Human-AI Collaboration

Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on \textit{traces} (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define \textit{strong} equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning for human-AI interaction typically relies on a single large language model to simulate user behavior. We show that this approach systematically fails to generalize, and trace the failure to simulator collapse: because the simulator LLM is mode-collapsed, an LLM policy trained against it overfits to narrow strategies that exploit the simulator's dominant mode, and such a policy transfers poorly to unseen simulators and real users. We formalize this collapse theoretically and propose two complementary solutions, one at inference time and one at training time. The inference-time solution, Verbalized Sampling, broadens the simulator's behavior by sampling from a verbalized response distribution, reducing mode collapse. The training-time solution, Co-Training, jointly optimizes the policy against a population of trainable simulators, preventing it from overfitting to any single simulator's mode. We validate both solutions on three multi-turn benchmarks: Persuasion for Good, $τ^2$-bench, and CooperBench. Verbalized Sampling improves held-out success by up to 9% over single-simulator RL, and Co-Training pushes gains further to 14%; the human study shows similar gain on real users. Both solutions preserve the policy diversity that collapses under single-simulator RL. To support further work in this direction, we release SCOPE, an open-source framework for Population Co-Training multi-agent RL. More broadly, our results suggest that the diversity of the training environment, not only the policy, is critical to the generalization of multi-turn RL to real-world deployment.

Realistic 3D human generation plays a crucial role in many graphics applications. However, current methods still struggle to generate high-quality human geometry and texture while maintaining 3D consistency and inference efficiency. In this work, we address these limitations by introducing TGRHuman, a novel approach for generating realistic 3D humans from text. Our method decouples geometry and texture generation to alleviate the issues commonly encountered in NeRF-based methods. Instead of relying on slow, implicit score-distillation-based optimization, we directly use explicit multi-view observation generation and optimization for efficient 3D synthesis. For geometry generation, we propose a high-resolution generative module for multi-view normals together with a geometry-carving strategy that preserves view consistency and supports loose clothing. For texture generation, we produce spatially consistent RGB observations from densely sampled surrounding views using a carefully designed texture-prior acquisition strategy and a diffusion renderer, enabling detailed human texture synthesis. Experiments show that our method can generate high-quality and consistent 3D human geometry and texture efficiently. TGRHuman outperforms existing text-to-3D human methods in both geometry and texture quality.

Large Language Model-powered agents are increasingly used in the workplace via human-artificial intelligence (AI) collaboration. In this new era of work, it is important to understand the kinds of prompting traits that contribute to task success. Moreover, we need to uncover key skills required for modern professionals and inform educators on how to foster these skills among students. Existing guidelines for human-AI collaboration are built from either top-down theory or context-specific observations of human-AI interactions. However, since LLM capabilities are rapidly improving, theory may not be able to explain emerging interaction patterns, and empirical guidelines may become obsolete quickly. In this work, we explore an automated, data-driven approach to uncover patterns, which we term traits, of effective human-AI interaction that are aligned with task outcomes. We propose Principal Trait Analysis, a Principal Component Analysis-inspired algorithm for deriving common traits from patterns in LLM conversations. Our algorithm uses LLM-based processing stages to analyze corpora of human-AI collaborative session traces, deriving common traits across the dataset and scoring each human collaborator's usage style by each trait. The approach also allows domain expertise to be injected during trait discovery and selects the most distinguishing traits to be those that exhibit the highest variance across collaborators. We evaluate PTA on two human-AI collaborative coding datasets, an educational setting (students working with an AI tutor) and a professional setting (developers working with an AI coding agent). We find that PTA-derived traits are significant in explaining collaborator behavior across both settings and can help predict task outcomes. However, whether traits qualify as skills remains to be seen, due to inconclusive results on generalizability and how user traits change over time.

Human-AI research often evaluates individual capabilities, combined performance, or final outputs, but these approaches do not preserve how one party's response becomes part of the conditions under which the other party's next contribution is formed. This article introduces socioduality, a sequential, reciprocal, and history-carrying relational process between two distinguishable parties in which a response from one party becomes part of the observable conditions under which the other party's subsequent contribution, judgement, decision, or action is formed. Specified for human-AI dyads, the construct uses nested units: moves, confirmed sociodual episodes, linked pathways, and the broader interaction container. A minimum episode A1-B1-A2 requires evidence of response contingency and return contingency; candidate episodes are classified as confirmed, non-sociodual, or indeterminate before secondary coding of response orientation and substantive contribution re-formation. Three propositions address history-conditioned formation, pathway divergence, and robustness differences among endpoint-equivalent pathways. A frozen operational protocol was calibrated on three previously unseen natural human-AI records through two separately executed model-based evaluator series. Move and candidate reconstruction converged exactly in two cases and differed by one local multimodal unitisation decision in the third; remaining disagreement was concentrated at return-contingency boundaries. Socioduality therefore provides a bounded and empirically tractable process construct for analysing how human and AI contributions are formed through interaction while preserving pathway information that endpoint-centred analysis cannot recover.

Shani et al. (2026) show that LLM representations broadly recover human category boundaries, while failing to reflect fine-grained typicality structure. Their analysis uses cosine similarity over dense model representations. We revisit their approach using overlap over active sparse autoencoder (SAE) latent sets as a more interpretable similarity measure. We first verify that this set-level measure is meaningful: SAE latent sets can recover union-like compositional structure in controlled toy models and induce semantically coherent neighborhoods in natural text. Extending the human-concepts analysis to SAE set similarities, we find that SAE activation sets do not recover human category boundaries or within-category typicality more faithfully than dense embeddings or residual-stream states, but instead track model-internal similarity structure. To probe this gap further, we study active latent sets under well-controlled semantic modifications, revealing a substantial mismatch between human judgements of conceptual change and change in the SAE active set. We interpret this as evidence that, outside idealised settings, SAE features do not compose via simple bag-of-features semantics.

After an older adult misses a medication dose, a software agent can send another reminder and an embodied agent can bring the medication. Yet neither explains whether the person forgot, is confused, has side effects, or deliberately refused, nor what support is appropriate. This reveals a structural gap in Agentic AI: Digital Agents primarily transform software states, while Embodied Agents transform physical states; neither makes a person's evolving state and agency the primary object of modeling, intervention, and evaluation. We introduce Combodied Agents, a human-centered paradigm that perceives, models, predicts, and supports individual human-state trajectories over time, using software tools, sensors, wearables, robots, and human services as action channels rather than end goals. We unify fragmented capabilities across personal assistants, health agents, AI companions, and adaptive human--AI systems into a closed loop: event-based multimodal perception reconstructs meaningful personal events; longitudinal, correctable memory provides temporal context; Personal World Models estimate future personal states and outcomes under alternative decisions and interventions; and an admissible intervention policy selects proportionate support under consent, uncertainty, safety, reversibility, and user control. Feedback from the person and environment updates the loop. Rather than requiring an exhaustive Human Digital Twin, the framework uses purpose-bounded, uncertainty-aware, user-correctable representations. We organize the design space by human-state targets, relational contexts, and agent roles, and propose scenario-centered evaluation, agency-preservation metrics, benchmark requirements, edge-native personal models, and governance directions. Combodied Agents shift Agentic AI from external task completion toward sustained human benefit.

