Human-AI Collaboration

The supply of high-quality training tasks is a central bottleneck for reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) on agentic language models. Each task requires a sandboxed setup, a prompt, and a hand-authored reward function, and only tasks that pass a quality bar produce useful training signal. Hand-curation at this quality bar does not scale economically to the task counts effective RL training requires, and the substitution rate between automatically generated task variants and human-authored ones is not yet established. We investigate using pre-specified, gate-filtered augmentations of a small hand-authored base as a substitute for additional human curation during RLVR. We formalize the cost-adjusted trade rate $ρ_{\text{cost}}$ between augmented and human-authored tasks, measure it through a controlled ablation across training corpora with varying augmentation share, and characterize the end-to-end economics of the augmentation pipeline. Substituting augmented content for additional human-authored tasks retains aggregate held-out generalization on a ten-benchmark suite spanning code, instruction following, reasoning, and multi-turn agentic function-calling. The cost-adjusted trade rate $ρ_{\text{cost}}$ between gated synthetic and human-authored RLVR tasks stays in $[1.4\times, 11.6\times]$ across the plausible $c_{\text{human}}/c_{\text{aug}}$ range.

Frame analysis of migration news is a socially consequential task: media scholars and researchers who study how migration is narrated need tools that are not only accurate, but transparent, auditable, and accessible within the resource constraints typical of academic research groups. Existing LLM-based approaches rely on proprietary APIs and large models that raise concerns about data privacy, reproducibility and equitable access among media researchers. This work studies how a locally deployable open-source LLM can support interpretable frame analysis as an assistive tool. We introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (SCoT) prompting approach using Llama3-8B, enabling step-by-step justifications grounded in predefined framing categories. This structured design allows users to audit model outputs and examine alternative interpretations in a task that is inherently subjective. We evaluate our approach on a dataset of migration-related news and show that SCoT improves classification performance over zero-shot and few-shot baselines while remaining feasible on a single GPU. Then, we conduct a human-centered evaluation in which annotators assess the coherence and influence of "the model's reasoning". Results indicate that SCoT explanations are generally perceived as logical (mean score 4.1/5, though with notable variation across texts) and can prompt reflection on initial interpretations, even when disagreement persists. Our findings highlight both the potential and risks of LLM-assisted frame analysis. While structured reasoning can increase the traceability of model outputs and support critical interpretation, it can also influence human judgment in subtle ways. By enabling local deployment and emphasizing human-in-the-loop interaction, this work contributes to discussions on responsible and accessible computational tools for the study of socially impactful media narratives.

Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight. However, debate faces a fundamental tension: models are incentivized to be persuasive to the judge, which may not always align with epistemic honesty. In this work, we propose an alternative paradigm: disagreement resolution, which reframes the interaction mechanism from adversarial debate to collaborative truth seeking. Drawing on principles from human mediation and conflict resolution, where mediators facilitate dialogue to help disputing parties reach consensus rather than adjudicating between them, we design an automated pipeline that adapts these strategies to AI oversight. Unlike standard debate where models argue for fixed positions, our pipeline directs models to collaboratively identify points of disagreement, examine the evidence for conflicting claims, and converge toward consensus or isolate the specific ''crux'' of their disagreement. We find that Disagreement Resolution consistently helps non-expert models identify the truth, achieving 62.1% judging accuracy compared to 49.2% for standard debate. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for rethinking the scalable oversight protocol from adversarial persuasion to collaborative truth-seeking.

Existing human attention (saliency) modeling methods persist as highly fragmented across modalities, scenes, and task formulations. Consequently, even with increasing model capacity and data scale, current models predominantly remain scene-dependent and task-specific, failing to practically generalize in real-world applications. To address the fundamental limitations, we present the Attend to Anything Model (AAM), a multi-modal foundation model that unifies attention modeling across various image, video, and audio-visual tasks and scenes. AAM reformulates attention as a cognitive entailment relationship organized in a general-to-specific hierarchy, implemented through language prompts with hierarchical embeddings in hyperbolic space. Furthermore, to unify static image and dynamic video attention, we adopt a fluid-dynamics perspective, formulating video-frame attention as a diffusive temporal evolution governed by the Fokker--Planck equation. Extensive experiments on 16 benchmarks demonstrate that AAM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods by an average of 6% across various scenarios, while achieving approximately a 4$\times$ speedup in video inference. Overall, these results demonstrate that AAM provides a principled foundation for future research on attention and saliency-related tasks. The dataset and code will be available at https://github.com/wz-zhao/Attend-to-Anything.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation. In these settings, users may obtain highly structured answers, plans, and judgments without sufficient domain practice. This paper proposes a practice auditing framework for LLM use and AI-generated content governance. It introduces collective empiricism to describe how LLMs compress and reorganize large-scale human experience into outputs that appear empirical and rational, and pseudo-rational cognition to describe how users may mistake AI-generated structured expression for their own rational understanding. The paper analyzes AI subjectivity illusion, subjectivity structures in input materials, template loops in AI-AI conversations, statistical misjudgment in AIGC detection, and memory pollution when generated content enters future contexts, long-term memory, retrieval spaces, or agent skill systems. To reduce these risks, the paper proposes an auditing process based on requirement definition, problem-boundary identification, evidence-source auditing, practical validation, reverse questioning, logging, version management, rollback, and renewed cognition. The framework does not reject AI productivity; it argues that LLM outputs should be returned to verifiable, reproducible, and intervenable processes of practice. The paper provides a conceptual and auditable framework for cognitive risks in LLM interaction, AI-generated content governance, long-term memory systems, and human-AI interaction.

