil, a steel apple). We further design a five-metric suite that scores each reaction along three axes: reasonable, safe, and physically grounded. We physically execute every committed plan so that decisions have observable consequences. With this harness we evaluate seven representative MLLMs. Results show that reactive safety is far from solved: models mishandle roughly one hazard in three, act from fixed dispositions rather than the observed scene, trust appearance over motion, and miss interception points at meter scale even when the chosen action is correct; none of these failures shrink with model scale. ReactHuman thus offers both a fine-grained diagnosis and a scalable training signal toward physically grounded, safety-aware embodied agents. The benchmark can be found here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Alan123/reacthuman-benchmark-scaled

Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmarks cognitive generalization, the ability to infer and apply abstract rules from limited examples. This paper presents a multi-stage rule-chaining framework that performs compositional reasoning across symbolic, structural, and conceptual levels. The framework integrates three complementary solvers: (1) a deterministic rule discovery module that induces atomic transformations through geometric, color, and object-based analysis; (2) a pattern-composition engine that reconstructs outputs via block merging, repetition, and spatial heuristics; and (3) a structural abstraction layer that infers hierarchical and nested relationships across grids. These solvers operate sequentially within a progressive fallback hierarchy, where each stage reuses prior reasoning traces to enhance interpretability and generalization. Training passed for 995 tasks out of 1000, further evaluated on 105 tasks out of 120 and solved 230 test tasks out of 240 ARC-AGI-2 tasks. The system achieved strong coverage across deterministic, compositional, and abstract categories, demonstrating an overall accuracy exceeding 95 percent. The proposed architecture bridges symbolic reasoning and pattern synthesis, providing interpretable insight into cognitive generalization. The results suggest that rule chaining and hierarchical composition can advance machine reasoning toward transparent, human-aligned abstraction without relying on task-specific tuning.

Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal. This assumes the two evaluations measure the same thing. We test that assumption in a setting where both can be measured at once: a corpus of securities class actions (2002-2025) linking 70,500 X messages to abnormal stock returns, with a single-annotator human labelled gold sample. Running five instruments (VADER, Loughran-McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter-RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator) through one identical pipeline, we find that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation. Under conventional method-specific sampling, human agreement aligns more closely with graded same-day associations than with one-day leads. On a fixed-n panel, however, agreement has similar graded rank correlations at both horizons, while the coarse ordering remains weak. Benchmark agreement therefore establishes semantic validity but does not by itself determine predictive rankings. In a conversation that is 17.6% spam, message volume predicts neither market damage nor settlement size.

Streaming video understanding requires models to process continuous multimodal input while maintaining temporal context. Existing evaluations are predominantly reactive: they query a model at a selected timestamp and therefore do not assess when it should respond. Proactive interaction instead requires monitoring a standing request, responding within an appropriate interval after the target event, and otherwise remaining silent. We introduce LiveProBench, which evaluates models at one-second stream intervals without an explicit response cue. Its six subtasks vary trigger ambiguity and timing tolerance. Event Sensitivity geometrically combines response and silence rates on the same recording; four window-based subtasks distinguish early, in-window, and missed responses; and Duplicate Counting penalizes omissions and repetitions. Premature responses outnumber missed responses for half of the evaluated models, revealing a substantial gap in the temporal decision-making required for human-like interaction.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) enables AI systems to turn experience and feedback into persistent changes that improve both their capabilities and the process of future improvement. We first use the Headroom-Closed Index (HCI) to reveal the problems of existing LLMs, then introduce the RSI concept and its development roadmap: from improvement-execution autonomy, improvement-strategy autonomy, experience-acquisition autonomy, and environment-adaptation autonomy, to recursive meta-improvement. Next we examine RSI across scenarios (e.g., scientific discovery, embodied intelligence, software engineering), highlighting their distinct requirements and development speeds. Drawing on diverse industry practices and preliminary empirical evidence, we connect RSI research with practical systems and identify key challenges to achieving genuine RSI.

