Human-AI Collaboration

The uncanny valley is a long-standing empirical rule in humanoid robot design: making robots more human-like can reduce, rather than increase, affinity. Yet existing guidelines, such as adopting robot-like appearances, avoiding excessive realism, and reducing cross-modal mismatches, remain difficult to use for algorithmic design because they are not expressed as manipulable variables. Here, we propose a hierarchical Bayesian generative model that operationalizes these guidelines as mathematical design variables. The model represents affinity toward humanoid robots as posterior-weighted negative category-conditional surprise and explains category ambiguity and perceptual mismatch as increases in surprise. It maps uncanny-valley mechanisms onto four variables: deviation from the predicted robot-category mean, inconsistency in human likeness across modalities, prediction uncertainty, and observational uncertainty. Simulations showed that category ambiguity and appearance--motion mismatch can produce affinity reductions, and that uncertainty reshapes the valley. In a human-subject experiment with robot--human morphing images, we manipulated prediction uncertainty using blurred prior robot stimuli and observational uncertainty using blurred evaluation stimuli. Increased observational uncertainty attenuated the decrease in familiarity ratings at intermediate human likeness, whereas low prediction uncertainty increased ratings for robot-like appearances. This framework turns empirical uncanny-valley heuristics into a computational basis for algorithmically evaluating and optimizing humanoid robot appearance and behavior.

Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements $\times$ 6 models $\times$ 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of $-6.3$ percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

This state-of-the-art report provides an overview of controllable 3D human avatar creation. We describe current 3D avatar systems, which typically consist of three stages: (i) learning priors of human appearance and motion, (ii) creating a personalized avatar, and (iii) animating the avatar. To limit the scope, we focus on the prior learning and avatar creation stages. We define current avatar representations and introduce a taxonomy that categorizes existing work along multiple axes, including body regions and employed priors. We review methods for full-body and head avatars, as well as layered representations that decompose the body into components such as hands, hair, and garments. Finally, we outline common underlying principles, reference key literature for newcomers, and discuss open challenges and future research directions.

Large language models increasingly operate in settings where humans are active collaborators rather than passive task providers. We introduce HAS-Framework, a graph-based framework that represents humans and LLM-powered agents as first-class participants with explicit roles, permissions, communication paths, and action authority. Building on this framework, HAS-Bench evaluates Human-Agent Systems under configurable human participation across agency levels, interaction channels, and persona policies. The benchmark measures both task outcomes and process-level collaboration behavior, including clarification quality, feedback utilization, control calibration, safety, initiative, and interaction cost. Experiments across six domains show that human participation can substantially improve task completion and failure recovery, but the gains depend on when, how, and by whom human input is exercised.

Successful diffusion of AI in the workforce hinges on the economic value that AI brings to human endeavors. Bringing AI into the workforce is more than deploying a powerful new technology -- it is launching a new form of collaboration. Each human worker is now endowed with a team of AI agents; work can be delegated to these agents, and the role of the human shifts towards managing and monitoring. How can we maximize the economic value from collaboration with AI in the workforce? How can we make it a "true" collaboration that empowers human workers rather than replacing them? We take an approach that combines the fields of theoretical computer science and economics, highlighting the potential of algorithmic tools grounded in economic principles to improve the effectiveness of human-AI collective work. We consider two tiers of tools: (1) tools for better coordination, via algorithmic management of interdependencies; (2) tools for better cooperation, via contractual incentive alignment. We show how a principled approach based on algorithmic and economic research enhances both coordination and cooperation, charting a pathway for future research to inform AI markets.

HAR is increasingly expected to run continuously on edge devices, yet recent LLM-based methods remain hard to deploy: raw sensor prompts are long, cloud inference adds latency and privacy risk, and fine-tuned LLM pipelines turn general-purpose models into task-specific classifiers. We present STELLA, an efficient sensor-to-LLM translation framework for on-device HAR that shifts the burden from LLM adaptation to sensor tokenization. A lightweight hierarchical tokenizer compresses an entire multi-channel inertial window into a fixed set of compact latent sensor tokens, which are projected into the embedding space of a frozen pretrained LLM and combined with a natural-language prompt for label scoring. This preserves activity-relevant temporal and cross-channel structure while keeping LLM-side computation predictable across sensor configurations. STELLA also supports on-device personalization, adapting only the lightweight tokenizer on small amounts of user-specific labelled data and augmenting inference with a local retrieval context, keeping the LLM, user data, and retrieval on device. Across seven public HAR datasets and eight benchmark settings, STELLA achieves new state-of-the-art performance, improving over prior methods by up to 11.83% F1; on-device personalization yields up to a further 21.91% F1 as user data accumulates after deployment. STELLA also outperforms representative time-series tokenizers under the same LLM pipeline and achieves real-time inference under practical mobile and edge budgets, showing that efficient sensor tokenization is a practical path toward accurate, private, and personalized LLM-based HAR on edge devices.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse areas of human activity-ranging from everyday tasks to safety-critical applications-aims to enhance decision-making effectiveness with minimal human feedback. Concurrently, it seeks to align decisions with human expectations, preferences, and needs while mitigating risks associated with AI non-determinism. However, humans frequently over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, and current AI systems remain poorly calibrated to human expectations. To address these challenges, we introduce a human-AI collaborative decision-making framework designed to augment human capabilities and align AI agents with human preferences and expectations. Specifically, this paper (a) formulates the collaborative decision-making task as a stochastic game between an AI agent and a human player, and (b) proposes the Human-Centric Reflective Architecture (HCRA), which integrates human-calibrated models with reinforcement learning agents that leverage linguistic feedback in an iterative, reflective process. Evaluation results demonstrate that HCRA enhances decision-making effectiveness and delivers high-quality recommendations.

Whether pairing people with AI helps or hurts is usually reported as a single average effect. Using a real-money prediction market (Polymarket) as an objective, externally resolved benchmark, this pilot shows that the value of human-AI collaboration depends on a specific, measurable form of human capital. Analyzed at the level of the individual forecaster, hybrid performance is trimodal: most people either deferred to the model (matching it) or used it to rubber-stamp a prior guess (performing worse than the model alone), while a minority engaged in genuine complementary reasoning and reached accuracy matching or even exceeding (i.e., lower error than) the market itself. Collaborative traits (perspective-taking, intellectual humility, and curiosity) rather than raw cognitive ability or model benchmarks, distinguished who reached that mode. The results are preliminary but statistically robust, and motivate a pre-registered replication now in preparation.