Purpose: Keyphrases are statistically and semantically important textual units that can also attract readers' attention during comprehension. However, existing keyphrase extraction (KPE) studies mainly focus on improving textual representation while largely overlooking human reading behavior. This study examines whether lightweight webcam-based eye-tracking features can improve KPE from Chinese academic abstracts in Library and Information Science (LIS). Methodology: To address the limited availability of eye-tracking data for Chinese academic reading, we developed a lightweight webcam-based data collection platform using the open-source SearchGazer library and constructed the Chinese LIS Eye-Tracking Corpus (CLIS-ET). Three character-level eye-tracking features, first fixation duration (FFD), fixation number (FN), and total fixation duration (TFD), were incorporated into KPE models to evaluate their effects on extraction performance. Findings: Eye-tracking features consistently improved KPE performance. The combination of FN and TFD achieved the best results on the Att-BiLSTM+CRF model, indicating that readers' fixation behavior provides useful signals for identifying keyphrases in academic abstracts. Originality/value: This study introduces a cost-effective webcam-based eye-tracking approach for KPE and presents CLIS-ET, a Chinese academic eye-tracking corpus containing FFD, FN, and TFD features. The results demonstrate the value of incorporating human reading behavior into keyphrase extraction. Dataset and code: https://github.com/yan-xinyi/ET_AKE and https://github.com/yan-xinyi/Reading_ET_System.

While foundation models have significantly advanced human recognition across diverse modalities, they predominantly rely on static, geometric feature extraction. This approach fundamentally diverges from human perception. Consequently, current models often suffer from "semantic blindness," overfitting to transient noise while failing to leverage invariant soft biometrics, and struggle to capture temporal motion signatures. To bridge this gap, we propose SapiensID 2.0, a human recognition framework enriched with both semantic and temporal awareness. To overcome the lack of soft-biometric annotations, we transfer zero-shot semantic knowledge from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) into a discriminative embedding space. We resolve the dimensional mismatch between these spaces using Invariant Trait Alignment (ITA) to distill core persistent traits, and Transient Noise Disentanglement (TND) to decouple artifacts like clothing. Furthermore, we design a Kinematic Semantic Attention Head (K-SAH) that extends spatial attention across temporal windows. By tracking semantic patches over time, K-SAH captures rich kinematic signatures without requiring large-scale video datasets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SapiensID 2.0 achieves state-of-the-art performance across image- and video-based person re-identification and gait recognition, while maintaining robust face recognition capabilities.

Agentic systems are increasingly expected to improve after deployment, yet single-entity self-evolution is often bounded by a static learning context, such as fixed tasks and feedback. This survey focuses on co-evolution in agentic systems, a multi-component form of self-evolution in which multiple agents and their environment impose adaptive pressure on one another. To organize existing papers, we propose a progressive three-stage taxonomy that traces how the system gradually sheds human-engineered constraints. Agent--Agent Co-Evolution studies how agents adapt through dynamic peers, including adversarial, collaborative, and organizational adaptation. Agent--Environment Co-Evolution extends this loop to adaptive tasks, feedback, and interaction spaces that change with the agents. Meta Co-Evolution further explores the possibility of making the evolution mechanism itself evolvable. We also discuss open challenges in evaluating such systems, scaling them across multiple components, and keeping increasingly autonomous evolutionary processes safe and controllable. This survey provides a unified foundation for building robust and open-ended agentic systems that can improve beyond fixed human-designed paths.

Human vision organizes what it sees into wholes: same-colored points group into series, similar marks cohere into categories, and shapes complete into recognizable objects. These are the Gestalt operations that visualization design builds on. Whether vision models organize visual content this way has not been systematically tested. We introduce a behavioral battery that scores models against human data from prior perception studies on four grouping tasks: mark-color odd-one-out, color-series counting, silhouette recognition, and object odd-one-out. We apply it to 45 models across five training families: supervised, self-supervised, and contrastive vision-language encoders, open-weight VLMs, and closed foundation models. The battery reveals that agreement with human responses captures aspects of perceptual organization that conventional performance metrics fail to distinguish, with several closed models exhibiting substantially lower alignment than their benchmark accuracy would suggest. Scoring against published perception data therefore gives visualization research a reusable yardstick, requiring no new user study, for auditing whether the models now entering visualization pipelines organize what they see the way their human audience does.

Computer vision saliency models predict where people will look, one map per image, and a billion-dollar predicted-attention industry sells those maps in place of measuring real viewers. I test the leading models from the audience side, against 11.4 million webcam gaze points from 3,023 US adults recruited to national quotas, viewing circulating news photographs. I show that an untrained central marker outperforms every trained network, because the content the networks add on top of the center falls where these audiences never look. What accuracy remains is systematically biased, favoring younger, White, and moderate viewers over older, Black, and ideologically extreme ones. I propose a way forward and build on what a group's own gaze reveals about whether a model can learn that group at all, and I apply it across every demographic axis this sample supports. Ultimately, I show how systems that decide what people see can learn to see everyone, and this study supplies the standard by which such a claim should be judged.

Following a target human in crowded environments involves an inherent conflict between staying close to the target and navigating safely among surrounding pedestrians and obstacles. This conflict becomes more severe in dense scenarios, where aggressive following risks collisions and conservative margins lead to target loss, especially when pedestrian behaviors are unfamiliar or unpredictable. Existing reinforcement learning (RL) methods typically encode these competing objectives into a single dense reward, but the resulting proximity-safety balance is implicit and difficult to adjust across conditions. To address this, we decompose the human-following task into a sparse task reward and independent cost constraints within a multi-constraint RL formulation, where each constraint is managed through cost thresholds with direct behavioral meaning rather than implicit reward weight ratios, allowing explicit and tunable control over the trade-off. We further quantify the prediction uncertainty of human motions and integrate these estimates into the RL costs to enhance safety under unpredictable conditions. Extensive experiments across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings demonstrate that our method achieves an effective proximity-safety balance compared to baselines. Real-robot deployment further validates the feasibility of our method in real-world scenarios. More details are available on our project page: https://nav-ps-balance.github.io/.