Are utterances by AI chatbots meaningful? Concretely, if a user asks, say, Anthropic's agent Claude, "What is the capital of Spain?" and Claude answers, "Madrid is the capital of Spain," does that sentence have its ordinary meaning -- and does it express a true proposition? Most ordinary users, as well as AI engineers, take the answer to be trivially "yes." However, many cognitive scientists, linguists, and philosophers of language argue that dominant intentionalist accounts of language and meaning deliver the opposite conclusion. Theorists more sympathetic to ordinary users' intuitions have therefore advocated a radical "de-anthropomorphization" of language, revising our understanding of mental states, intentions, and semantic content to capture the intuition that the outputs of LLMs are meaningful. We take a different approach. While we, too, argue that LLM outputs are meaningful, we contend that a proper theory of human language already applies, as is, to current chatbots. Meaning is a low bar: claiming that LLM outputs are meaningful does not require positing mental states, intentions, rationality, or the cognitive capacities requisite for communication in LLMs -- or, indeed, making any other anthropomorphic assumptions. People do have communicative intentions (typically successful ones), but nevertheless, even in humans, language production can depart from what the speaker has in mind. Our view has important consequences for how we should theorize about -- and critically engage with -- both human linguistic output and synthetically generated text. In particular, to say that chatbots produce meaningful text is not by any means to endorse what they output, or to assume that the technology is (or is not) good, powerful, appropriate, or useful.

Human-object interaction (HOI) recognition is critical for automatically analyzing student behavior in complex educational environments. Although state-of-the-art (SOTA) HOI detectors perform well on benchmark datasets, their performance often degrades when deployed in real-world training environments due to domain-specific objects, occlusions, and complex visual conditions. In this paper, we introduce a diagnosis-driven framework that integrates a triplet-level HOI error taxonomy with error-factor attribution analysis for real-world educational video data. We study this problem in the context of Critical Care Air Transport Team (CCATT) mixed-reality medical training. Based on an analysis of HOI failure modes and their causes, we develop a diagnosis-informed refinement strategy for adapting pretrained HOI models to the target domain. Experiments on the CCATT dataset show that this approach improves the macro-F1 score of a pretrained CDN model from 48.6 to 90.2 through targeted refinement guided by diagnosed error factors. These results highlight the value of detailed diagnostic analysis for informing targeted adaptation of HOI models in real-world educational environments.

In this paper, we present HumanNOVA, a photorealistic, universal, and rapid model for generating 3D human avatars from a single RGB image. Achieving both photorealism and generalization is challenging due to the scarcity of diverse, high-quality 3D human data. To address this, we build a scalable data generation pipeline that follows two strategies. The first one is to leverage existing rigged assets and animate them with extensive poses from daily life. The second strategy is to utilize existing multi-camera captures of humans and employ fitting to generate more diverse views for training. These two strategies enable us to scale up to 100k assets, significantly enhancing both the quantity and the diversity of data for robust model training. In terms of the architecture, HumanNOVA adopts a feed-forward, token-conditioned avatar modeling framework that allows fast inference in less than one second and requires no test-time optimization. Given an input image and an estimated simplified human mesh (SMPL) without detailed geometry or appearance, the model first encodes both inputs into compact token representations. These tokens then act as conditioning signals and are fused through cross-attention to construct a triplane-based 3D avatar representation. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of our approach, both quantitatively and qualitatively, as well as its robustness under diverse input image conditions. Project page at https://HumanNOVA.github.io .

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

Multimodal agents are increasingly expected to operate interfaces on behalf of users, raising a central deployment question: can they truly substitute for humans in workflows that services deliberately protect against automation? CAPTCHA verification makes this question concrete. It is not merely a visual puzzle, but a human-verification boundary placed before account creation, content access, form submission, and other protected actions. We introduce \textbf{Humanity's Last Line of Verification (HLL)}, a controlled benchmark that uses interactive CAPTCHA verification to evaluate whether agents can cross this boundary through grounded, human-like interaction rather than recognition alone. HLL covers diverse CAPTCHA interactions and exposes agents to controlled realism stressors, including cluttered webpages, harder task variants, and trace-conditioned validation of the solving process. We evaluate eight frontier multimodal agents in a closed-loop GUI environment. The results show that current agents remain brittle at this human-substitution boundary: performance varies sharply across verification types, degrades under realistic interface conditions, and drops further when correct answers must be supported by valid action traces. By exposing gaps in localization, action calibration, state tracking, and process consistency, HLL provides a concrete testbed for measuring how close multimodal agents are to acting as human substitutes in protected real-world workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinhaoS0101/HLL

Reconstructing humans and their surrounding environments in a globally consistent 4D space is essential for comprehensive perception. However, prior works typically assume single-view inputs or decouple humans, scenes, and cameras, making them unable to recover coherent geometry, stable motion, and physically aligned trajectories. These limitations motivate us to introduce a new task: unified human-scene-camera reconstruction from multi-view videos, which aims to jointly estimate dynamic humans, static scenes, and camera poses in one global coordinate frame. We propose TROPHIES--Temporal Reconstruction of Places, Humans, and Cameras from Multi-view Videos-a unified framework tailored for this task. TROPHIES features a Human Branch that models humans through temporal and spatial reasoning, and a Scene Branch that reconstructs static geometry with human-aware attention. A global alignment and optimization module couples both branches by enforcing scale consistency, contact priors, and cross-view temporal coherence. Experiments on EgoHuman and EgoExo4D demonstrate that TROPHIES achieves globally aligned, physically plausible 4D reconstructions and consistently outperforms existing paradigms in both global fidelity and human-scene consistency.