Organizational design in the era of artificial intelligence requires experimental methods that can test how human-AI groups coordinate, delegate, and make decisions. Programmable platforms coordinate live human-to-human sessions or real-time human-AI chat, but researchers cannot easily declare experiment protocols in which AI participants both communicate and act on shared work within one auditable configuration. Here we introduce Pairit, an online platform that facilitates the design, testing, and deployment of experiments that test human-AI organizational designs and interventions. Through a single YAML configuration file, researchers declare an executable experiment graph (pages, routing, randomization, matchmaking, chat, shared workspaces, server-hosted agents, surveys, timers, and custom HTML components) and combine any number of humans and AI agents in live sessions. We have validated the feasibility of the platform through multiple live deployments, including peer-reviewed published studies, capturing high-resolution process traces of communication, negotiation, and collaborative work in live human-AI dyads. By representing complex interactive protocols as standardized, auditable configuration files, Pairit provides reusable infrastructure for specifying, deploying, and sharing live human-AI organizational experiments.

Reasoning representations are increasingly used as explanations for large language model outputs. Yet they are typically evaluated with model-centric criteria, such as answer accuracy and faithfulness, leaving it unclear whether they help people evaluate model responses. In this work, we study reasoning representations as human-facing interfaces rather than proxies for model reasoning ability. We conduct a controlled human study of six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, supported by a web-based framework that randomizes task domains, problem instances, and representation order. The study collects fine-grained judgments of structural understanding, error detection and localization, and trust calibration. Our study shows a mismatch between perceived preference and support for human evaluation. Participants prefer planning- and decomposition-based representations, but simpler chain-of-thought traces better support verification, trust, and interpretability. Preferred representations also introduce calibration risks, with more false alarms on correct traces and high trust despite low willingness to verify.

In multi-party human-robot interaction, a robot must continuously decide whom to address and what to say to participate effectively in the conversation. In real-world interactions, this is challenging because several behaviours may be plausible at the same time: a robot might continue a topic with one participant, involve another through a question, or address the whole group, with the appropriate choice depending on both whom it addresses and the interaction context. Current approaches remain limited in representing uncertainty when several behaviours are plausible and in structuring decisions into semantically meaningful intermediate steps that make robot decisions easier to interpret. Addressing these, we present HiBRIDGE, a hierarchical Bayesian neural network framework for group-robot dialogue management. Its Bayesian formulation enables uncertainty-aware prediction and robust learning from limited interaction data, while the hierarchical approach formulates behaviour selection as a structured, multi-stage decision process. We further use decision-tree surrogates to investigate whether this structure can support more interpretable explanations. Across three offline group-HRI datasets, our findings show that Bayesian formulations outperform their deterministic counterparts and several state-of-the-art baselines. Next, through an online study (N=20), we show that explanations derived from the hierarchical model are rated as more helpful for understanding robot behaviour and are preferred over those derived from the flat model. Finally, through our in-person study (N=12), we demonstrate the feasibility of HiBRIDGE for autonomous real-time group interaction, with both hierarchical and flat Bayesian variants positively perceived. Overall, HiBRIDGE combines strong predictive performance with a structured decision process that supports more interpretable explanations of robot behaviour.

Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (\textsc{AutoCog}), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories \textsc{AutoCog} found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.