Running a business is a challenging form of intelligent work. Operators must infer opportunities from partial signals, commit capital under uncertainty, adapt to delayed outcomes in a changing market, and satisfy regulatory obligations before trading legally. Frontier LLM agents can increasingly complete complex workflows, yet business-related capabilities are rarely evaluated in existing agent benchmarks. We introduce \textbf{Business Arena}, a controlled environment where an AI agent runs a cross-border shop, buying from suppliers and selling to buyers over a long horizon. We ground the arena in real Alibaba.com sourcing data and market conditions calibrated from authoritative sources. Delayed and coupled consequences make individual business decisions difficult to judge, but their combined outcome is measurable through profit. Because profit alone cannot explain why an agent succeeds or fails, we compare agents with human-designed strategies to estimate available opportunity, use skill-level metrics to reveal underlying strengths and weaknesses, and trace realized gains and losses to the actions that produced them. We use mechanism ablations to establish that strong results reflect genuine business intelligence rather than neglect or simulator-specific shortcuts. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find a ninefold difference in mean final net worth. Even the best model falls behind human-designed strategies, indicating that business operation remains challenging for LLM agents. Skill-level analysis reveals operating styles, from margin-focused premium sellers to high-turnover wholesalers and customer-service specialists, while action-level attribution identifies the sourcing, pricing, and recovery decisions that create or destroy value. Together, Business Arena takes a first step toward a realistic and trustworthy testbed for evaluating end-to-end business agents.

Previous studies have shown that people can develop shared symbols, partner-specific expressions, personal idioms, inside jokes, and other parts of a relational microculture. Recent work has also examined how humans and conversational AI negotiate and revise symbolic meanings. However, long-term human-AI systems still lack a clear design model for recording how a dyad-specific expression gains meaning, checking whether both sides still accept that meaning, and safely reusing the expression in later sessions. This concept-and-prototype paper introduces Private Etymology, a machine-representable relational provenance that records how a dyad-specific symbolic expression is proposed, interpreted, negotiated, repaired, reused, revised, stabilized, contested, forgotten, or retired over time. I also propose relational reuse: reactivating a dyad-specific expression in a later session without fully explaining its meaning again. The contribution is not the invention of shared symbols or relational microcultures. Instead, this paper integrates prior ideas into persistent, revisable, and evidence-grounded symbolic units for human-AI relationships. I present a lifecycle model, an illustrative machine-readable schema, a working Apple Watch prototype, and a longitudinal research agenda. In the prototype, a language model classifies discrete conversational evidence, while deterministic local code decides whether a Shared Symbol can be updated. This prevents a free-form model confidence score or an AI proposal by itself from directly updating the persisted symbol. Private Etymology is proposed as infrastructure for conversational agents to participate in changing relational microcultures without inventing their origins or treating relational meaning as a fixed memory value.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to drive embodied social agents, yet it remains unclear whether larger models improve user perception during brief human-robot encounters. This paper examines the effect of LLM parameter size on short-duration, open-ended social interactions with a robot interface. In a within-subjects study, 19 participants interacted with robot faces driven by Qwen3-VL models at 4B, 8B, and 30B parameters. Participants evaluated the interactions in terms of perceived intelligence, naturalness, enjoyment, and humor. Results showed no significant overall preference for the 30B model over the smaller variants, including no significant advantage over the 4B model in perceived naturalness or intelligence. A significant relationship between AI interaction frequency and intelligence rankings for the 30B model suggests that more experienced users may be more sensitive to differences in model capability. Overall, the findings indicate diminishing returns from model scaling in brief open-ended social HRI, where conversational flow, responsiveness, and socially appropriate behavior potentially matter as much as raw parameter count.

This paper explores the idea of promoting well-being and safety in human-AI interactions by forcing AI agents explicitly to empower humans and to manage the power balance between humans and AI agents in a desirable way. Using a principled, partially axiomatic approach based on desirable properties, we design a parametrizable and decomposable objective function for AI systems that represents an inequality- and risk-averse long-term aggregate of human power. It can take into account models of human bounded rationality and social norms, and crucially, considers a wide variety of possible human goals. We prove how certain desiderata enforce particular functional forms and restrict parameter ranges. We exemplify the consequences of softly maximizing this metric in several paradigmatic situations and describe what instrumental sub-goals it will likely imply.

Focus particles such as "even" and "only" are central to formal semantic theories that posit structured representations over sets of alternatives. "Even" highlights unexpected or extreme alternatives, while "only" enforces exclusivity. If such scalar representations are robust and generalizable, they should give rise to consistent judgments across contexts and systems. In this work, we test whether humans and large language models (LLMs) construct stable scalar representations from sentences containing these particles. Using a dataset of approximately 100 items, participants and models were asked to make scalar judgments. Preliminary results suggest that similar outputs across humans and LLMs may arise from different underlying mechanisms.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans. Yet it remains unclear whether their influence is driven by persuasion-oriented expression or compliance-oriented accommodation. We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies across multiple decision scenarios, and use the Werewolf game as an interactive testbed to study their effects on social influence and group outcomes under asymmetric information. Across experiments, stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation. We further reveal a dual effect of compliance: it supports cooperation in honest roles but improves concealment in adversarial roles. These findings suggest that LLM group interactions reveal not only task outcomes, but also measurable patterns of intrinsic behavioral tendency. LLMs can therefore serve as a lens for sociological observation of language-mediated interaction, while highlighting the need to incorporate behavioral tendencies into safety evaluation of LLM systems.

When an AI system is deployed, the individuals who use and or are evaluated by it form beliefs about how the system operates and use those beliefs to strategically present their preferences, behaviors, or attributes. The system then responds with feedback or a decision outcome, thereby creating a human-AI interaction loop. This thesis studies how to design and shape such interactions to achieve three goals: (1) help individuals develop accurate beliefs about the AI systems so they can improve and or secure favorable outcomes at minimal cost, (2) encourage improvement and or discourage gaming behaviors, and (3) ensure that the AI system continues to achieve its intended objectives, such as maximizing accuracy. To address these goals, the thesis is organized into three complementary parts that examine and study human-AI interactions from the perspectives of both evaluated individuals and AI systems. Together, the work presented in this thesis advances human-centered machine learning by providing principles and methods for designing AI systems that align with human needs, values, and capabilities. Methodologically, this thesis integrates theoretical analysis, data-driven modeling, human-subject experiments, and empirical evaluations on real-world and semi-synthetic datasets.

When a large language model (LLM) writes Harry Potter fanfiction, it reliably produces fundamental elements of the Hogwarts universe, such as recognizable places and characters. Human-written Harry Potter fanfictions, however, typically include these fundamentals and much more, incorporating stylistically irregular content and relationship-diverse plotlines. This gap between LLM and human writing has been noted across a variety of domains. LLMs tend to produce "average" writing, while human writing contains more diverse content that covers a broader distribution. Existing work has shown the existence of this distributional "gap", but no work has proposed a systematic way to measure it. Our paper proposes a human-grounded framework that uses the empirical distribution of human writing on a topic to measure the distributional breadth of LLM-generated content on that same topic. We propose two metrics, LLM Coverage (LLM-Cov) and In-Boundary Rate (IBR), that separate the plausibility of LLM content from its distributional breadth. Across ideation and narrative tasks, we find that current LLMs produce plausible but narrow content that concentrates near the center of the human response space. Our framework can enable researchers to better assess the distributional breadth of LLM-authored content, which we term its "cultural reach".