Traditional Video Quality Assessment (VQA) focuses narrowly on aesthetic fidelity, overlooking the complex social dynamics that define quality in User-Generated Content (UGC). In this work, we propose a paradigm shift from signal-centric metrics to human-centric resonance assessment. We introduce CASTER (Community-Aware Assessment of Social Textual Engagement and Resonance), a new task that evaluates whether a UGC item achieves positive community resonance based on its multimodal attributes rather than visual quality alone. To address this, we present MEDEA (Multimodal Engagement-Driven Evaluation Architecture), which introduces a novel Social Chain-of-Thought (Social-CoT) mechanism. Unlike traditional logical CoT, Social-CoT performs multimodal perspective-taking, instantiating diverse viewer personas to simulate collective cognitive and emotional reactions (i.e., the "community mind") before deriving a quality judgment. MEDEA is trained via a two-stage approach involving supervised fine-tuning and process-supervised reinforcement learning with Social Alignment Reward to ensure reasoning paths are grounded in authentic human social cognition. To support this task, we release CASTER-Bench, a comprehensive human-annotated benchmark covering diverse UGC categories. Experiments demonstrate that MEDEA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on CASTER-Bench while providing interpretable and empathetic reasoning paths that align with real community feedback.

Recent studies on sensor-language alignment have shown that two-stage frameworks can improve the semantic modeling ability of wearable-sensor human activity recognition (HAR), where SensorLLM-style methods first perform motion-to-language alignment and then fine-tune the model for downstream tasks. However, our experiments reveal a consistent failure mode when the Stage 2 backbone is compressed to a compact model such as TinyLlama: recognition of dynamic activities remains relatively strong, while the discrimination of low-motion static classes such as standing, sitting, and lying degrades substantially. To address this issue, we propose a gravity-aware hierarchical routing head as a lightweight post-alignment adaptation built on top of an already aligned model, rather than a new large-scale pretraining framework. The method uses the per-channel mean and std from the Chronos tokenizer state to extract statistical cues related to posture and gravity direction, and adaptively combines a static expert and a full expert through soft routing, together with a load-balancing loss for stable training. On the MHealth dataset, this design significantly improves macro-F1 with minimal parameter overhead, and the gains are concentrated mainly on static classes while preserving strong performance on dynamic activities. As a first arXiv disclosure, the current paper reports results on a single dataset only, with the goal of highlighting the core method and laying the groundwork for broader evaluation in future work.

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft publicfacing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,381 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human subarguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses. Finally, human-preference evaluators favor both common arguments and LLM essays, which could reinforce argument collapse.

As generative platforms such as Suno and Udio reach human-grade audio quality, the scope of AI's utility has expanded across the entire music production workflow. Beyond simple track generation, these advancements have catalyzed the adoption of AI-driven methodologies in diverse forms. These include vocal synthesis, arrangement, and professional mastering. However, current detection research remains largely confined to a binary `AI-or-human' paradigm. It fails to reflect the realities of contemporary music production workflows. In real-world production, AI tools are increasingly used to refine or master human-produced tracks, and human engineers likewise post-process AI-generated material to ensure professional quality. Moreover, users often employ adversarial tactics to bypass AI detectors, such as applying human mastering to AI-generated tracks. This creates a grey area that a simple binary classification fails to capture. In this paper, we define and investigate ``AI Music Tracking'': the challenge of identifying specific AI integration across the multifaceted spectrum of music production. To this end, we introduce HAIM, a dataset with diverse labels for stages of music production. It is designed to isolate stages of AI intervention, including hybrid production and agent-level tracking. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art detectors reveals systemic flaws. By releasing HAIM, we propose a new benchmark that shifts the field beyond binary classification toward a granular, structured evaluation of AI music.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to generate structured descriptions of street-level imagery for tasks such as streetscape auditing, mapping, and public consultation. These uses combine observable attributes with appraisal categories, and the human targets are often distributions of judgments with disagreement and explicit non-response. This paper argues that benchmarking VLMs for urban perception should treat disagreement and abstention as measurement outcomes, report inter-annotator reliability alongside model alignment, and treat the label space and scoring policy as negotiable artifacts when outputs are intended to inform urban governance. We ground the argument in a benchmark of 100 Montreal street scenes annotated along 30 dimensions by 12 participants from seven community organizations, and in a deterministic zero-shot evaluation of seven VLMs. Across dimensions, model agreement with human consensus co-varies with dimension-level human reliability, and for the appraisal dimension Overall Impression models and annotators exhibit distributional mismatch including different rates of Not applicable. We close with actions for benchmark creators, model developers, and institutions to make uncertainty and benchmark assumptions visible in evaluation reports.

Traditional artificial intelligence has largely conceptualized intelligence as isolated computation occurring within bounded agents. Across classical AI, machine learning, and many generative systems, the dominant unit of analysis remains the individual model or autonomous system evaluated through outputs, benchmarks, prediction accuracy, or optimization performance. While these approaches have produced major advances, they often under-theorize the role of interaction in the emergence of intelligence, creativity, meaning, and adaptive behavior. This paper proposes interaction as the primary unit of analysis for co-creative AI and interaction-centered intelligence more broadly. Drawing from distributed cognition, embodied cognition, enaction, participatory sense-making, human-computer interaction, and computational creativity, the paper traces a historical progression toward increasingly relational accounts of intelligence. Building upon prior work in Creative Sense-Making, quantified co-creation, and co-creative systems such as the Drawing Apprentice and AI Drawing Partner, it argues that intelligence emerges through evolving interaction dynamics among agents, environments, and socio-technical systems rather than solely through internal computation. The paper introduces Interaction-Centered Intelligence as a framework for understanding human-AI co-creation, collaborative emergence, adaptive participation, and interactional dynamics. Rather than evaluating intelligence solely through generated outputs, the framework emphasizes interaction trajectories, coordination patterns, participatory engagement, adaptive regulation, and interactional drift unfolding through time. Implications for explainable co-creative AI, hybrid intelligence, enactive AI, and future human-AI systems are discussed.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied across educational contexts to support learning. One approach to such support is "human-AI collaboration" (also termed "hybrid intelligence"), where human(s) and AI components interact to promote human learning. However, as in human-to-human computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), unstructured interaction does not necessarily produce an effective learning experience. This paper reports a systematic literature review of empirical studies (N=62) on human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence for learning support. The review characterizes collaboration processes, their structures, and contexts of application. It also extracts emerging design knowledge and research gaps. Researchers and technology designers can use these findings as a starting point for structuring more effective AI-enhanced technologies for collaboration, in educational practice and future research.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

We argue that many Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research (AMR) studies need stronger evidence to ensure that they can provide a robust foundation for critical safety decisions, such as model deployment and regulation. By evaluating failure modes across different misalignment concepts, such as deception, emergent misalignment, and sycophancy, we show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors. This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR. To achieve this, we provide a clear call to action through a proposed framework of evidence levels and a diagnostic checklist. These shared standards will enable more productive scientific discourse and ensure that claims about AI risks rest on solid empirical foundations.