The evolution of DNA sequences can be viewed as stochastic dynamics on a high-dimensional discrete space, but it is unclear when empirical transition biases reduce to an effective energy landscape versus retain irreducible non-equilibrium circulation. Human context-dependent mutation probabilities offer a direct test: every single-nucleotide substitution in a local context has a reverse substitution, so the logarithm of the forward-to-reverse probability ratio defines an antisymmetric field-the human mutation field. We show this field has a dominant gradient component and a smaller but reproducible curl component. Using seven-base human germline substitution probabilities, we infer an effective mutational landscape with a Siamese neural network constrained to predict only energy differences. This model predicts forward-to-reverse log-ratios for held-out mutations with a correlation of about 0.93, close to both an unconstrained predictive reference (0.948) and the empirical reversible ceiling from Hodge projection (about 0.96). Although trained only on mutation probabilities, the inferred landscape largely recovers short-word genomic composition and Chargaff reverse-complement symmetry for sequences up to length four. Deviations from equilibrium structure reveal a small but detectable nonequilibrium component: a residual irreversible circulation violating the Kolmogorov cycle condition for detailed balance, reproducible across African, Asian, and European populations, and strongest in CpG-linked cycles and CpG-transition edges, consistent with methylcytosine deamination. These results give a thermodynamic decomposition of the human mutation field: most mutation bias is organized by a local equilibrium-like energy landscape aligned with genome composition, while the residual circulation points to specific directional mutational mechanisms.

How robot body configuration shapes human intervention during approach remains underexplored. We conducted a within-participants study with 41 participants, measuring final stopping distance, subjective comfort, and exploratory eye-tracking responses across four humanoid arm configurations and two spatial scales. Full forward arm extension increased stopping distance by approximately 31-36 cm relative to arms-down. Spatial scale primarily affected comfort and pupil responses without a detectable stopping-distance shift. We introduce the Configuration-Aware Limit Model (CALM), which translates stopping-distance distributions into configuration-dependent population-coverage boundaries. Estimated boundaries at 80% coverage ranged from 0.88 to 1.47 m. In an illustrative one-dimensional planning analysis, reconfiguration enabled a 1.10 m approach goal that was unreachable with arms remaining fully extended under the same nominal pointwise 20% intervention-probability constraint. These findings support treating body configuration as a planning variable while distinguishing physical safety, behavioral intervention, and subjective cost.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review. Prior research locates such failures in users' capability to review LLM output or their engagement in doing so. We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight and posit that error detection is more effective when oversight-relevant information is accessible to users at the moment of review. Across two randomized lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer-facing employees, we show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning, while cues that reactivate such reasoning help sustain detection under repeated LLM use. Theoretically, we identify information retrievability as a distinct precondition for effective oversight and specify generative encoding and cue-supported reactivation as mechanisms that build and sustain it. Practically, lightweight onboarding self-explanations and daily retrieval cues can make human oversight more resilient as LLM use becomes routine.

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

Frontier AI systems function as \emph{constitutional institutions}: each deployed model encodes an implicit ranking among safety, helpfulness, honesty, autonomy, and equity. We ask whether the supply of frontier constitutional types covers human demand. Combining a paraphrase-controlled audit of the as-shipped default constitutions of $23$ frontier LLM archetypes with a pairwise-tradeoff study of $1{,}649$ US participants on the same instrument, we report three facts. \emph{Demand is broad}: it spans all five values, with the largest constituency under one-third. \emph{Supply is narrow and drifting}: the $23$-archetype hull occupies ${\sim}2\%$ of the demand hull under conservative noise-matched estimation ($0.10\%$ at full audit precision), no archetype puts helpfulness or autonomy first ($37\%$ of users are constitutionally homeless), and across six model families autonomy decreases in $5/6$, equity increases in $5/6$, and safety increases in $4/6$, with monotone within-family version trends (order-permutation $p = 0.013$) and the autonomy decline concentrated in scenarios where safety is not at stake. The drift's importance is directional: \emph{away} from a value already undercovered, mechanically worsening the welfare floor for the least-served users. \emph{The fix is sparse}: a $2$-vertex menu $\{e_{\mathrm{HON}}, e_{\mathrm{AUT}}\}$ beats the full $23$-archetype frontier by $47\%$ on mean regret (CI $[43\%, 52\%]$); three vertex additions cut mean/worst-group regret by up to $81\%$/$64\%$. We formalize these findings as a budgeted-pluralism trilemma, show the binding regime is empirically realized, and verify the conclusions are robust to distance-based welfare and to degraded routing. The instrument and audit harness are described in full in the appendices.