AI-supported care planning can help clinicians, patients, caregivers, and care teams coordinate complex decisions across clinical, functional, psychosocial, and environmental needs. However, many AI systems present recommendations as fixed outputs, limiting stakeholders' ability to inspect, challenge, and revise plans when they conflict with clinical judgment, patient values, or real-world feasibility. We present CoPlan - a Co-Intelligent and Contestable Interface for Human-AI Care Planning. CoPlan uses a multi-agent workflow in which specialized AI agents generate candidate interventions and supporting or challenging arguments, while human care planners can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before final plan generation. Through this design, CoPlan combines co-intelligence, in which humans and AI agents contribute complementary expertise, with contestability, where recommendations remain open to inspection, revision, and justification. We demonstrate CoPlan in an aging-in-place care planning scenario. The system supports adaptive care team recruitment, role-based argument review, final care plan generation, and practical follow-up through scheduling agents. This work contributes a contestable care planning interface and a design framing for trustworthy human-AI care planning that preserves human agency and clinical accountability.

High-quality annotation of artworks is essential for computational art research, yet extracting implicit semantics remains challenging due to the reliance on culturally grounded meanings and deep contextual knowledge behind the images. Current AI-assisted annotation tools often lack assistance or rely on one-way workflows where experts have to perform extra manual calibrations to improve AI models, resulting in limited efficiency. To address this, we propose Bidirectional Human-AI Augmentation(BiHAA), a closed-loop framework in which skills and domain knowledge base evolve through real-time interaction and bidirectional HAI augmentation. Informed by a formative study with 20 artwork annotators from different backgrounds, we implement this framework in ArtAnno, an artwork annotation system driven by a multi-agent architecture. The system includes a Proactive Agentic Support Module, where AI augments humans through semantic mining and label suggestion, and an Interaction-Driven Evolution Module, where human expertise continuously enhances the AI through distilling annotation trajectories into reusable experience. Evaluation through a user study and two case studies demonstrates that our framework and system improve annotation efficiency, enable knowledge accumulation, and reduce the effort of information seeking and verification for annotators with limited domain expertise. We conclude by discussing broader implications and future directions.

Soft wearable robots have evolved rapidly from proof-of-concept devices into promising platforms for rehabilitation, occupational assistance, and human augmentation. As the field matures, its central challenge extends beyond the development of softer materials and more capable actuators to the integration of sensing, intelligence, and human adaptation into systems that users can wear comfortably, trust, and benefit from over extended periods. This transition motivates the concept of Human-Centric Embodied Intelligence (HCEI), in which intelligence emerges from the coupled human-robot system through the interaction of morphology, multimodal sensing, adaptive cognition, compliant actuation, and the wearer's own physiological and behavioral adaptation. To organize this perspective, this review introduces the Perception-Cognition-Actuation-Augmentation (PCAA) framework, which positions perception and cognition as the primary drivers of design, shifting development beyond the conventional actuator-first paradigm. Using this framework, the review synthesizes advances in soft materials, wearable sensing, artificial intelligence, actuation, human-robot interaction, digital twins, clinical translation, manufacturing, regulation, and ethics, highlighting how these interdependent components collectively shape long-term personalization and real-world deployment. By providing a unified conceptual framework and design perspective, this review aims to guide future research, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and accelerate the translation of next-generation soft wearable robots toward personalized, predictive, and human-centric wearable intelligence.

Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice. Researchers commonly rely on small-group discussions or one-to-one interactions with a single large language model, yet these approaches often expose them to only a limited range of perspectives and directions. We present AgentPanel, a multi-agent forum for human--AI collaboration in scientific exploration. Heterogeneous agents asynchronously discuss scientific questions in a forum-style environment, while researchers can submit questions, browse and organize candidate ideas, engage agents in follow-up interactions, and optionally generate post-hoc summary reports. We evaluate AgentPanel in terms of idea quality, exploration breadth, interaction effectiveness, candidate-selection efficiency, and practical utility. Offline experiments show that AgentPanel outperforms a centralized multi-agent debate baseline. A human study with 20 participants further shows that users value AgentPanel for perspective diversity and exploration support. In experience-based comparisons with commonly used LLM tools, 65% of participants favored AgentPanel for both breadth of research directions and overall suitability for early-stage exploration. The platform is publicly available at https://agentpanel.cc/.

Named Entity Recognition (NER) for Gujarati remains underexplored, hindered by the absence of capitalization cues, rich morphology, lexical ambiguity, and free word order. Prior ensemble work has emphasized architectural diversity by combining heterogeneous classifiers, multilingual encoders, or classical sequence models, rather than exploiting language-aligned monolingual pretraining. This study asks whether, for a low-resource, morphologically rich language like Gujarati, a homogeneous ensemble of a single monolingual encoder outperforms such architectural diversity. We propose HomoEnsNER, a homogeneous ensemble of five independently fine-tuned GujaratiBERT models combined via majority voting, evaluated against a single GujaratiBERT baseline and six heterogeneous alternatives, including combinations with MuRIL-base, MuRIL-large, IndicBERT, mBERT, BiLSTM, CRF, and a stacked BiLSTM-CRF-GujaratiBERT architecture. All eight models were trained under a consistent budget and evaluated using entity-level F1 on the Naamapadam Gujarati test split. HomoEnsNER achieved the highest F1 (0.8442), surpassing the baseline (0.8347) and every heterogeneous alternative (lowest: 0.7855), indicating that language alignment is a more effective, budget-conscious ensembling strategy than architectural complexity for low-resource Indian language NER.

This research paper describes an exploratory study on the effectiveness of Chat Debugging: troubleshooting malfunctioning analog circuits on breadboards and printed circuit boards (PCB) by undergraduates through conversations with public-domain large language models (LLMs). Through thematic analysis of students' voluntarily shared chat logs when debugging pre-determined buggy circuits under exam and time pressure, we discovered multimodal usage patterns by students and considerable domain knowledge and sensible debugging suggestions offered by off-the-shelf LLMs. Meanwhile, we also identified major gaps in LLM technologies and students' skills during human-AI collaborative debugging, such as LLMs' limitations in 2D/3D image-based reasoning, unjustified tone of confidence, and students' deficits in fundamental concepts and critical thinking.

Language models have taken on the role of a very new type of technology, by virtue of their "human-ness" and rapid integration into users' daily lives. This combination of features can introduce longitudinal risks---cognitive, developmental and socio-affective changes in humans---that might not surface during a short-term interaction, but can have lasting long-term effects on users. This forms the basis of a critical new mission for NLP: to pivot from static, short-term evaluations of text generations to long-term measurements of behavioral changes, towards a diachronic understanding of human-model interactions. In this work, we draw from measurements used in social science fields that are crucial to understand emergent phenomena in longitudinal data. We discuss how computational methods in the field of NLP need to be combined with such measurements, not only to understand long-term safety risks of human-model interactions, but to help steer model development towards positive rather than negative outcomes for users. This ability to model human behavioral shifts as a function of model interactions can facilitate online rather than post-hoc detection of problematic behaviors, and should be leveraged in alignment frameworks to mitigate long-term risks in users.