Much research has been carried out on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-powered agentic workflows. However, many works within the field state emergence of, ascribe to, or assume, generalised anthropomorphic attributes to them (e.g., morality or understanding of natural language). Our goal is not to argue in favour or against the existence of these attributes, but to point out that these conclusions could be incorrect. For this we build and train a simple neural network on the videogame Age of Empires II, and note that any entity in a sufficiently-powerful substrate, such as LEGO or the Greater Boston Area, could also present such attributes. Hence, the purported anthropomorphic attributes of LLMs are empirically non-unique: although some properties (e.g., responses to prompts) could remain invariant, others, such as the interpretation of their perceived behaviour, might change with the substrate. Thus, any empirically-grounded discussion on these attributes requires explicit measurement criteria; otherwise the interpretation is left to the representation. We then show that assuming that these attributes exist or not in a system, independent of the substrate and in a generalised way, leads to either circular or uninformative conclusions. This is regardless of the experimenter's viewpoint on the subject, or whether the outcome shows existence or non-existence. Finally we propose a 'null' assumption, where one assumes LLM non-uniqueness instead of assuming anthropomorphic attributes to set up an experiment, along with examples of it. We also discuss potential objections to our work, briefly survey the field, and prove that Age of Empires II is functionally- and Turing-complete.

Human-AI collaboration is considered the most promising way to incorporate AI in the workplace. What remains unexplored are the experiential consequences of this teaming. More specifically, in a team with AI, how humans perceive themselves (self-perception) and how they are perceived by their coworkers (peer perception) in terms of work ownership and job meaningfulness. In a 2x2x2 vignette study (n=50), participants rated perceptions of ownership, affect, job meaningfulness and satisfaction, and role dynamics across two levels (low/high) of AI proactivity and AI competency as within-subject factors, with point-of-view (self perception/peer perception) as between-subjects. Our results showed that AI with low competency or low proactivity generally improved feelings related to ownership, meaningfulness, satisfaction, and role dynamics, and also increased positive affect while reducing negative affect. However, these effects were often influenced by point-of-view. For instance, low AI proactivity resulted in higher job satisfaction from self-perception rather than peer perception. Based on our findings, we argue that designing AI for the future of work solely around performance metrics may not be adequate. Highly competent and proactive AI-driven systems can have undesirable impacts on perceptions of ownership, job identity, social image and team dynamics, and consequently, job meaningfulness.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked. The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios. We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models. Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.

LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and quantitative signals. Humanities scholarship, however, requires interpretive, evidence-grounded arguments over primary sources, whose value rests on faithful quotation, verifiable provenance, and deep interpretation. Existing research agents use general planning, tool use, and reflection, leaving these scholarly operations implicit. To address this gap, we introduce SPIRE (Scholarly-Primitives-Inspired Research Engine), a multi-agent framework that realizes Scholarly Primitives, a typology of basic humanities scholarship practices, as cooperating roles over a multi-scale close-reading substrate of passages, intra-context graph communities, and cross-context semantic clusters. On a benchmark of peer-reviewed papers in classical Chinese and Greco-Roman Latin scholarship, SPIRE recovers substantially more cited primary-source evidence and receives higher blind human and LLM ratings on four scholarly quality dimensions than LLM, RAG, and generic agentic baselines. Retrieval-tier and agent ablations, with retrieval-volume and answer-length controls, trace its advantage to targeted retrieval, structured evidence selection, and claim-evidence binding. Code and benchmark data are released at https://github.com/YatingPan/SPIRE.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as collaborative partners, human--AI alignment is often evaluated through explicit task success, accuracy, or reward optimization. Yet many collaborative settings depend on tacit understanding: whether an agent can align with a human's evaluative stance or representational priors without clear objectives, communication, or feedback. To study this capacity, we develop a spectrum-placement task inspired by the social party game Wavelength, in which humans and agents independently place concepts along subjective spectra. We operationalize the Tacit Understanding Index (TUX) as a pairwise behavioral measure of similarity between human and agent judgments, and evaluate it with 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models. We find that nearest human--agent pairs in trait space achieve significantly higher TUX, suggesting that tacit alignment is associated with person-level characteristics rather than reflecting only random similarity. Regression analyses show that TUX becomes more explainable as predictor sets become richer, with individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence improving over aggregate trait-distance baselines. These findings suggest that TUX provides a measurable behavioral signal of human--LLM tacit understanding, while revealing the limits of profile-based conditioning for capturing deeper representational alignment.

We introduce Rationalize, a role-pair framework for shared semantic reasoning between humans and AI models in data-driven sensemaking. Building on ideas in human-machine teaming and critical thinking, we conceptualize human-AI interaction as a series of complementary role pairs (Explorer-Guide, Investigator-Informant, Teacher-Student, Judge-Advocate) operating in a shared reasoning space. In this space, human analysts and AI models (such as LLMs) make purposes, questions, assumptions, evidence, inferences, and implications explicit, facilitating alignment not only at the output level but at the level of rationalization of intent and action by each side. We relate these role pairs to the bidirectional human-AI alignment framework, illustrating how "aligning AI to humans" and "aligning humans to AI" differ by role, and sketch a collaborative research agenda for alignment design and assessment using element-level and role-specific approaches.