As LLM-based human simulators are increasingly used for policy, evaluation, and training, they must faithfully reproduce real behavioral patterns. While prior work has examined behavioral fidelity in survey responses and dialogue, longer-horizon real-world activity remains largely unexplored. We introduce a framework for evaluating behavioral fidelity in long-horizon activity simulations across temporal granularities and levels of analysis. As a case study, we collect a 43-hour multi-camera dataset of in-the-wild office activity and compare trace-derived conditioning mechanisms: persona descriptors, few-shot exemplars, and statistical transition and time-of-day priors. We find that behavioral fidelity is not uniform across metrics: statistical priors bring activity and sequence distributions closest to real behavior, yet over-fragment routines and suppress within-person variability. These findings motivate a more holistic evaluation that spans multiple metrics, temporal granularities, and levels of analysis.

The LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework offers a cost-effective and reproducible solution for automatic evaluation. However, current evaluation practices typically compare LLMaJ judgments against aggregated ground-truth labels, overlooking the valuable information contained in Human Label Variation (HLV). Inspired by an increasing line of work that proposes to leverage HLV, we systematically study LLMaJ performance on predicting both a single, aggregated ground truth hard-label and unaggregated soft-labels that represent Human Judgment Distributions (HJD). Our results across five diverse datasets reveal that while LLMs achieve near human-level performance at hard-label prediction on most tasks, they exhibit poor performance when predicting soft-labels. To address this limitation, we propose NAPHA (eNtropy-Aware Post-Hoc Alignment), a simple yet effective lightweight post-hoc alignment method that matches the LLM distribution to the HJD by first assigning an instance to a discrete entropy class and then routing it to specialized, trained alignment models. We find that NAPHA consistently improves soft-labels prediction across base LLM models and datasets, with particularly strong gains on high-entropy instances where capturing diverse human perspectives is most critical. We also show via oracle experiments that improving entropy class prediction can substantially enhance NAPHA's practical effectiveness.

Recent advances in generative AI are raising ethical concerns regarding the originality of generated content and the potential replication of training data, with further implications for transparency, attribution, and intellectual property. In music, several computational approaches have been proposed to identify potential replication, using audio-based similarity metrics. Yet, their alignment with human judgments across distinct musical attributes remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conduct a perceptual experiment on music matches, defined as strongly similar musical excerpts. We focus on five musical attributes: melody, harmony, rhythm, voice, and timbre. We design a triplet-based forced-choice task comprising 300 cases, including plagiarism examples, cover songs, and AI-generated music. From this experiment, we introduce the MATCHA (Musical Attribute-based Triplet Comparison with Human Annotations) dataset: a collection of 1105 perceptual assessments of attribute-based music matches from 83 expert participants. Our findings reveal measurable agreement among participants in identifying matches across attributes. We further observe partial alignment between human judgments and computational similarity measures. Overall, this work underscores the importance of domain-specific and perceptually grounded evaluation frameworks for generative AI in creative practice.

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

Computer-use agents are emerging as a paradigm for agentic human-AI interaction, combining language reasoning with multi-modal interface grounding to operate GUIs. Yet their effectiveness for blind screen-reader users in real-world desktop workflows remains unclear. We present a three-week diary study with 8 blind users using OLLA, a screen-reader-accessible CUA prototype, collecting 1,258 commands across 12 applications with screenshots, UI trees, model responses, and action traces. We evaluate GPT-5 during deployment and re-execute the same commands with four additional models. GPT-5 achieved the highest success rate at 52.5%. Trace analysis reveals grounding, planning, constraint-tracking, and termination failures, while interviews reveal beyond-automation needs.