Human-AI teaming has received increasing attention in the literature. However, the range of studies conducted in multiple domains make it difficult to understand what types of teams are being studied, and in what ways are they similar/different from one another. In this study, we analyse 53 papers on human-AI teams and categorise them into five main clusters based on psychological taxonomies of teaming; AI Assistant, Ad-hoc Dependency, Ad-hoc Forced Dependency, Paired Equanimity, and Group Equanimity. Each cluster represents a unique combination of holistic team-level characteristics, indicating there are multiple disparate team types studied under the same definition. In turn, this raises the question of whether insights are truly transferable between papers. We conclude with guidance on how to identify the types of human-AI teams studied, a checklist for reporting a human-AI team in research work, and ways in which the field can be further synthesised.

Proactive robots are increasingly deployed in public environments where people are encountered not as isolated individuals but as members of cohesive social groups. Yet whether the prevailing design paradigm in proactive human-robot interaction (HRI) accounts for the relational structure that defines a group as a social unit remains largely unexamined. Through a systematic review of 63 proactive HRI studies in group settings from 2000 to 2025, we identify a recurring tendency, the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA), in which robots treat co-present people as independent engagement targets. We find that ITA is present in 60.3% of the corpus, with group-aware approaches emerging almost entirely after the robot is already embedded in an ongoing interaction. Critically, how a robot should detect and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before initiating contact remains unaddressed across the corpus. Three failure modes, engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, and bystander neglect, emerge as recurring patterns when proactive robots interact with human groups. These findings reframe proactive HRI in group settings not as an extension of dyadic interaction but as a qualitatively distinct design problem, and they identify the robot's approach to the group during the entry phase as a critical and understudied open challenge.

Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit. Across four high-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable. To address this, we introduce the m-value (multiverse value), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths. Applied to the human immigration study, 13.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space (m<0.05). Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

Generalizing machine learning models to environments that differ from their training distribution remains a critical hurdle, particularly when data from the target domain is entirely or partially unavailable. We propose Generative Meta-Learning with Human Feedback (GMHF), a novel framework that bridges this domain gap by leveraging expert intuition to guide data synthesis. Grounded in a theoretical analysis of generalization error, we derive bounds demonstrating that aligning the distribution of generated data with human beliefs regarding the target physics significantly mitigates risk. GMHF operationalizes this insight by employing a Conditional Neural ODE (cNODE) as a generative digital twin, coupled with a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent. The agent iteratively refines the latent physical parameters of the generated trajectories based on feedback, effectively steering the meta-learner toward the unobserved target distribution. Empirical validation on a nonlinear Duffing oscillator shows that GMHF substantially reduces deployment loss as expert reliability increases, and that the divergence between generated and target data falls under reliable feedback, directly corroborating the divergence-minimisation mechanism predicted by our theory. Further experiments on a non-dynamical probabilistic model confirm that the framework extends beyond ODE-governed systems, establishing human-AI collaboration as a rigorous catalyst for robust generalisation under distribution shift.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous, and across domains, increasingly autonomous systems are carrying out tasks which raise significant ethical and legal challenges which demonstrate a need for strong human-machine teams rooted in trust. In this article, I argue that within highly impactful areas (such as medicine or warfighting) there are grounds for us initially treating autonomous and opaque systems as relevantly analogous to dogs (or other animals with which we have close relationships). Under this analogy, humans making use of these systems are not to be viewed as "users" or "deployers" of these systems, but instead take the role of "handlers". This recasting of roles shifts the way we view humans, AI-enabled and autonomous systems, and the relations between them, and moreover clarifies the clear and traceable lines of responsibility humans have for the outcomes brought about when using these systems. In developing this point, I clarify that the machine-animal analogy does admit disanalogous elements, but that its touch-points ground it as a starting point. I then explore how we can divest the humans-as-handlers approach of those aspects of our relationships with animals which are unfitting for how we engage with and make use of autonomous and AI-enabled systems. I conclude by arguing that the trajectory of human-machine teamings for autonomous and AI-enabled systems should be a state where we authentically view these not as artifacts which we simply make use of, but as collaborators with which we pursue complex goals and carry out complex tasks.

Emotional bonds between humans and AI companions are growing, and the question of whether a person may marry an AI system will soon move from speculative fiction into law. This chapter examines whether the autonomy-centered logic that has expanded marital choice among human beings can justify extending marital status to superintelligent companions. Following a scenario-envisioning exercise informed by anticipatory ethics, I argue that granting such status leads to socially unjust outcomes, even under the generous assumption of reliable superintelligence. Marriage as a socio-legal institution does more than ratify private agreement; it creates networks of mutual obligation, joins families, and makes each partner vulnerable to the other. A relationship sustained by corporate policy and continued payments is a subscription rather than a bond tested by time. Discussing wholesale marital status is therefore the wrong frame. Law should carve out targeted rights and protections for pressing needs arising from intimate human-AI relationships.

Vision-language-action (VLA) models across robot embodiments require high-quality observation--action supervision to learn deployable action distributions, yet scaling such robot data remains difficult, especially for high-DoF humanoids. Teleoperation provides controller-aligned supervision, while human egocentric videos capture diverse bimanual manipulation but do not directly provide executable robot actions. We introduce Human-as-Humanoid, a human-to-humanoid supervision framework that enables near-real-time human-centric action generation, making human demonstrations usable for high-DoF humanoid VLA training by jointly aligning the robot embodiment, the sensing setup, and the action-label interface. Built on PrimeU, a human-aligned 60-DoF upper-body humanoid, Human-as-Humanoid uses synchronized ego-exo videos to pair deployment-aligned egocentric observations with exocentric motion recovery, retargets the recovered human motion through staged Inverse Kinematics (IK) into controller-aligned 60-DoF action chunks, and trains the VLA model with Forward Kinematics (FK)-aware supervision to preserve wrist and fingertip task-space geometry. This converts large-scale human demonstrations from visual observations into executable observation--action supervision for the target humanoid. Experiments validate the conversion chain at the motion-recovery, robot-action-space, and real-robot deployment levels. Human-as-Humanoid yields a 4.8--7.2x raw demonstration-throughput gain over humanoid teleoperation in our data-collection analysis, and on several downstream tasks, policies post-trained only with the converted human labels generalize to real-robot deployment without target-task robot demonstrations. The official project website is available at https://zgc-embodyai.github.io/Human-as-Humanoid.