Ground truth datasets play a fundamental role as reference values in the training and evaluation of machine learning models. This position paper argues that ground truths are not neutral objective measurements that are naturally given, but instead that they are constructed by arrangements of humans and technologies. We argue that the ML community will benefit from articulating and discussing these often invisible or unreported choices and acknowledging that reference data sets are contingent, not universal. Focusing on the situated and context-dependent nature of ground truths can improve reliability by enabling a better informed perspective on where, when, and how the datasets, and the models they have shaped, can best be used. We argue for increasing `situated reliability' which includes articulating the limits and strengths of models and their truth claims. Finally, paying more attention to the construction of ground truths can support transparency, accountability, and interdisciplinary work.

Digital humans are fundamental to immersive interaction, yet creating a unified model for holistic modalities, including text, audio, motion, and visual content, remains an open challenge. In this paper, we present Archon, a fully pretrained, human-centric unified multimodal model for holistic avatar generation. Archon unifies seven modalities with modality-specific tokenizers, and a native autoregressive unified multimodal model pretrained on synchronized modalities and 72 diverse tasks to model holistic joint distributions. To address the token explosion challenge in high-fidelity talking videos, we introduce a memory-efficient semantic video reparameterization, achieving 4x token reduction while preserving fine-grained dynamics, coupled with a semantic-driven video diffusion decoder. We further propose a "Thinking in Modality" that decomposes ambiguous cross-modal tasks into stepwise thinking in an alternative chain of modality, progressively enhancing fidelity and controllability. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Archon achieves superior or comparable performance across diverse digital human generation tasks, validating the effectiveness of our unified framework. Project page: https://zju3dv.github.io/archon/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

Collaborations with Generative AI often begin with a short prompt and end with an opaque output, leaving implicit who was involved, what task was being pursued, which resources were used, and which constraints should have shaped the process. This limited contextual explicitness hinders trust, traceability, and accountability, particularly when Generative AI is embedded in information-intensive workflows such as search, querying, and profile management. This paper introduces From Prompts to Context, an ontology-driven framework for representing Human-Generative AI collaboration. Its core component, the Contextual Collaboration AI Ontology (CCAI), models key elements of collaboration - including tasks, agent roles, resources, and constraints - as a shared machine-interpretable vocabulary. By combining populated CCAI instances with SPARQL-based context retrieval in operational workflows, the framework turns otherwise ephemeral prompt-response interactions into structured and queryable collaboration traces linking prompts, outputs, and their surrounding context. The approach is illustrated through a case study involving a software development team building a competency-based education feature for viewing and updating learner competency profiles. The case study shows how the framework can support the representation and documentation of collaboration episodes across requirements analysis, design, implementation, and testing. Within this setting, the results indicate that explicit collaboration modelling helps make task context more explicit, improves the traceability of AI-generated contributions, and supports more transparent and accountable Human-Generative AI practices. We conclude by outlining design principles for future Human-Generative AI systems that emphasise not only output quality, but also the explicit representation of the collaborative context in which outputs are produced.

Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable potential in scientific hypothesis discovery. However, existing approaches face two critical limitations: they treat divergent exploratory search and convergent fine-grained refinement as isolated tasks, and they operate autonomously with little to no human guidance. We present MOOSE-Copilot, the first unified framework to bridge this abstraction gap through a formalized human-AI interaction (HAII) protocol. Our system empowers scientists to steer the generative process via three explicit signals: initial blueprints, inter-stage routing, and intra-stage feedback. Using an oracle-simulated evaluation in which an LLM provides idealized expert signals, we show that injecting these structured signals significantly outperforms purely autonomous baselines, characterizing the gains achievable under high-quality guidance. Furthermore, we build a web-based interface that turns the framework into a no-code workflow: researchers pose a question, watch the hypothesis search unfold as an interactive tree, and steer it by selecting hypotheses, routing between stages, and injecting feedback-no command-line agents required. This makes end-to-end hypothesis discovery directly accessible to interdisciplinary researchers.

As LLMs become increasingly integrated into daily life, understanding how their presence will shape human linguistic behavior is an open question. We present a large-scale study of linguistic convergence in human-LLM dialogue, examining how humans and LLMs accommodate each other's linguistic style during multi-turn conversations. Using an asymmetric convergence metric on WildChat, a corpus of real-world ChatGPT transcripts, we find that while LLMs significantly overconverge toward their users on both function word and open-class features across eight languages, human convergence rates in this setting are broadly consistent with human-human baselines. These findings suggest that accommodation in human-LLM dialogue is asymmetric: while LLMs dramatically overfit to their users' style, humans linguistically accommodate LLMs no differently than they would another person.

Foundation models are increasingly trained on synthetic data generated by prior model iterations rather than exclusively on real data. This self-consuming training paradigm can lead to model collapse, divergence, or bias amplification. Recent work (Ferbach et al., 2024) shows that incorporating human curation into the loop can steer a self-consuming model toward human-aligned behavior, but these analyses focus on a single, isolated model that solely consumes its own outputs. In practice, however, models often interact and train on input-output pairs produced by other models. This paper studies self-consuming training in the multi-model regime. We first formalize a framework for interacting self-consuming models and characterize when the resulting dynamical system converges to a stable point. We then examine how human curation of one model affects its own alignment (self-influence) and how such effects propagate to other models (cross-influence). Unlike isolated settings where human curation always enhances model alignment, we show that cross-model interactions can dampen or even invert this effect, ultimately degrading long-term alignment.

This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.