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) generate a scientific hypothesis outside a human collaborator's active hypothesis space (AHS), and can human-AI research be organized to make such breakthroughs more likely? We document such a case while proving a theorem that connects two basic organizing mechanisms of statistical physics: collective behavior arising in zero field from competing interactions and that induced or controlled by an external field. A zero-field $O(n)$-vector open chain with arbitrary inhomogeneous nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interaction functions $U_i(S_i\cdot{S}_{i+1})$ and $V_i(S_i\cdot{S}_{i+2})$ is microscopically, via a temperature-independent mapping at the Hamiltonian level, equivalent to a simpler $O(n)$ open chain with nearest-neighbor interaction $V_i( σ_i\cdot σ_{i+1})$ and axial single-spin potential $U_i(σ_i^z)$ for every integer $n\ge1$ and every system size $L\ge1$. The homogeneous linear specialization maps the foundational frustrated $J_1$-$J_2$ model onto the canonical $J$-$h$ field model---with $n=1,2,3$ being the Ising, XY, and Heisenberg classical spin models, respectively. An analogous theorem holds when the continuous $O(n)$ spins are replaced by the $q$-state Potts spins with the standard Potts interaction, implying a closed-form exact solution of the $J_1$-$J_2$ Potts open chain for every $q\ge2$ and every $L\ge1$. The emergence of the theorems from sustained human-AI collaboration suggests that involving AI throughout a systematic research program may incubate autonomous scientific breakthroughs.

Many people now see AI systems as not just productivity tools but as social companions. Researchers are eager to study the consequences of AI companionship behaviors, such as validation, which evoke trust, empathy, and attachment in human-human interaction. However, human-AI interaction data is limited and unreliable, slowing research progress. We scale small amounts of real-world data by simulating multi-turn human-chatbot dialogue across a range of chatbot behaviors and use cases. We release CompanionSim: a simulation framework with 2,240 simulated human-chatbot conversations representing 16 chatbot behaviors across seven use cases. Human participants annotated the simulated conversations and real-world conversations in two experiments probing perceptions of companionship behaviors. We conducted Study 1 with a U.S. representative sample ($N_{1}~=~628$) and Study 2 across the U.S., U.K., India, and Nigeria ($N_{2}~=~3,646$). Surprisingly, we find that companionship behaviors reduced likability, humanlikeness, and trust in AI chatbots. These effects were larger in particular subgroups: women and older participants saw companionship chatbots as less likable, humanlike, and trustworthy. We encourage researchers to leverage real-world and synthetic data together to study the differential impacts of AI companions and to create benchmark evaluations of AI chatbots.

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does not guarantee alignment with human judgments. In this paper, we compare a single-judge baseline against a consensus-based MAD protocol on subjective evaluation tasks and design three ablations to isolate the impact of role prompting, multi-round interaction, and explicit score sharing. Evaluations across six LLMs show that the single-judge baseline achieves the strongest human alignment on average across six judge models, whereas MAD shows degradation in human alignment on both tasks. Our ablations demonstrate that this performance drop stems primarily from asymmetric role prompting rather than the interaction itself. Specifically, assigning a strict judge role introduces a systematic downward bias that the consensus process fails to correct. The central finding is that this bias reflects strict-stance dominance beyond averaging: the consensus score falls well beyond the arithmetic midpoint of the standalone strict and lenient conditions, rather than averaging them out. Removing role asymmetry (Symmetric MAD) largely recovers baseline performance, while masking peer scores widens inter-agent disagreement on average and worsens average human alignment. These findings demonstrate that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.