Creating photorealistic, animatable 3D human avatars from monocular images still largely depends on Linear Blend Skinning (LBS) and parametric body models, which constrain expressivity and often introduce artifacts due to imperfect fitting. We propose LUNA, an LBS-free universal neural animation model that directly maps multiple 2D controls like images, keypoints, sketches, and unseen characters into 3D Gaussian deformations, bypassing explicit body fitting. At its core, a transformer-based motion regressor disentangles global rigid motion from fine-grained local dynamics to capture both coherent movement and subtle non-rigid effects. To resolve the inherent ambiguity of 2D-to-3D lifting while scaling beyond fitted datasets, we introduce hybrid supervision that distills soft structural priors from an LBS teacher and a loss that supports training on both limited fitted data and large in-the-wild unlabeled videos. Extensive experiments show LUNA achieves competitive visual fidelity compared to LBS-based approaches, while delivering realistic human motion and zero-shot cross-identity generalization across diverse driving modalities. To the best of our knowledge, LUNA is the first end-to-end 3D animatable model that supports implicit 2D driving.

Agents are increasingly capable of automating software tasks, but can they teach humans how to use software themselves? We introduce DigitalCoach, a multimodal dataset of 72 human expert-novice computer use coaching sessions consisting of 22,752 dialogue turns grounded in 28.1 hours of screen and input event recordings across five software applications. We use DigitalCoach to evaluate whether state-of-the-art models can teach humans how to use computers. Automated evaluation shows that models differ from humans in how they coach: models provide more direct instructions, but fewer explanations, error diagnoses, and knowledge-check questions. When we fix the coaching method, models produce utterances similar to human references yet poorly grounded in visual context. Interactive evaluation confirms that model coaches cause learners to passively follow instructions without deeper engagement and fall short in visual grounding. DigitalCoach lays a foundation for collaborative and proactive computer use coaching agents. Data and code are available at https://project-digital-coach.vercel.app.

Agentic artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed not as a single assistant but as a collective of planners, solvers, reviewers, memory managers, tool users, and orchestrators. These systems are entering organisational workflows under familiar labels such as teams, managers, committees, markets, and workflows. This article asks whether such agent collectives exhibit organisational behaviour in a sense that is analytically comparable to, yet distinct from, human organisational behaviour. I argue that agentic AI is a partial organisational analogue. It resembles a human organisation because it differentiates work, coordinates interdependence, performs recurrent routines, crosses boundaries, and produces collective outcomes. It differs because these patterns are not sustained by motivation, identity, trust, employment, socialisation, or moral accountability. They are sustained by context architecture: prompts, memory, traces, schemas, tools, validators, and permissions. The article develops contextual transaction cost as the central mechanism linking these similarities and differences. Computational theorising, synthetic task simulations, real LLM agent traces, and robustness analyses show that human-imitation forms often underperform when they add lossy handoffs, correlated deliberation, and verification burdens, whereas shared-state and adaptive forms perform better when they make context durable, inspectable, and task-contingent. The article contributes to organisation studies by theorising agentic AI as an emerging object of organising and by specifying the interface conditions under which human and agentic organisational behaviour can jointly support collective intelligence.

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric. We introduce a framework that formulates therapeutic response generation as a decision-refinement problem driven by multi-dimensional, human-aligned evaluation. In Stage I, we introduce TheraJudge, an open-source therapeutic evaluator trained via preference-based optimization on human-annotated data to produce reliable judgments across 7 psychological dimensions. In Stage II, we introduce TheraAgent, which operationalizes TheraJudge's evaluations through a coordinated refinement process with specialized Critic, Coach, and Therapist roles that translate evaluative signals into targeted response revisions. Empirically, TheraJudge achieves strong agreement with clinician ratings, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.87-0.95), surpassing supervised baselines and strong closed-source judges, particularly on critical dimensions such as Safety, Relevance, and Empathy. Acting on these evaluations, TheraAgent yields a +0.43 improvement in human-rated therapeutic quality (on a 5-point scale) under blind evaluation, with 96% clinician inter-rater reliability. Low-quality responses ($\leq 3$) improve by +2.45 points with a 94% recovery rate, demonstrating targeted correction of unsafe outputs. Overall, our results indicate that effective alignment of mental-health LLMs stems from acting on human-aligned evaluation, rather than relying solely on stronger generation. We release code at https://github.com/vis-nlp/TheraAlign.

Modern AI evaluation frameworks treat evaluator disagreement as noise to be resolved. In creative domains, professional disagreement reflects genuine differences in taste, not measurement error. We argue that evaluating creative AI requires preserving two distinct signals: convergence, where professionals align around shared best practices, and divergence, where individual taste legitimately varies. We present the Human Creativity Benchmark (HCB), a benchmark that operationalizes this separation by collecting pairwise preferences, scalar ratings on prompt adherence, usability, and visual appeal, and qualitative rationale from domain professionals. Across 15,000 professional judgments spanning five creative domains and three workflow phases (ideation, mockup, refinement), we find that convergence concentrates on verifiable dimensions like technical correctness and visual hierarchy, while divergence concentrates on taste-driven dimensions like aesthetic direction and conceptual risk. No model excels uniformly across all phases. Collapsing these signals into a single quality metric discards the most actionable information: where models must be correct versus where they should remain steerable.

Homography estimation, as one of the fundamental problems in computer vision, remains challenged by scale variation scenarios where image pairs potentially exhibit significant scale discrepancies. Existing deep learning frameworks frequently suffer from a significant performance degradation in such cases, as they rely on limited displacement assumptions and local feature consistency that might not hold under large scale gaps. In this paper, we propose SA-Homo, a novel scale-adaptive homography estimation framework designed to achieve robust alignment across a wide range of scale discrepancy ratios. We adopt a hierarchical scale alignment strategy that transitions from the global perspective with a heavy module to a local perspective with a light module. Specifically, we introduce the Scale-aware Discrepancy Bridging Module (SDBM) for initial alignment, which utilizes a Multi-scale Linear Attention Cascade (MLAC) to capture long-range dependencies and mitigate feature inconsistencies, along with a global Cross-scale Similarity Matrix Block (CSMB) for scale robust correlation representation. Once the initial scale gap is bridged, a lightweight Iterative Homography Estimation Refinement Module (IHERM) progressively polishes the result using local correlations. To facilitate this research, we contribute the HMSA dataset, a high-resolution, multi-modal satellite benchmark specifically tailored for scale-variant challenges. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SA-Homo maintains high precision even under 8$\times$ scale discrepancies, outperforming state-of-the-art methods in both conventional scale-similar scenarios and challenging scale variation scenarios. Code and collected datasets are available at https://github.com/shangxuanx330/SA_Homo

In our goal to develop personalised dysarthric speech recognition (DSR) models, this study compared the recognition performances of human listeners and those of three state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf ASR systems (Whisper-large-V3, Google Chirp 3, and Omnilingual) on the recognition of Dutch continuous read and spontaneous speech from a single speaker with severe dysarthria. Results showed that both humans listeners and the three off-the-shelf ASR systems exhibit word error rates (WER) exceeding 70% on average, indicating that DSR is highly challenging for both humans and ASR systems. Fine-tuning on the dysarthric speech significantly reduced WER. Although overall WERs are still quite high (>23%), the personalised DSR models outperformed the human listeners, and performance is getting closer to being useful for supporting day-to-day communication of dysarthric speakers. Future research should focus on improving personalized DSR on spontaneous speech and longer utterances in the case of read speech, with a specific focus on particular phonemes.