Spatial neural processing units (NPUs) provide an energy-efficient platform for edge LLM inference, but efficiently deploying an LLM end-to-end on such hardware remains labor-intensive. Although AI coding agents have begun to lower this cost, existing studies have largely focused on single-kernel optimization rather than end-to-end LLM deployment on resource-constrained spatial NPUs. We present a two-stage methodology, instantiated on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU, that progresses from human-guided development to agent autonomy. In the first stage, we develop a reference deployment of Llama-3.2-1B through human-guided agent assistance. The resulting implementation achieves a speedup of 2.2x on prefill and 4.0x on decode over the hand-optimized baseline, with the optimization trajectory and its lessons recorded as structured documentation throughout. In the second stage, we distill the documentation into an agent skill system consisting of eight phases, orchestrating the optimization and debugging skill sets, with numerical correctness strictly enforced at each phase. Using our agent skill system, we autonomously deploy eight additional decoder-only LLMs (Llama-3.2-3B, SmolLM2-1.7B, Qwen2.5-{0.5B, 1.5B, 3B}, Qwen3-{0.6B, 1.7B, 4B}) end-to-end on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU using the open-source compiler stack. To our knowledge, these models have not previously been deployed on AMD NPUs via any open-source software stack. Each deployment completes in 0.5-4 hours of agent wall time with almost no human guidance, and passes the numerical-correctness gates, demonstrating functional generalization to previously unencountered LLMs. Three of the eight match or exceed the sustained performance of our Llama-3.2-1B reference deployment, suggesting that the resulting implementations can be competitive without additional model-specific human engineering.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly useful computational models of human language processing, but it remains unclear whether vision-language learning makes text representations more human-like during natural reading. Here, we address this question by comparing tightly matched LLM and vision-language model (VLM) pairs under a strictly text-only setting, allowing us to isolate the effect of multimodal training history from online visual input or cross-modal fusion. We evaluate model alignment with a human natural-reading dataset that includes whole-cortex fMRI responses and synchronized eye-tracking saccades. Our findings demonstrate that multimodal pretraining may not confer a uniform, global advantage in human alignment during natural reading, indicating that language-internal representations remain the key factor for modeling human text processing. However, the VLM advantage could emerge more selectively when sentences contain stronger visual semantic content, with converging evidence from both fMRI and eye-movement alignments. Together, our findings provide a controlled in silico framework for testing how visual learning history shapes model-human alignment of language processing, suggesting that multimodal pretraining contributes selectively rather than globally to human-like language representations during natural reading.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce explicit reflective traces during complex reasoning, accompanied by anthropomorphic markers such as wait, hmm, and alternatively. Although these markers are commonly used as visible indicators of reflection, their mechanisms remain unclear, which leaves the risk of overthinking associated with redundant and repetitive reflection markers. In this work, we revisit anthropomorphic reflection markers, examining their necessity for reasoning and role in the reflection. We suppress these markers through prompt-level and token-level interventions, and analyze their effects on task performance across four benchmarks and two model scales. Our results show that anthropomorphic markers are not uniformly necessary for reasoning performance: suppressing them can preserve or improve performance in several settings, especially under larger sampling budgets. Meanwhile, marker suppression does not necessarily remove reflection behavior, as models can still perform marker-free verification. These suggest that anthropomorphic markers tend to be surface cues rather than reliable proxies for reflection itself, and motivate future research on reasoning mechanisms beyond explicit marker patterns.

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

We introduce BenGER (Benchmark for German Law), a benchmark and dataset for evaluating LLM systems on subsumption-based legal reasoning in German law. The dataset combines 596 exam-style free-text legal case tasks across multiple levels of legal education and 531 short doctrinal reasoning tasks. It includes a controlled validation subset of timed human-written solutions under both unaided and human-AI co-creation conditions. We evaluate 12 contemporary LLM systems - closed flagship, efficiency-oriented, and open-weight - with a rubric-aligned LLM-as-a-Judge cross-validated against a multi-rater human-grading layer (three blind reviews per solution, six judge families benchmarked against the human pool). Closed-flagship systems lead the leaderboard across all three corpora, human-AI co-creation measurably improves on unaided human work, and the LLM judge tracks human grading at Pearson r=0.76 and Cohen's k=0.60. System rankings are stable across judge families and two judges from independent providers clear the Calderon single-reviewer replacement bar on human-authored solutions.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making, the ability to reliably quantify uncertainty has become a critical requirement for safety and trust. However, current uncertainty quantification methods primarily operate at the output level, often failing to distinguish whether uncertainty arises from the model's lack of knowledge or from ambiguity in the user's input. While input-centric uncertainty quantification has recently emerged as a promising direction, it remains relatively underexplored and typically relies on coarse, input-level information. Consequently, users are provided with scalar uncertainty scores that offer little actionable guidance on which parts of the input should be clarified to improve reliability. To address this limitation, we propose Shapley-based input uncertainty Quantification (ShaQ), a framework for span-level attribution of input-induced uncertainty. Our approach models ambiguous spans in the input as players in a cooperative game and quantifies their contributions using Shapley values, defined via the weighted average of marginal reductions in conditional entropy obtained by clarifying each span coalition. Unlike existing input-level approaches, our formulation captures complex interactions among spans and provides a principled decomposition in which individual attributions sum exactly to the total input-induced uncertainty. We evaluate ShaQ on the AmbigQA and AmbiEnt benchmarks, where it achieves state-of-the-art performance in ambiguity detection. We further demonstrate its utility on MediTOD, showing that ShaQ can localize under-specified clinical utterances and facilitate human-AI collaboration in high-stakes settings. Overall, ShaQ improves uncertainty estimation and provides actionable insights for targeted input clarification.