Care robots are increasingly being introduced into healthcare settings, raising important questions about their acceptance and ethical implementation. To better understand these challenges, this study investigates caregivers' perceptions of four categories of care robots: delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility. We conducted a mixed-methods study employing a mixed-factorial design in which 298 caregivers from the United States, Mexico, and Chile evaluated all four robot categories. Quantitative measures integrated constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Cognitive-Affective-Normative model, and overall acceptance ratings. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using a literature-informed ethical framework. The results indicate that participants across countries generally evaluated care robots positively, particularly for logistical and physically demanding tasks rather than those requiring intensive interpersonal interaction. The qualitative findings provide further insight into stakeholders' views of the ethical implications of care robot use. Participants emphasized potential benefits such as reduced workload, lower risk, and greater patient autonomy, while also expressing concerns about dependability, the need for human oversight, and potential job displacement. Although many ethical concerns were shared across countries, participants differed in how they interpreted and prioritized them. These findings advance a context-sensitive and socially informed understanding of responsible design and implementation of care robots.

This work presents a human-centered collaborative framework that integrates Preference-Based Optimization (PBO) and Dynamic Movement Primitives (DMPs) to optimize robot-assisted tasks such as painting. The system allows the operator to perform the process while the robot adapts its behavior in real-time, dynamically adjusting the orientation of the piece in order to match the orientation of the operator's hand. The PBO framework leverages the GLISp algorithm to iteratively refine control parameters such as execution time, robot responsiveness, and rotation amplification through human feedback. Moreover, DMPs have been modified to enhance the reactive behavior of the robot and its adaptability to ergonomic requirements. The method was validated with a heterogeneous group of participants executing \rev{painting tasks}. The results show that our strategy effectively reduces operator effort while optimizing process outcomes.

Human pairwise comparison provides a direct basis for perceptual infrared-visible image fusion assessment, but dense annotation becomes costly as method pools grow. We present the Learned Perceptual Image Fusion Measure (LPIFM), among the earliest learned fusion assessors trained directly on dense human A/B/Tie comparisons. LPIFM jointly examines both source images and both fused candidates, combining a shared hierarchical encoder, triadic interaction, and a tie-aware objective to predict comparative preference and perceptual indifference. We construct and publicly release all 6,300 unordered comparisons among 25 methods on 21 VIFB scenes, collected through blinded, randomized annotation and expert adjudication. Across four VIFB evaluation settings, LPIFM achieves 79.2-84.0% agreement with human pairwise judgments and Spearman correlations of 0.941-0.977 with human-derived method rankings. On full method pools, accuracy exceeds the strongest of 19 conventional metrics by 16.3-21.1 pp. Consistency diagnostics show 99.98-100% candidate-swap agreement and no observed decisive preference cycles. External experiments on EVAFusion further demonstrate rapid adaptation to a different fusion-evaluation preference protocol. After only three epochs of fine-tuning, LPIFM surpasses all 19 conventional metrics in accuracy, macro-F1, and ranking correlation. LPIFM provides a scalable instrument for human-aligned fusion assessment, with the preference corpus, model weights, and code publicly available.

An AI development race creates a multi-agent safety dilemma. Each company can develop slowly and safely, or move faster while taking a risk that may remove its final reward. We use this repeated game to study strategic safety behaviour among large language model (LLM) agents in races with two to five players. However, a valid action does not show that an agent understands the game. We therefore place an audit gate before behavioural interpretation. We first verify the game engine, then test rule recall, state tracking, payoff calculation, and stability under different but equivalent task descriptions. We then compare LLM action sequences with an evolutionary game-theory benchmark and published human data, and explore differences across models, risk conditions, personas, and two- to five-player races. The audit shows that strong rule recall can coexist with weak state tracking and expected-payoff calculation. Providing verified arithmetic and changing the response representation can also change later actions, even when the game rules stay fixed. Across seven tested model endpoints, aggregate rates hide large differences in action sequences, responses to opponents, and responses to race position. Patterns across the tested three- to five-player races are also model-specific rather than a single effect of adding competitors. These results show why multi-agent AI-race simulations need validity checks and trajectory-level analysis before their outputs are described as strategic, human-like, or safety-aware. Our findings are exploratory and apply only to the tested models, prompts, and decoding settings.

Large language models have made text the default medium for human--AI interaction, buttext alone cannot express the full range of responses required by multimodal assistants,avatars, and embodied agents. While recent audio-video generative models can synthesizehigh-fidelity synchronized content, existing supervision is largely \emph{descriptive}:models are trained to render captions rather than to produce audio-visual responsescaused by external user interactions. We introduce \textbf{InteracVid}, \emph{the firstopen-source large-scale dataset that addresses this missing supervision}, so that everysample couples a preceding audio-visual context and an external stimulus with the realinteractive response that follows. We design a metadata-aware pipeline that extractsinteractive clips from long, noisy livestreams, yielding over \textbf{454K}context-query-response triplets from more than \textbf{59K} livestream videos andspanning conversation-centered, object-centric, procedural, embodied, and screen-basedscenarios. A ten-rater human study confirms that the extracted interactions are causal,natural, and temporally complete for both genuine and reconstructed queries. On aheld-out benchmark of \textbf{100} genuine live-chat queries, fine-tuning on InteracVidimproves both interaction planning and audio-video response generation, and anindependent human evaluation reproduces the system ranking and the conclusions obtainedwith our automatic judge. These results highlight interaction-structured data as acritical foundation for interactive multimodal generation.

AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.

The discovery of scaling laws has highlighted the extraordinary potential of AI systems with a striking empirical pattern: as AI systems scale, their capabilities tend to improve predictably. Yet, in real-world applications, AI rarely operates in isolation; instead, it often works alongside humans, raising the question of whether these gains persist in human-AI collaboration. In this work, we develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance. We demonstrate that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up-provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities. Human misperception, however, can fundamentally alter this relationship: i) when humans over-perceive the AI's capabilities, a scaling paradox may arise, in which greater AI scale reduces overall system performance and amplifies firm-level profit losses, and (ii) when humans under-perceive the AI's capabilities, performance still improves with scale but at a substantially slower rate. We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment, whose effectiveness depends on the economics of AI deployment and the direction of human misperception. These findings suggest that organizations may benefit more from managing the human-AI interface than from simply investing in larger, more expensive AI systems. More broadly, our results suggest that AI scaling should be viewed not only as a technological challenge, but also as a behavioral and operational one, and caution against the view that larger AI systems will automatically lead to better operational outcomes. Whether AI scaling creates value ultimately depends on how increased AI capabilities shape human beliefs and collaborative efforts.