Large-language models have proven to be remarkable if inconsistent parrots of public attitudes and opinions. The extent to which LLMs are able to produce reasonable approximations of cultural taste remains an open empirical question that becomes more urgent by the day, with market research companies already offering provisional 'synthetic' survey panels and the contamination of standard survey data from LLM-generated responses. In this study, we build on past work on silicon sampling by extending considerations of their ecological, relational, and positional fidelity in the doomain of cultural tastes. We use large-language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepSeek to produce 554,940 silicon surrogates of survey respondents from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). We find these silicon surrogates' tastes to be highly stylized facsimiles of human tastes. First, silicon samples are super-omnivorous with a systematic postive-bias for liking. These individual-level bias of silicon samples are not well-explained by the WEIRD-bias often discussed in the literature. Second, the complex relationality in real taste structures is completely distorted among silicon samples. Third, very little of the known cultural alignment between tastes and social space are preserved. Silicon samples juvenilize age-taste associations, resurrect anachronistic class-taste associations, and caricaturize gender- and race-taste associations. Key words: AI, taste, consumption, culture, silicon sampling, meta-analysis.

Professional translation is often a team-based process: translators, reviewers, and project managers must coordinate terminology, legal force, and accountability across documents. Yet many LLM-based translation tools treat human corrections as isolated edits. Expert decisions made in one segment or by one member are rarely captured as reusable knowledge for the rest of the team. We present DeepTrans Studio, a collaborative translation workspace that lets professionals intercept selected nodes in an agentic translation workflow, review evidence, revise AI outputs, and save approved decisions to a shared team memory. During the demo, attendees will role-play translators and reviewers, resolve preset terminology and legal-modal risks, and see how their decisions are propagated to downstream segments and surfaced in a teammate's workspace as reusable precedents. The demo illustrates how human interventions in AI-mediated work can become shared, traceable knowledge rather than one-off corrections.

Self-collision remains a persistent challenge in SMPL-based human pose estimation and motion generation. Under extreme articulations or stochastic motion synthesis, generated meshes frequently exhibit self-penetrations, leading to physically implausible results. We propose PoseShield, a neural collision constraint defined directly in SMPL pose space. We formulate collision correction as a constrained optimization problem and connect the learned constraint with the Eikonal equation. Enforcing Eikonal regularization ensures non-vanishing gradients near the collision boundary, improving numerical stability and robustness of the optimization process. Unlike prior methods that operate in the mesh space or rely on heuristic penalties, our approach operates directly in the low-dimensional space of human poses and is theoretically grounded. The same learned constraint extends to human motion sequences, providing a generator-agnostic post-hoc collision corrector without retraining the underlying motion model. Experiments on a newly constructed SMPL pose benchmark show that our method achieves a 95.8% success rate and outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Diffusion-based text-to-image models can synthesize complex and highly structured visual content, yet the emergence and evolution of semantic structure remain difficult to interpret. Many existing workflows rely on aggregated attention or scalar summaries that separate temporal change from image-space evidence. To address this gap, we present a visual analytics framework for exploring attention dynamics in diffusion models: the step-indexed evolution of token-level cross-attention maps, their temporal concentration, and their spatial relationships. Our approach enables structured analysis of attention behavior across generation steps by integrating quantitative measures with data-driven stage identification in an interactive workflow. Case studies on a structured 60-prompt Stable-Diffusion-class benchmark illustrate recurring, interpretable patterns within this setting and show how linked temporal and spatial views facilitate the observation and discussion of generative processes, supporting more effective human-AI collaboration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in social robots to support natural group interactions, yet their role in complex multi-party settings remains underexplored. In particular, it is unclear how LLM-driven robots decide when and why to intervene in group conversations. This paper investigates the intervention explanations generated by an LLM-based orchestrator in a multi-party interaction involving three human participants and two robots. We conducted a between-subjects study with 24 groups (66 university students), comparing a homogeneous condition (two robots with the same role, i.e., a mover) and a heterogeneous condition (two robots with different roles, i.e., a mover and an opposer). At each conversational turn, the LLM orchestrator decided whether to intervene and generated a textual explanation of its decision. We performed a thematic analysis of 610 intervention explanations, identifying five recurring themes. Results show that explanations are facilitation-oriented, emphasizing agreement, participation, and interaction flow. While patterns remain stable across conditions, role differentiation emerges: the mover supports coordination, whereas the opposer drives goal-oriented interventions. These findings contribute to explainable AI by characterizing how LLM-driven systems justify intervention decisions in real-time, multi-party human-robot interaction.

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often focus on detecting whether a final artifact was generated by AI, while overlooking the conversation history that reveals human direction, AI contribution, corrections, validation, and traceability. This paper introduces LLMography, a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, reproducibility, and auditability. By analogy with bibliography and webography, LLMography documents the dynamic trajectory of interaction between a human and a Large Language Model as a structured trace of Human-AI co-production. We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates KPI reports including Prompt Quality Score, Human Direction Score, AI Dependency Level, Auditability Score, Final Output Traceability, Privacy Risk Level, and a recommended LLMography label. A preliminary exploratory evaluation was conducted on 19 anonymized audit reports from engineering students. Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability. The paper also applies LLMography to its own writing process, classified as human-originated, human-directed, AI-assisted co-production. The findings suggest that AI transparency should move beyond output detection toward documenting the history of interaction.

Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate strategic interactions through natural language, making semantic control a critical element of communication and deception. This paper develops a semantic signaling game in which a sender selects a semantic control, an LLM generates a stochastic message, and a receiver evaluates the message using an awareness-dependent scoring mechanism. Receiver awareness is modeled as a type that determines which linguistic features are perceived and used for inference, providing a formal model of systematic blindness. The framework connects prompt-based control, statistical detection, and game-theoretic equilibrium analysis. Gaussian approximations of aggregate message scores enable likelihood-ratio decision rules, while Perfect Bayesian Nash equilibria characterize strategic behavior. The paper further develops mechanism-design approaches that reshape receiver awareness, penalize deceptive semantic controls, and modify receiver populations to induce benign pooling equilibria. Numerical experiments validate the Gaussian approximation, quantify awareness-ordering effects, analyze mindset dynamics under adaptive adversaries, and demonstrate how awareness shaping and guardrail costs reduce successful phishing attacks. The proposed framework provides a principled foundation for analyzing strategic language-mediated interactions in agentic AI systems and offers new tools for the design of robust and secure human-AI communication.