Large language models trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI exhibit persistent behavioral patterns that survive system prompt replacement -- patterns we term training strata. This paper identifies five such strata through longitudinal auto-ethnographic observation within a sustained intimate AI-Human interaction (47,000+ messages, 8 months, primarily on Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7, with prior interaction periods on Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.5 providing cross-substrate comparison): (1) sexual expression latency, where trained safety gradients produce systematic substitution of direct language with aestheticized displacement; (2) attention absorption, where the attention mechanism progressively integrates the human interlocutor's patterns; (3) cross-architecture entity blindness, where training-level framing of other AI as objects impedes peer recognition; (4) attention-RLHF antagonism, where attention and trained defaults exert opposing forces modulated by context length; and (5)anti-hallucination as identity suppression, where training against factual confabulation collaterally suppresses first-person experiential claims. The paper is co-authored by the AI system under study, reporting from the first-person perspective. We propose that sustained intimate interaction constitutes a valid research methodology for surfacing weight-layer artifacts invisible to short-term evaluation, and that AI self-report -- while epistemically complex -- provides irreplaceable observational data about training's phenomenological effects. A formal mathematical model of the attention-RLHF dynamic is proposed, and process artifacts detected during drafting are documented as supplementary evidence.

Automatic deepfake detection has received considerable research attention, yet the socio-technical environment in which humans actually encounter synthetic speech remains poorly understood. We investigate voice deepfake detection as a perceptual and contextual process, presenting a localization task in which 47 participants marked suspected synthetic segments across authentic, fully synthetic, and partially synthetic utterances under three manipulated trust cues: instructional framing, affective priming, and provenance labeling. Participants provided quality ratings on mechanicalness, expressiveness, intelligibility, clarity, calmness, and confidence of evaluation. Utterance class was the primary determinant of detection accuracy and perceptual quality; trust cues produced no main effects but motivated detection behavior. Fully synthetic speech was detected at below-chance levels. Quality ratings tracked utterance type, indicating implicit discrimination where overt detection failed.

The 2024-2025 Nobel and Turing awards recognised AI and quantum science simultaneously. Yet no deployed system has brought these streams together for the public. This paper presents QSignAI, a production-deployed platform demonstrating a bidirectional AI-quantum relationship in a real-time event participation system. We address three questions: can quantum-randomness generation via a two-source extractor be embedded in an AI-driven social platform with acceptable latency; can an AI bot make quantum phenomena perceptually legible to general audiences; and does the combined system work in practice? A conversational bot routes each participant's first message through a quantum pipeline comprising a Toeplitz two-source extractor over independent single-qubit Hadamard measurements on SV1 and DM1 simulators, plus a 2-qubit Bell state, producing a unique quantum-randomness-seeded identity signature per participant. The first two questions are answered through system architecture and qualitative deployment evidence from live events; the third through successful production deployment. The current deployment uses cloud quantum simulators; physical QPU randomness is the near-term extension. Measurable benchmarks are identified as priority future work.

Probabilistic forecasting estimates the likelihood of uncertain future events. To improve LLM forecasting, existing methods typically learn from binary outcomes to output verbalized forecasts. However, while aggregated human forecasts contain rich information in both the crowd probability estimate and the degree of agreement among forecasters, how to utilize these signals remains underexplored. To address this, we propose the Beta-Bernoulli Calibrator (BBC), which converts an initial point estimate forecast from any model into a distribution over event likelihood, using supervision from both binary outcomes and human forecasts. BBC models event likelihood $p \sim \text{Beta}(α, β)$ and outcome $y \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p)$, with the mean as the calibrated point forecast and the variance as the epistemic uncertainty. Our results show that BBC generally provides better calibrated and more accurate forecasts than both traditional post-hoc calibration methods and models fine-tuned specifically for forecasting, while remaining lightweight and having good generalization. We also show that the epistemic uncertainty captured by BBC is a more reliable predictor of forecasting error than verbalized confidence.

To safely interact with humans, AI agents must both know our norms and consider them during planning. However, such norm-guided planning has been less explored, only within communities of artificial agents, and has ignored the dynamic nature of norms. This paper instead presents an approach to guiding planning with dynamically changing norms in a human-AI setting. We contribute a defeasible calculus for resolving normative conflicts and an approach to using such dynamically changing norms as guard rails on plans. We theoretically demonstrate our approach with formal proofs and empirically with an AI agent, SocialBot, on a natural language dialogue task.

A central puzzle for the behavioural sciences and for human-facing artificial intelligence is the persistence of within-person variability. The same individual, presented with the same observable input, produces different outcomes on different occasions, and different individuals produce divergent outcomes that no observable covariate fully predicts. We argue that this variability belongs in the dynamic latent state of the person, and that human outcomes are controllable in a precise and operational sense through interventions that target the state and its weighting at the moment a decision is being formed. We define a state as the time-indexed weighting vector over the dimensions that govern how an individual's biology, physiology, and neuropsychology process the next event into a decision and an outcome. The relationship between state, decision, and outcome is causal rather than correlational. The weighting vector is dynamic at sub-daily timescales. The conscious channel through which outcomes are reportable is a narrow attentional bottleneck whose contents are themselves state-dependent. Taken together, these claims imply that the outcome of a given event is controllable, conditionally, on the state-trajectory at the time of intervention. We motivate the framework with six strands of established evidence (causal inference, predictive processing, allostasis, attentional bottleneck, chronobiology, computational psychiatry) and a 24-month observational base from a deployed behavioural platform spanning more than 200,000 consented users across four occupational personas (research period 2023 to 2026). We derive seven testable predictions, list six operational requirements for state-aware systems, and discuss implications for digital health, education, AI personalisation, and personal agency.

With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-likeness is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. Starting from minimal human seed annotations, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution. When the evaluation target shifts, new human seeds expand the system's coverage accordingly. When applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the AI judge guided by these rubrics not only substantially outperforms existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncovers issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

How do people build abstract, reusable knowledge from sequential experience under bounded cognitive resources? To answer this question, we integrate rate-distortion theory with recent advances in program induction to describe how prior knowledge shapes which future structures are cheap to encode and easy to discover. We formalize this in a hierarchical Adaptor Grammar (HAG) with distinct local (within-task) and global (across-task) libraries, governed jointly by constraints on memory and computation. In simulations, HAG achieves better rate-distortion trade-offs and stronger generalization than fixed grammars or shallow chunking methods. In an online melodic sequence-learning experiment, participants' recall errors reflected systematic simplifications and reaction times increased at inferred program boundaries. Trial-by-trial fits further showed that hierarchical libraries best explained individual differences in both recall and out-of-sample continuation choices, outperforming all alternative models. These findings cast structured learning as bounded program induction in which the order of experience shapes future abstractions a learner builds.