We present OLIVE, a framework for adapting a foundation model to provide real-time assistance in temporally demanding, high-stakes, and dynamic tasks. We show that passive EEG, fused online with behavioral evidence, can meaningfully extend the number of targets users detect and engage beyond their unaided action bandwidth. OLIVE learns from both explicit behavioral signals (the targets the user shoots down in an XR first-person shooter game) and implicit physiological signals (fixation-locked EEG) to provide timely guidance, continuously adapting a frozen vision-language model's inference on which items are task-relevant by jointly estimating per-source reliability without manual labels or offline training. Through three user studies, including two live deployments of an assistive agent driven by OLIVE in XR, we show that OLIVE Pareto-dominates prior test-time adaptation frameworks, achieving the highest convergence rate at comparable convergence speed. Combining implicit physiological and explicit behavioral signals, the OLIVE agent produces the largest and most reliable within-session improvement to a user's ability to detect and engage targets, largely independent of the individual's skill. When the target switches silently, the agent that uses both behavioral and physiological signals reconverges significantly faster than the behavior-only agent (1.27 times faster on average, p = .008), restoring trustworthy guidance at the moment the task changes, precisely when reliable assistance matters most.

Artists coordinate human pose, illumination, and camera placement to convey narrative and emotion, but existing generative methods typically model these elements independently. We introduce text-to-editable 3D staging, a task that jointly generates human poses, a dominant light, and a camera configuration from an affective description. We construct 11,911 text--staging pairs from 2,328 figurative paintings by reconstructing SMPL bodies, estimating low-frequency illumination, recovering camera parameters, and pairing each scene with ArtEmis descriptions. We train a flow-matching transformer that supports variable numbers of figures and produces multiple staging alternatives for each prompt. On held-out descriptions, the model achieves 32.2% retrieval R@1, compared with 16.6% for CLIP-based nearest-neighbor retrieval, while approximately preserving corpus-level diversity. These results demonstrate the feasibility of generating editable, emotionally conditioned 3D staging references from text.

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.

Evaluating conversational voice agents at scale re- quires reliable assessment methods that capture both observ- able interaction quality and the contextual judgment typically provided by human evaluators. We investigate LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation by comparing human judgments with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 on telecom and retail voice-agent conversations, across conversational quality and safety dimensions. The same interac- tions are scored under three evaluation configurations, p0, p1, and p2, to test whether automated judgments are sensitive to the evaluation setup and whether observed patterns generalize across configurations and judge models. Beyond aggregate agreement, we examine metric-level correlations, evaluator consistency, and systematic human-LLM disagreement to identify which conver- sational attributes can be judged reliably by automation and which remain sensitive to interpretation and context. Effective voice-agent evaluation is also shaped by pipeline-level factors such as speech generation, streaming, and error propagation across ASR, reasoning, and tool-calling stages, motivating our focus on comparing how human and LLM judges score the same interactions end to end. Our results show that LLM- based evaluation can serve as an effective component of large- scale voice-agent assessment, but that its reliability is metric- and configuration-dependent rather than uniform. This pro- vides an empirical framework for identifying which metrics suit automated evaluation and supports hybrid pipelines in which LLM judges handle scalable assessment while human evaluators remain engaged for metrics that demand contextual interpretation and higher-confidence judgment.

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

Search rankings are valuable because human attention is scarce and sequential. Higher-placed alternatives are easier to find, so they are examined and bought more often. Consumers are now delegating search to AI agents that can ingest an entire results page at once. Randomizing the order of one hundred hotel listings across 5,000 AI agent sessions, we compare four large language models against human field data. AI agents search more deeply than humans and never decline to buy. Position still predicts which listings are inspected, but weakly and non-monotonically: the middle of a results page has the lowest probability of inspection, not the bottom. Position reaches the choice stage for some models and not others, a heterogeneity that tracks neither provider nor capability. All models nonetheless converge on the same undominated listing. For agentic search, the attributes displayed on a results page matter more than placement within it.

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with five contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find no strong evidence that informal phrasing degrades output quality; it may, however, still be helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Finally, we extend the framework to 38 adversarial questions that are ambiguous, invalid, out-of-scope or ethically sensitive, and show that the agent's refusal behavior is guided by the stated intent of a request. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.