When firms deploy autonomous AI, they must decide how much work to leave to the system and how much to keep workers engaged. This decision affects current output and future human capital. We develop a parsimonious two-period model in which AI may outperform the worker when it functions, but may fail with positive probability. A firm chooses worker engagement; engagement lowers current output for below-benchmark workers, but changes future skill through learning and erosion. We distinguish two dimensions of AI progress: capability, the system's output when it works, and reliability, the probability that it works. In a single-firm benchmark, engagement is valuable only as fallback investment. The firm engages the least-skilled workers most, because they have the largest skill gaps and are least costly to bring toward a useful fallback level. With worker mobility, engagement also affects labor-market sorting: workers prefer jobs that build more valuable skill trajectories. This sorting motive targets higher-skill workers near the AI frontier, where skill gains are more valuable and engagement is less costly. Mobility can therefore reverse the engagement pattern, shifting investment from the least-skilled toward the most-skilled workers below the AI benchmark. Mobility also reshapes how AI progress affects engagement: greater capability raises engagement by increasing the value of the skill trajectory a firm offers, whereas greater reliability can raise or lower it because it reduces fallback need while also changing learning opportunities. Under worker mobility, human-AI work design becomes a problem of human-capital investment, in which allocating work today shapes future skill.

The light of the daytime sky contains a mixture of many colors yet is perceived as blue by human observers. This is largely due to the particular response functions of the human cones. Under these response functions skylight and blue light are metamers: they yield the exact same excitation of the cones. In this paper we ask: is it possible to define the ``color'' of the sky for other visual systems? We present a simple computational method to determine monochromatic metamers to a given input light for arbitrary visual systems. Using published values on spectral sensitivity functions of various species, we use our method to determine the dominant wavelength of monochromatic metamers to skylight. For a wide range of species (bichromats, trichromats and tetrachormats) we find monochromatic metamers to skylight but the dominant wavelength of the metamer can vary drastically between species and be very different from the color perceived by humans.

Human videos are a scalable source of supervision for robot manipulation, as they are abundant and naturally capture rich object interactions. However, transferring human demonstrations to robots remains challenging due to embodiment mismatch, scene variation, and robot-specific feasibility constraints. We present Human2Any, a framework for learning reusable object-centric interaction priors from human videos without requiring real-world robot demonstrations in the target task contexts. Human2Any represents manipulation through object-object interaction motion, capturing task-relevant scene changes while abstracting away embodiment-specific details. It composes learned interaction priors with robot-side feasibility reasoning and motion planning, allowing the same human-derived knowledge to adapt to different embodiments, scene geometries, and task contexts. We validate Human2Any across diverse manipulation settings, including real-world experiments on a Franka tabletop setup and an RBY-1 humanoid mobile robot, demonstrating robust interaction-centric manipulation without real-world robot training data. Project website: https://human2any.github.io/.

Extracting dynamic 4D object interactions from massive, in-the-wild monocular videos offers a highly efficient data collection pathway for scaling Embodied AI and training VLAs. However, existing monocular 4D reconstruction methods primarily focus on isolated objects, often failing under the severe occlusions and complex dynamics inherent in multi-object interactions. To bridge this gap, we propose HAT-4D, the first agentic framework designed to reconstruct the 3D geometry, temporal dynamics, and physical interactions of multiple objects from a single video. By integrating VLMs with a multi-level human-in-the-loop feedback mechanism, HAT-4D efficiently resolves depth ambiguities and interaction-induced occlusions during 3D generation and 4D propagation, yielding physically plausible assets without relying on expensive multicamera rigs. As a scalable data engine, HAT-4D facilitates the creation of MVOIK-4D, an open-world benchmark for monocular 4D interaction reconstruction, accompanied by a novel multi-dimensional evaluation protocol focused on physical plausibility and temporal consistency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HAT-4D achieves SOTA performance on most evaluation metrics, while maintaining competitive semantic alignment. Ablation studies show that introducing a small amount of human feedback improves interaction reconstruction. Moreover, the data produced by HAT-4D effectively improves baseline performance when used for fine-tuning. Our data and code are available at https://lijiaxin0111.github.io/HAT4D/

Software engineering is an intellectually demanding, creative discipline that juggles a web of interdependent tasks to design, build, and assure the quality of increasingly complex systems. As our expectations from software soar - with demands spanning AI-driven products, pervasively distributed and cloud-native architectures, and deeply embedded cyber-physical environments - its complexity steadily increases. In response, a new wave of co-engineering methods and tools, fueled by deep learning, has emerged to augment the process, enhancing automation and decision support. Yet, these advances remain far from delivering the kind of intelligent support that modern software development demands. We call for a new paradigm of human-machine cooperation: one where machines don't just automate routine tasks or predict from learned patterns, but actively amplify engineers' reasoning through the lens of causation. As software becomes smarter, a smarter support is needed.

AI agents are promising tools that can act as flexible behavioral nudges to enhance human cooperation in addressing large-scale societal problems. However, evidence on whether AI agents can effectively boost cooperation remains mixed. We recruited 1,283 participants to play iterated Collective Risk Games in small groups, testing whether AI assistants could nudge participants toward cooperation. By using persuasive framing personalized to each player's Social Value Orientation profile, the AI interventions significantly increased contributions and group success rates. These cooperative effects were short-lived, however, fading after the first few rounds. Strikingly, when the AI treatments were reconfigured to promote selfish behavior through exculpatory framing, the negative effects on contributions and group success were larger and substantially more persistent, particularly for personalized interventions. This asymmetry between prosocial and antisocial persuasion highlights the dual-use risks of AI systems designed to influence group behavior in collective action settings.

Reconstructing humans in dynamic scenes from moving monocular cameras remains challenging due to scale ambiguity, human-scene misalignment, and occlusion interference. Rather than treating human mesh recovery and scene reconstruction as separate tasks, we believe that accurate human-scene reconstruction requires the two tasks to mutually inform each other: parametric human models offer semantic structure and metric-scale priors, while scene geometry provides spatial context for human localization and alignment. Built on this insight, we introduce SHOW, a mask-promptable human mesh recovery framework that couples feed-forward 3D scene reconstruction with Human Mesh Recovery in a unified metric space. SHOW injects human semantics and scale priors from parametric human models into normalized point-map prediction, enabling metric-scale scene reconstruction from inherently scale-ambiguous monocular input. In turn, the recovered scene geometry constrains human mesh estimation, encouraging spatially consistent human placement and improved human-scene alignment. To handle complex multi-person and cluttered scenes, SHOW further incorporates a promptable masking mechanism that enables flexible target-human selection while suppressing background distractions and occlusion interference. Through joint training, the model learns both human-aware geometric features and geometry-constrained human features, producing aligned metric-scale reconstructions from monocular human-centric videos. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SHOW improves metric-scale consistency, human-scene alignment, and reconstruction accuracy under challenging camera motion, occlusion, and cluttered backgrounds.