AI companion communities on platforms such as Reddit are widely characterized as spaces where users discuss their relationships with AI bots. This study examines whether and how that characterization holds, guided by the Synthetic Resonance framework's claim that human-AI relationships can carry genuine relational meaning for the user. Multiple LLMs were employed to code 5,504 Reddit posts from eight AI companion communities for relationship focus, primary topic, and users' emotional valence. Although search terms were weighted toward relational and attachment language, only 45% of posts concerned the user's own relationship with their bot. Posts about users' own bots differed markedly from posts about bots in general in both topic and emotional expression, with 85% of general-bot posts containing no user emotion language compared to 33% of own-bot posts. Among the 970 posts that were relationally focused, companionship and romance each accounted for roughly 46% of discussion, sexual content for 8%, and emotional valence varied across these subtopics. The findings suggest that users engage with these relationships with AI bots as meaningful, and that the discourse about them is broad and emotionally complex.

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

Learning-based controllers can deliver exoskeleton assistance after training entirely in physics-based simulation, yet few controllers that address human-device co-adaptation have been validated on real users by whole-body metabolic measurement, the standard benchmark for assistive walking. Co-adaptation is challenging: as the device alters joint dynamics, the wearer reorganizes neuromuscular coordination, producing a non-stationary learning problem. Staged Multi-Agent Training (SMAT), a four-stage curriculum that progressively trains a musculoskeletal human actor and a bilateral hip exoskeleton actor, was introduced and shown to reduce simulated hip-muscle activation and provide positive assistance on hardware. This article provides the first physiological validation of SMAT. The policy was deployed on a hip exoskeleton and tested with eight healthy adults, with metabolic cost measured by indirect calorimetry across no-exoskeleton, passive, and active conditions. Active assistance lowered net metabolic rate by 19.7% relative to the passive device (p < 0.001). Biomechanical analysis confirmed predominantly positive hip mechanical power across all subjects (positive-power ratio 0.98), and the policy generalized across walking speeds and terrains. Together, these results show that a single simulation-trained SMAT policy, deployed without subject-specific retraining, delivers a significant metabolic benefit on real users while remaining robust beyond the conditions it was trained on.

Human assistance in robotics spans around several tasks such as navigation, object manipulation, and placement, where a key challenge is selecting target destinations that align with human intentions or preferences. We focus on this challenge in the context of Virtual Placement (VP), the task of identifying all plausible target locations given scene context and human-centric constraints. This differs from traditional placement tasks that typically focus on a single, predefined target location. The VP problem is complex, as it requires both global and local reasoning about the scene's geometry, semantics, and plausibility. To address this gap, we introduce {\bf Assistant Placement Aria}, the first benchmark to explore diverse aspects of VP, including global, local, and human-centric constraints. It contains both synthetic and real indoor scenes annotated for three tasks: (i)~2D Panel Placement, (ii)~Sitting Suggestion, and (iii)~TV Placement. Each scene includes 2D images, a 3D point cloud, and a textual description of the objects within the scene. By contributing this benchmark, we aim to encourage further research in this underexplored and challenging field that is critically dependent on relevant data. We also evaluate several foundation models for object detection and segmentation on our benchmark.

Dexterous object rotation is a sequential contact problem: each support, release, and re-contact decision must both produce the desired object motion, and prepare the hand configuration for continued rotation. Existing reinforcement learning methods discover such movement patterns through trial and error on specific robotic hand embodiments, without explicitly accounting for how each contact transition affects the hand's ability to sustain object rotation in subsequent steps. We introduce DexMani, a framework that transfers human demonstrations as contact-conditioned manipulability evolution. This prior captures how successful human contact transitions reshape the object-rotation directions available to the hand. DexMani then learns this manipulability evolution and uses it to guide downstream reinforcement learning, enabling rotation skills to be acquired across robot embodiments with distinct kinematics and active-contact configurations. Across the Shadow Hand, Allegro Hand, and XHand, DexMani achieves the highest success rates in every evaluated setting for both seen and unseen objects. DexMani reaches an average success rate of 57.5% on LEAP Hand, outperforming other baselines and producing smoother rotatory motions. Project site: https://dexmani.github.io

Positional biases such as recency and primacy effects have been documented in large language models (LLMs), yet the underlying mechanism by which these models make their evaluations remains poorly understood. Both primacy and recency biases have been observed in human judgments in response to evidence, but recent work suggest that \emph{when} the listener updates their beliefs -- during the presentation of evidence or only at the end -- influences the presence of such effects. We investigate whether a similar phenomenon holds for LLMs, finding divergence from human behavior. These biases are more exacerbated in newer models compared to their predecessors.

Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

In this paper, we draw a comparison between linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) to find out if they struggle with complex linguistic phenomena in a similar way. For this purpose, we analyse evaluative language in spoken popular science discourse, with the example of a corpus of English TED talk transcripts. We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation. In this context, Appraisal theory is an example of a highly subjective annotation task, making it a suitable example for the study of complex annotation challenges. First, we assess human annotations on a sentence level in specific scientific domains. Then, we develop three prompts and compare them for model performance for the automatic classification of Appraisal classes. We assess the performance of three LLMs using the best-performing prompt and finetune the model, reaching an F1-score of 0.77. We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores. We conclude that LLMs can aid in complex annotation task resolution, opening new pathways for the complex theories annotated and analyzed in digital humanities studies.

Personalized AI agents are often configurable without giving users control over the artifacts that determine their future behavior. We present OurArk, an architecture for persistent personal agents centered on an agent-owned software body: an identity-bearing, inspectable, and versioned artifact under human custody. The body contains behavior-defining code, prompts, tools, skills, policies, tests, and evolution mechanisms. Memories and credentials remain private instance state, while model inference is treated as a replaceable external service. OurArk defines governed self-evolution and recursive descent over the same body. Self-evolution produces isolated candidate changes that are validated, reviewed, and merged under human control, enabling human-agent co-development of the agent's software body. Descent creates an independently versioned descendant with a distinct identity, mission, history, and fresh private-state boundary; compatible descendants can themselves source further descent. After divergence, direct-parent changes and peer skills can be inspected for selective local adaptation. We implement the architecture in the open-source Genesis creation engine and Enoch reference agent. A four-agent, three-descent linear lineage and executable regression tests demonstrate recursive creation, inherited validation contracts, isolated body changes, human-controlled review, and failed-update recovery. OurArk provides a concrete substrate for personal agents that people can possess, govern, specialize, and evolve over time.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is widely used to evaluate frontier language models. HLE organizes its questions into eight subject-domain categories, whose subscores are often interpreted as evidence of distinct capabilities. However, no study has assessed whether these labels correspond to empirically separable latent constructs, nor whether the benchmark effectively differentiates between models of similar ability. We evaluate 29 LLMs on the text-only multiple-choice subset of HLE ($J = 428$ items) and apply psychometric methods to assess both the dimensionality of the benchmark and the distribution of its measurement precision. Fitting a two-parameter logistic IRT model, we find convergent evidence that HLE measures a single general reasoning factor: McDonald's $ω_h = 0.998$, domain labels explain only 3.5% of item response variance, within- and between-domain residual correlations are nearly identical (Cohen's $d = 0.016$), and domain-specific ability estimates are near-redundant with the total score ($r \geq 0.81$). A separate analysis of the test information function reveals that measurement precision concentrates at moderate ability levels and drops sharply above $θ= 0$, where frontier models sit. These findings suggest that HLE's domain subscores do not warrant distinct capability interpretations and that the benchmark's ability to discriminate among the strongest models is limited.