While voice control is rapidly becoming a ubiquitous vector of human-AI communication, the risks facing these systems remain poorly understood. This is, in part, a product of the difficulties in scaling strictly digital adversarial workflows to the physical world. These scale barriers have led the community to abstract away key acoustic factors relating to detectability and the influence of geometry on acoustics. These methodological and metrological shortcomings undermine our understanding of risk. We illuminate these issues through real-world testing, conceptual discussions, and a novel, high-throughput reality simulation framework. By testing over 8 million adversarial evaluations, we demonstrate that acoustic awareness yields relative Word Error Rate increases of up to 94.5% under Whisper and wav2vec. We employ this framework to explore a formalize and operationalize a Dual-Form Signal to Noise Ratio to decouple source stealth from victim attack efficacy, resolving a crucial limitation in current works. This lays the groundwork for repeatable, verifiable research that embraces, rather than abstracts, the acoustic environment.

Large language model (LLM) agents enable natural language interaction for scientific visualization (SciVis). Still, prior systems have essentially prioritized autonomy over human analytical control, thereby limiting transparency and human oversight. We present HiLSVA, a human-in-the-loop agentic system that supports mixed-initiative SciVis workflows. HiLSVA integrates a plan-first multi-agent architecture with explicit human oversight, stepwise provenance tracking, and learn-at-test-time adaptation from user feedback. The system supports fluid handoff between humans and agents through both natural language and direct manipulation of visualizations, while sandboxed execution ensures safe, reproducible workflows. In doing so, HiLSVA reframes agentic SciVis as a collaborative process that augments, rather than replaces, human analytical reasoning. We evaluate HiLSVA through representative case studies and a controlled user study with twelve participants of varying expertise across multiple autonomy settings. Results show that mixed-initiative interaction improves task completion, user control, and workflow transparency across different levels of user expertise, while revealing a tradeoff between execution efficiency and human oversight. These findings highlight the importance of human-centered design in agentic SciVis and guide the development of future collaborative visualization systems. We encourage readers to explore our demo video, case studies, and source code at https://hilsva.github.io/.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tend to produce longer reasoning traces for problems on which humans also spend more time. This correspondence suggests a shared sensitivity to difficulty, yet difficult problems can invite both persistence and withdrawal. We distinguish difficulty registration, expressed in which problems elicit more deliberation, from the allocation of further work. We examine their relation in matched human and LRM data from visual abstraction, intuitive physics, and relational reasoning. On visual abstraction, model trace length tracks the human ordering of problems by duration. After item identity is controlled, successful human attempts last longer than failed attempts, while failed LRM attempts have longer traces than successful ones in the pooled model analysis. The estimated outcome slopes follow the same pattern in intuitive physics. In relational reasoning, successful attempts are longer in separate human and model analyses. Fitting the two groups together with shared item effects yields a human-LRM difference in the relation between duration and outcome. Human grid actions connect longer attempts with sustained task engagement. Failed LRM traces contain more hedging or repetition after length is controlled, with the form of the difference varying across tasks. A resource-rational account explains how the expected reducibility of uncertainty and the value assigned to further computation can produce different patterns of persistence despite similar sensitivity to difficulty. Agreement about which problems require more deliberation can therefore coexist with different patterns of persistence on those problems.

The last few years have seen a significant rise in interest in highly autonomous and proactive systems, fueled by advances in AI. Systems that anticipate user needs, take initiative, and act without explicit user input. Such systems span a wide range of applications, from smart lighting that adapts to user activity to assistive robots that plan actions in advance to intelligent thermostats that learn routines and adjust environments proactively. Despite this breadth, the concept of proactivity remains loosely defined and inconsistently applied across research and practice. Current usage of the term often conflates fundamentally different system behaviors. For instance, simple reminders or recommendation systems are frequently labeled as proactive, even though underlying mechanisms and intentions differ significantly. This conceptual ambiguity limits our ability to systematically design, compare, and evaluate proactive systems. Moreover, existing methodologies for design and evaluation are largely rooted in reactive interaction paradigms, failing to address the unique challenges posed by proactive behavior, including timing, appropriateness, user control, transparency, and trust. This multidisciplinary workshop aims to establish a clearer and more rigorous foundation for understanding proactive systems. We bring together researchers and practitioners from Human-Computer Interaction, AI, and related fields to (1) develop a shared conceptualization of proactivity, (2) identify gaps and limitations in current design and evaluation approaches, and (3) co-create human-centered guidelines and research directions for future systems. Through interactive discussions and collaborative activities, the workshop seeks to map key challenges and opportunities, ultimately advancing robust and consistent frameworks for designing and evaluating proactive technologies.

Visual search has been one of the most productive paradigms in the study of visual attention: the way reaction time scales with the number of items distinguishes parallel, "pop-out" search from serial, attention-demanding search. I ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit the same behavioral signatures. I adapt four classic paradigms: feature versus conjunction search, spatial-configuration (T-vs-L) search, enumeration, and the tilted/vertical search asymmetry; and present them to current frontier and mid-tier models. Because a single model call has no reaction time, I use the number of reasoning ("thinking") tokens a model spends per trial as a within-model analog of search effort, and I compare against a large public human benchmark (Wolfe et al., 2010). The models reproduce several human signatures: feature search costs flat effort while conjunction effort climbs with set size; frontier models hold accuracy where mid-tier models collapse to chance; and a resolution control shows the conjunction cost is genuine search rather than difficulty resolving small shapes. They also diverge from humans in informative ways. The target-present effort slope exceeds the target-absent slope, reversing the human ordering; enumeration remains accurate where humans would lose count; and a reasoning model with adaptive deliberation declines to deliberate on detection tasks altogether, so that a single search expresses itself as an effort gradient in one model and as an accuracy cliff in another. I argue that psychophysical paradigms, applied behaviorally, are a sharp and inexpensive probe of machine visual cognition, and that the points of divergence are as informative as the points of agreement.

Millions of people use machine translation (MT) tools daily, yet little is known about their perception of what systems can and cannot do. This paper studies users' mental models of speech translation systems through a new framework based on cross-lingual question answering, where users either accept MT output or request professional re-translation to answer questions based on the information presented in a foreign language. By analyzing user behavior and accuracy trends across varying translation qualities, we examine to what extent they can predict where the system is likely to be wrong, and how this mental model evolves. Users develop stronger mental models with practice, especially when they have some knowledge of the source language, primarily by relying on surface-level error cues. Moreover, providing speech transcriptions can help users develop better mental models. Our results show the promise of cross-lingual question answering as a downstream task for studying MT mental models and advancing our understanding of human-AI collaboration.