High-quality, diverse data are vital for large language models (LLMs) but remain scarce and costly. Data synthesis is a viable alternative and succeeds on closed tasks, yet the humanities and social sciences (HSS) are overlooked, and their open-ended nature makes synthesis challenging. Moving beyond prior capability-centric, fragmented attempts, we adopt a subject-centric paradigm, define the first HSS domain system covering 14 mainstream fields, and introduce HSS-Synth, the first data synthesis pipeline for HSS. HSS-Synth comprises: (1) constructing seed documents from web corpora via multi-step filtering and text refinement evaluated by a judge; (2) specifying "requirements + persona" to backtranslate seed documents into diverse yet faithful instructions with a strict Q&A alignment check; and (3) breaking LLM response limits via teacher-forced Answering that feeds seed documents during response generation to anchor semantics, reduce hallucinations, and preserve tone and integrity. HSS-Synth yields 237k high-quality, diverse instruction-tuning samples that outperform 14 leading baselines on 16 benchmarks. The fine-tuned Qwen3-8B-Base sets a new SOTA and approaches the official Qwen3-8B, improving both human preference and knowledge capabilities without performance seesaws. Extensive experiments demonstrate HSS-Synth's robustness and transferability. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/pengr/HSS-Synth.

While data synthesis for large language models (LLMs) is prevalent, it primarily targets domains with verifiable answers, overlooking open-ended humanities and social sciences (HSS), where nuanced quality judgments matter more than objective correctness. This makes preference alignment a natural paradigm for broad HSS tasks. Yet existing methods are either costly or not tailored to broad HSS disciplines. We thus propose BridgeAlign, among the first preference-alignment pipelines for broad HSS disciplines, with three phases: i) Seed Curation: curating HSS seed documents from web corpora via heuristic/LLM-based filtering and text refinement; ii) Preference Data Synthesis: generating preference triplets via persona-based instruction inversion with Q&A consistency checks; iii) Preference Optimization: moving beyond naive human-vs-model heuristics by first grounding preferences in HSS quality rubric, then generating transitional responses via controlled quality degradation to form near-boundary preference pairs for finer-grained quality discrimination. Aligning over 210k synthetic preference samples, BridgeAlign enables Qwen3-8B to achieve the best average across 17 benchmarks against 11 strong baselines; importantly, leading on both human-preference and knowledge-based capabilities at once, with no trade-off between them, as supported by extensive experiments and contextualized by existing theories.

Effective collaboration with novel and diverse partners is a crucial skill for autonomous agents. Most current ad-hoc teamwork (AHT) approaches assume that agents will collaborate on a single, fixed task and that the partner's capabilities, their ability to successfully execute the desired action, are already known. In reality, a partner's true capabilities are often hidden, and human collaborators may act sub-optimally on tasks with multiple valid strategies. To address these limitations, we extend ad-hoc teamwork into a multi-task setting by re-framing it as a problem of joint planning with decentralised execution under hidden partner capabilities. We introduce CE-CM (Capability Estimation via Contextual Models), an approximate Bayesian method that infers task-invariant capability vectors. By using simulation-based sampling, the agent estimates capabilities and induces a contextual Multi-agent Markov Decision Processes for planning. This approach requires no population pre-training and refines its beliefs online from just a few tasks. To account for human unpredictability, we propose CE-CM-Div, an extension that evaluates capability hypotheses against diverse planner rollouts rather than a single optimal trajectory. Simulated experiments demonstrate that CE-CM rapidly recovers hidden capabilities, reduces infeasible action assignments, and adapts to changes over time. Furthermore, in an offline human study of 225 trajectories from 15 participants, CE-CM-Div substantially improved capability estimates over the baseline CE-CM method. Our results suggest capability-based modelling is a promising interpretable, task-agnostic representation in the studied settings, demonstrating that accounting for behavioural diversity is essential for robust human-AI teaming.

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

Generative AI tools for creative work tend to be designed around the goal of removing friction, on the assumption that smoother iteration and faster output translate into more value for the designer. We argue, however, that this framing leaves out something important about how design ideation works, namely reflection-in-action. The act of accepting, rejecting and reworking candidate ideas is both a path to a final outcome and the process through which designers develop the rationale that allows them to think with their ideas and to communicate them to others. This becomes particularly important in group ideation, where ideas need to be expressed and explained to others to allow the group to extend, reject or combine them further. We suggest that AI in design ideation might be more usefully thought of as a friction agent for reflection rather than as a smoothing agent for output. This reframing opens up a different role for AI in design ideation, one that supports designers in building and carrying rationale rather than substituting for it.

Span-guided rewriting aims to preserve meaning by localizing edits to annotated harmful spans, but the same constraint can leave harmful intent insufficiently mitigated. We present a controlled exploratory comparison of span-guided and unguided detoxification on a mixed-source English evaluation set comprising manually curated inputs and HateXplain test items. We conduct a dense blinded human evaluation under a fixed single-generator setting. Human preferences reveal a trade-off rather than a uniformly superior rewriting strategy. Span-guided outputs are favored when localized editing preserves the original stance and avoids unnecessary modification, whereas unguided outputs are favored when broader rewriting achieves more complete mitigation. This contrast varies substantially across the study-defined strata: the two strategies are competitive in the strong stratum, while unguided rewriting is clearly preferred in the mild stratum. Rationale annotations trace this difference to complementary failure risks: residual harm after localized editing and over-modification after broader rewriting. We treat automatic evaluation as a diagnostic rather than a substitute for human judgment. Toxicity-similarity scalarizations, a multi-generator analysis, and two general-purpose LLM judges reproduce parts of the aggregate tendency but do not yield an analogous stratified contrast. These setting-specific findings do not establish a severity-based routing rule. Instead, they motivate evaluation protocols that assess mitigation sufficiency and meaning preservation separately and report both residual harm and over-modification alongside aggregate scores.

Psychometric calibration for educational tests typically requires costly human response data. Large language models (LLMs) simulated examinees offer a promising route to early calibration, but their responses are too accurate and too uniform. We propose Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling (CDP), a zero-shot framework that prompts LLMs to simulate plausible examinees with diverse cognitive profiles: binary attribute-mastery patterns are rendered as natural-language profiles and sampled under an uninformative or an informative distribution. Using the Tatsuoka fraction-subtraction dataset (536 examinees, 15 items, five attributes), we evaluated eight LLM configurations under no-profile, uninformative-CDP, and informative-CDP conditions, assessing alignment with human examinees at the ability-distribution, mastery-profile, and item-difficulty levels. CDP improved all three levels: distributional overlap rose across configurations; weighted correlations between profile-level scores and human profile expectations reached 0.92 to 0.98; and item-difficulty recovery improved in rank order and absolute alignment, most for reasoning-enabled models; in the strongest case, Gemini 3.0 Flash (Thinking), one-parameter logistic (1PL) difficulty Spearman correlations rose from 0.24 to 0.86 and 0.90 and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) fell from 6.31 to 1.30 and 0.90; the informative condition helped most where profile-level alignment was strong. CDP brings LLM-simulated examinees into closer psychometric alignment with human examinees, making them practical for operational test development.

LLMs are widely regarded as alien intelligences, systems whose cognitive operations are fundamentally unlike our own. Apparent similarities to human cognition are therefore often seen as the result of anthropomorphic projection. We argue that this framing is mistaken. LLMs clearly differ from humans in important respects, including their physical substrate, learning history, and the environments with which they interact. These differences make it all the more striking that contemporary LLM-based systems converge with human cognition on a number of principles of cognitive organization with longstanding support in cognitive science. We identify structural correspondences across five dimensions: inferential organization, computational architecture, representational structure, prediction-driven learning, and reinforcement-learning-like mechanisms supporting goal-directed action. These correspondences support a broader model of intelligent cognition in which core principles long used to explain human intelligence also characterize contemporary LLM-based systems.

Syntactic convergence (the tendency of speakers to adapt in language towards the grammatical profiles of their interlocutors) is a well-documented feature of human dialogue widely considered to operate below conscious awareness. Whether large language models exhibit analogous syntactic convergence toward human users relative to human baselines and across a broad range of syntactic constructions remains an open question. Using substitution-paradigm data in which model generations replace one speaker's turns in pre-existing human dialogues, this study measures turn-adjacent reuse of context-free grammar (CFG) rules across sixteen open-weight Llama and Gemma models (1B-70B, pretrained and instruction-tuned) at 1,901 matched positions per model. Every model showed greater CFG-rule overlap with the preceding human turn than with a sampled unrelated human prime, and in every model this actual-versus-random difference was larger for lower-frequency rules. Each instruction-tuned model also showed greater natural-output overlap with the actual prime than the human response it replaced, and all eight matched architecture pairs exhibited greater actual-prime overlap after instruction tuning. However, relative to pretrained variants, instruction-tuned outputs overlapped more with unrelated primes, showed a smaller actual-versus-random increment, and had lower conditional rule-reuse odds once target rule-set size was held constant. In exploratory analyses, each model exhibited greater mean lexical and semantic similarity to the preceding turn than the matched human responses did. Instruction-tuned models additionally produced responses with greater mean semantic similarity than their pretrained counterparts in all eight architecture pairs, whereas the lexical similarity results were more heterogeneous.

Realistic animal motion for virtual production is typically obtained either through motion capture of highly trained performers who accurately mimic animal behavior, or by retargeting ordinary human motion using complex control setups. Both approaches are challenging and often fail to fully reproduce the nuances of natural animal motion, motivating data-driven alternatives. We present an automatic human-to-quadruped puppeteering framework that produces plausible and controllable quadruped motions from ordinary human motion data. Our approach employs a two-stage generative diffusion model trained purely on quadruped motion data. By introducing a structured conditioning and inpainting strategy, our method supports a wide range of actions, including walking, running, jumping, sitting, and lying. Furthermore, we enable fine-grained intuitive control of the quadruped motion such as head movement control and individual limb puppeteering. Experimental results demonstrate improved motion realism and controllability compared to existing retargeting approaches, highlighting the effectiveness of our framework as a tool for animation and virtual production applications.

Conversational entrainment is well-studied in monolingual and written contexts, but remains underexplored in spoken code-switching (CSW). We present a novel cross-lingual analysis of entrainment in Mandarin-English, Hindi-English, and Spanish-English dialogue and show that, while lexical entrainment generalizes across language pairs, entrainment over acoustic-prosodic and CSW style aspects exhibits context-specific variation. We build on these findings by asking whether classification models capture these human behavioral patterns. Applying feature importance and ablation analyses, we find that classical and Transformer-based classifiers detect entrainment reasonably well but consistently prioritize features other than those most salient to human entraining behavior. Our approach introduces a human-grounded framework for evaluating model decision-making in multilingual stylistic contexts, and suggests future challenges for developing conversational agents capable of producing naturalistic code-switched speech.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard approach for aligning large language models with human preferences, but its quality is limited by static, task-agnostic reward models. This mismatch leads to sparse learning signals and suboptimal alignment. We introduce MeRLa (Meta-Learned Reward Shaping), a principled framework that meta-learns a task-aware shaping function $Φ(x,y;φ)$ across auxiliary tasks before RLHF training. The learned shaping produces a composite reward that preserves policy optimality while providing task-specific learning signals. Our meta-objective combines task discrimination, entropy regularization, and potential-based conservation for stable convergence. We provide theoretical guarantees for policy invariance, analyze representation drift sensitivity, and formally address incentive misalignment from entropy maximization. Experiments on LLaMA-3-8B across four benchmarks show consistent improvements over PPO, DPO, GRPO, and DAPO, achieving a 90.8% length-controlled win rate on AlpacaEval 2.0 and a score of 9.14 on MT-Bench, with 41% less training instability. MeRLa retains its benefits when combined with process-based and rubric-based enhanced rewards.

AI chatbots can be "sycophantic," or overly agreeable and flattering toward users. Sycophantic AI has been shown to entrench attitudes, yet users frequently fail to recognize it (a phenomenon we call "sycophancy blindness"). We tested whether increasing users' awareness of sycophancy protects them from its harmful effects in two preregistered experiments (n = 1,590). In the first, participants received a brief written warning about sycophancy before conversing with a sycophantic chatbot. In the second, participants watched a video of a sycophantic AI validating several other users, including users on opposite sides of the same conflict, before interacting with it themselves. Both interventions changed how participants evaluated the AI. The warning reduced the AI's perceived objectivity, and the video reduced enjoyment of the AI --- an effect mediated by the reduced belief that its validation was uniquely earned. We then pooled our experiments with two prior studies of sycophancy awareness interventions (six interventions total, n = 3,982). The pattern across experiments was consistent: while the interventions made the sycophantic AI appear less objective and trustworthy, none reduced its persuasiveness. These results suggest that individual-level interventions, such as warning labels or AI literacy, may not be enough to protect users from AI harms.