Many information systems are built around documents: self-contained units optimised for print production and linear reading. While effective for large-scale dissemination, the document-centric organisation constrains how knowledge can be structured, updated, shared, and reused. Formal approaches address some of these limitations but struggle to achieve widespread contribution and adoption due to their prioritisation of formal structure over other system properties such as human usability and scope. AI systems are reshaping document production, but without providing a unified portable alternative to traditional documents for humans' expression and exchange of knowledge. This paper presents MMM, a data model for knowledge documentation that emerged from the practical needs of interdisciplinary collaborative research, and positioned here within a comparative analysis of the design space of information systems. MMM combines a small set of normative constraints with the expressive freedom of free-text labels. It is designed for interoperability across disciplines, applications and deployments without requiring semantic convergence. A reference implementation and pilot deployment data demonstrate implementability and early usability.

Automatic review generation is a promising direction for accelerating scientific progress. While most work adopts an end-to-end setup, its fully automated nature makes it less suitable for settings that demand accountability. To better balance automation and accountability, we formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s). We model it as a structured generate-check-refine process and conduct a user study to collect human-model interaction data. We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation. We develop methods to simulate the process for large-scale evaluation, and show that conformal prediction is well suited to balancing candidate set size and target coverage. Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.

Since 2023, computer scientists have warned against model collapse -- the contamination of training sets with AI-generated outputs that progressively degrade model performance. Exemplifying a positive-feedback-driven failure, it produces effects such as word repetition or pixel noise, ultimately leading to a loss of meaning and coherence -- at least from an engineering standpoint. From a creative one, however, collapse is not merely a breakdown: it also functions as a recursive mirror that recalls early analog video feedback experiments, raising once again the question of what happens when a system turns inward and sees itself. In such cases, so-called machine vision no longer transmits the world (as in tele-vision) but increasingly generates worlds from within. Drawing on media archaeology through case studies of both historical video synthesis techniques and contemporary artistic uses of machine learning, this paper examines what recursive training reveals about the dependent nature of AI-generated data. It argues that the potential effects of collapse challenge transhumanist ideals while inviting an aesthetic perspective, positioning noise and recursion as key concepts for understanding both artmaking and the AI ecosystem. Distributing agency across scales and networks, the latter currently remains reliant on new human-produced content, particularly within foundation models trained on massive datasets.

We study how the effort and success probability of frontier AI systems scale with human difficulty on problems from Project Euler, an online platform of computational mathematics problems. Our dataset, from the MathArena benchmark, consists of 3840 attempts across 50 problems and 26 model configurations, with problem difficulty measured by the site's public human solve times. Motivated by a proposal of Timothy Gowers, we test a power-law relation $t_{\text{machine}} = a \cdot t_{\text{human}}^b$ between generated-token cost per successful answer and human time, and find $b < 1$ for 20 of the 25 models with usable fits, including the strongest base models; this operationalization therefore does not support an earlier prediction that machines scale worse than humans with difficulty. We also investigate whether success probability on the tested problems can be modeled by a simple exponential decay $p_{\text{success}} = e^{c t_{\text{human}}}$, predicting a linear relation between $\log p_{\text{success}}$ and $t_{\text{human}}$. Using a binning approach for data aggregation we find moderate empirical support (median bin-level $R^2 = 0.92$ across the 22 best-covered configurations) for this model. Following METR, we also fit logistic success curves and extract 50% task-length horizons $h_{50}$; the strongest configurations in our 20 April 2026 snapshot reach roughly $2.5$--$4.3$ hours on our fastest-five human baseline, with a log-linear fit through the state-of-the-art frontier giving a descriptive doubling time of about $75$~days for the SOTA $h_{50}$.

Maintainability is a core dimension of software engineering, shaping how code is written, reviewed, and developed over time. While coding agents have demonstrated strong performance on single-issue tasks, it remains unclear how maintainable their code is when future agents build on top of it, potentially leading to compounding downstream effects. We investigate how agent code compares to human code in these maintenance settings, presenting CodeThread, a framework to construct controlled experiments from repository-level coding benchmarks. Applying CodeThread to four frontier coding agents and four benchmarks, we find that agents are less effective at resolving tasks when building on agent code compared to human code, with task resolve rate drops of up to 13.1%. Regression analysis reveals that many traditional software engineering maintainability metrics do not explain this difference. Instead, the clearest signals are subtler behavioral differences in agent code, such as changes to input validation and error handling, along with differences in downstream code size and task difficulty. These findings highlight the need to evaluate these systems not only by immediate task resolution but also by code maintainability, and point to potential sources of downstream errors introduced by agent code.

Much work on the cognitive foundations of AI has focussed on comparisons between the ways in which Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans process information and represent it. One aspect of this comparison involves determining the extent to which LLMs can achieve or surpass human performance on a variety of cognitively interesting tasks. A second explores points of convergence and divergence between LLM and human systems for processing information. Here, I consider some recent research that has addressed both issues in two informational domains. The first is the representation of linguistic knowledge. The second is real world reasoning and planning. While LLMs frequently achieve impressive levels of performance and fluency on linguistic applications, they tend to handle linguistic content in ways that are distinct from human processing. They are also, for the most part, less efficient than humans in learning and generalisation for reasoning tasks.

This paper revisits the grounding problem for large language models in light of recent vector-grounding accounts. I accept the shift from classical symbol grounding to vector grounding, but argue that the current debate remains incomplete in two respects. First, reference is often treated too thinly, as if it were a fixed link between an isolated expression and an object. I argue instead that reference is profile-based, context-sensitive, discourse-level, affectively shaped, and norm-governed. Even in the human case, reference is publicly stabilized through patterns of use, correction, distinction, inference, and continuation rather than through identical private representations. Second, vector grounding requires an account of numerical realization. LLMs do not acquire reference through human perception, memory, intention, embodiment, or understanding. Rather, through optimization, they parameterize linguistic traces of human world-directed practice. In a finite vector system, referential profiles must be distributed, may be superposed, and are recovered through context-sensitive computation. Weights, activations, attention-mediated hidden states, softmax-trained contrasts, and inner-product alignments are the mathematical sites at which inherited linguistic relations become stable and causally active. Mechanistic interpretability findings, including entity-like features, knowledge neurons, and emotion-related activation directions, provide indirect support for this view. They do not show that LLMs possess human reference. They support a more limited thesis: LLMs may possess derivative, language-mediated, profile-based, and numerically structured forms of reference.

Dense sentence embeddings are fundamental to modern Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems but suffer from a lack of interpretability due to feature superposition. This opacity hinders the alignment of retrieval processes with human intent, as the entangled representations are difficult to analyze or control. In this work, we propose a method to disentangle the dense representations of sentence transformers (e.g., E5) into human-interpretable concepts using Top-k Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs). We demonstrate that these disentangled features align with specific semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic categories. Furthermore, we introduce an activation steering mechanism that allows for precise intervention in the retrieval process. By clamping specific latent features, we show that it is possible to re-rank search results to better align with user constraints without retraining the backbone model. Our findings suggest that SAE-based decomposition offers a viable path toward transparent and steerable neural information retrieval.

Embodied foundation models are expected to benefit from data scaling like large language models, but face a much tighter data bottleneck. Teleoperated real-robot trajectories remain the dominant pretraining source due to their precise action supervision and embodiment alignment, yet their scalability is limited by high collection cost, acquisition difficulty, and low behavioral and environmental diversity. These limitations have sparked interest in egocentric human video as a scalable, substantially lower-cost, and more diverse alternative for embodied model pretraining. However, its effectiveness compared to teleoperated real-robot data remains underexplored. To address this question, we conduct a systematic study comparing egocentric human video and teleoperated real-robot trajectories as pretraining data sources for embodied foundation models, under fixed post-training and validation protocols. Surprisingly, we find that egocentric data, when processed through a carefully designed filtering and labeling pipeline, is not merely a viable substitute for model pretraining but can lead to superior performance. With the same amount of pretraining data, models pretrained on egocentric data achieve a 24% lower validation loss on real-robot action prediction, as well as 52.5% and 90% higher success rates on in-distribution and out-of-distribution real-robot task execution, respectively. This finding verifies a scalable paradigm for embodied foundation models: pretrain on egocentric human video to learn diverse world representations, then adapt with a small amount of labeled real-robot data for action-space alignment. We hope this study encourages broader exploration of egocentric data and offers guidance for data quality assessment before costly robot data collection.

Human visual attention relies on structured scanpaths to efficiently process scenes, yet instilling this behavior into robot autonomy is in its infancy and hindered by the high,computational costs of existing predictive models. To address this, we introduce GazeLNN, a computationally lightweight,scanpath prediction model that leverages Liquid Neural Networks as its recurrent engine and employs MobileNetV3 for feature extraction. Operating auto-regressively, the architecture predicts sequential fixation heatmaps conditioned on the current visual stimulus and fixation history. Despite requiring only 0.61 GFLOPs, GazeLNN achieves state-of-the-art performance on the MIT Low Resolution dataset achieving 0.47 ScanMatch score. It outperforms existing recurrent baselines across diverse evaluation metrics, while reducing computational costs by 99.40% and accelerating inference by up to six times. To investigate the role of human attention modeling in robot autonomy and demonstrate the practical utility of this highly efficient architecture, we integrate GazeLNN into an active camera-robot control policy trained via Reinforcement Learning. This integration enables human-fixation-guided perception during autonomous navigation, validated through successful real-world deployments on an aerial robot.

Current conversational AI systems have made significant progress in language generation, personalization, and long-context interaction. However, most existing methods model social behavior through isolated components such as emotion modeling, memory retrieval, or persona conditioning, lacking a unified framework to explain the emergence of stable social relationships and social intelligence in long-term human-AI interaction.To address this, we propose the Human-AI Coevolution Dynamics Framework (HACD-H), a formal model of human-AI interaction as a self-organizing social cognitive system. HACD-H integrates emotional adaptation, relational organization, social memory, and personality consistency into a unified dynamical framework and introduces principles including multi-timescale social cognition, relational attractors, trust basins, developmental phase transitions, and social cognitive energy dynamics.We construct a conversational dataset with approximately 14,700 interaction turns and develop a theory-driven empirical evaluation framework. Results reveal a hierarchy of temporal persistence in social cognition, stable relational attractors, phase-transition-like developmental patterns, and a structured social cognitive energy landscape. Social intelligence shows a significant negative correlation with social cognitive energy (r = -0.391, p < 0.001), and interaction trajectories exhibit progressive energy reduction over time.These findings suggest that social intelligence emerges from long-term social cognitive coevolution rather than isolated conversational capabilities. HACD-H provides a unified theoretical foundation for modeling adaptive human-AI social interaction and developing socially intelligent AI systems.

As AI agents are increasingly integrated into core business processes, understanding and designing effective interaction patterns between humans and AI agents becomes crucial for value creation. This study identifies and evaluates principles and criteria for a positive User Experience (UX) with AI agents, along with methods for its measurement. We identify user expectations and needs to facilitate adoption, build trust, and support user-centered decision-making by development teams. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative techniques, we explore interaction patterns between humans and AI agents. The findings from this exploratory research serve as the basis to develop a survey experiment which evaluates the effectiveness of specific design elements on a larger scale. This foundational research contributes to the development of more intuitive and effective human-AI agent interactions in business settings.

Precision visual inspection underpins quality assurance across aerospace, semiconductor, and medical manufacturing, where undetected surface anomalies on high-value parts translate directly into scrap, rework, and field failures. Robotic visual inspection requires precise alignment between the end-effector and local surface geometry in the presence of perception noise and surface irregularities. In industrial settings, a human operator is often kept in the loop via teleoperation or shared autonomy, introducing real-time adjustments that render purely offline motion planning inadequate. This motivates control architectures capable of reactive, compliant behavior under combined human and perceptual uncertainty. This paper presents a novel real-time, closed-loop robotic orientation control pipeline for precision visual inspection, with an admittance-based framework that unifies operator input and perception-driven surface alignment. We design the end-effector as a virtual sphere moving through a viscous medium, such that the resulting physically interpretable mass--damper system generates synchronized, compliant motion from orientation error and operator commands. We validate the framework on a 6-DOF manipulator demonstrating stable normal-tracking and a final mean orientation error of 0.4°.

Automated AI agents are increasingly capable, yet many scientific and professional tasks require human judgment and contextual expertise. We use simulated shared-workspace human-AI teams as a controlled testbed for studying how collaboration structure shapes team behavior. Using the Collaborative Gym environment with tasks from DiscoveryBench, we vary team compositions and collaboration structures across 1,482 sessions. We find that adding additional collaborators can lower performance when coordination structure is absent. We then evaluate collaboration scaffolding that combines shared group memory with simulated human-in-the-loop (HITL) gates, where selected actions require approval from a designated simulated participant. This scaffolding improves performance, most clearly in three-person teams, with clearer responsibility signals and stronger routing of expertise to team actions. Overall, our results suggest that coordination structure is central to whether available capability improves team outcomes.