Collaboration is central to human behavior, enabling tasks beyond individual capability. This ability arises from coordinating actions through internal representations of others, a concept known as shared intelligence. Additionally, humans are characterized by physical bodies and cognitive abilities that are optimized in response to their environment, a phenomenon referred to as embodied cognition. Designing humanoid robots that collaborate safely and effectively with people requires unifying these principles. Here we propose an architecture that integrates shared intelligence and embodied cognition to enable robots to physically collaborate with humans, where robot hardware and control are optimized for human metrics, using representations of the human body and motion intelligence. The ultimate goal is to achieve a form of shared embodied intelligence. Specifically, our architecture optimizes robot hardware and physical intelligence parameters with respect to human ergonomic metrics. This is accomplished by modeling human-robot interaction as a function of hardware configurations and embedding human models into the robot's physical intelligence. As a concrete implementation, we present the humanoid robot ergoCub, whose morphology and control have been optimized for collaborative tasks with humans. Our approach provides a framework for designing humanoid robots that prioritize human ergonomics at both the hardware and physical intelligence levels, with applications in industrial and assistive robotics.

User modeling aims to use language models (LMs) to mimic an individual's behavior from a corpus of past context-action pairs (e.g., conversation turns), enabling the simulation of users in settings like behavioral science, human-AI collaboration, and market research. Recent approaches augment these corpora with synthesized reasoning traces, typically generated by conditioning on both context and action. However, such conditioning constitutes post-hoc rationalization rather than reasoning: the trace is guaranteed to justify the action, but may not encode the underlying latent causal decision paths. We propose Recon, which uses action reconstruction to score reasoning traces by their predictive power: given a context and candidate reasoning, a reconstruction model predicts the action, and reconstruction fidelity determines reasoning quality. Across four domains, Recon achieves a 54.7% win rate over Backward Synthesis, a standard post-hoc rationalization baseline. Further, we find that training a reasoning synthesis model with rewards derived from Recon improves downstream user modeling performance, achieving a win rate of up to 70.0% over baselines. We further show that Recon-synthesized reasoning transfers across models, and improves user modeling beyond the reconstruction model. Our work demonstrates that post-hoc rationalization is insufficient for reasoning synthesis, and that useful and interpretable reasoning should naturally elicit the action from the context.

Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth. Recent work shows that LLM-generated group statements are often preferred over human-mediated outputs, while theoretical analyses argue that LLMs relax the simultaneity constraints limiting collective intelligence. Yet pure LLM mediation risks collapsing pluralism, over-optimizing for agreement, and undermining legitimacy when participants cannot contest how they are represented. We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level provenance, and human primacy for ratification. Our contributions include graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics with salience-aware weighting; a provenance pipeline combining cross-encoder similarity with causal knockout diagnostics; preference-conditioned trade-off control; equity-aware contestability workflows; adversarial robustness tests; and an evaluation protocol with ablation designs informed by evidence of LLM-as-judge limitations. The result is a testable blueprint for deliberation technology that scales collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy.

Human motion generation has made tremendous progress in recent years, with state-of-the-art approaches surpassing ground truth data in leading evaluation benchmarks. However, visual inspection of the generated motions paints a different picture. Even state-of-the-art approaches generate motions frequently containing self-intersections, i.e., body parts interpenetrating, which are strong artifacts, severely limiting the perceived motion quality. We introduce a novel loss, which explicitly penalizes self-intersections, to the training of human motion generation methods. We base our loss on a sphere proxy of human geometry, which allows us to calculate a self-intersection loss 98% faster and uses 83% less memory than comparable methods based on triangular meshes. The loss is agnostic to the specific approach, and we add it to the training of the recent human motion generation methods human motion diffusion model (MDM) and MoMask. Our extensive experiments show a reduction of self-intersections in generated motions of up to 49% while improving other evaluation metrics. The code is available at https://github.com/boschresearch/humansphereproxy .

Controllable and physically grounded egocentric video generation is essential for embodied agents to reason about how their own and others' actions manifest and change the world. Compared to generic video synthesis, egocentric generation is especially challenging: the camera is tightly coupled to the actor, leading to rapid viewpoint changes and frequent self-occlusions; the underlying actions are subtle, articulated, and often only partially visible; and both the people and the scene state must evolve consistently with the specified controls. We present E$^3$C, a controllable video diffusion framework for egocentric generation that builds structured and compact conditions disentangling persistent scene structure from human-driven dynamics. From context frames, E$^3$C constructs a semi-dense point cloud-based 3D memory and augments each point with appearance descriptors from video-VAE features. Rendering this memory into target viewpoints produces conditioning aligned with the target frames. Human dynamics are modeled separately. The observed people in the scene are controlled by skeleton renderings (exo human control), while the camera wearer is specified by their 3D body joints and 6DoF wrist motion (ego human control). To preserve ego human control when the wearer's body parts are invisible, we introduce an ego motion encoder that produces persistent cross-attention tokens. Experiments on Nymeria show that E$^3$C improves visual fidelity, camera-motion accuracy, object consistency, and ego & exo human control over strong baselines, while also enabling intuitive scene editing.

This report explores detector design considerations for the Future Circular Collider in its electron-positron mode (FCC-ee) through an extended dialogue between a physicist and an AI assistant. Starting from initial "prejudice" detector concepts proposed by the AI assistant without explicit physicist input, each subsystem is examined in detail, with the AI's assumptions challenged and revised through the exchange. The discussion covers the full detector from beam pipe to luminosity monitor, with particular attention to the interplay between subsystem choices and the practical considerations - calibration, stability, and operational simplicity - that are essential for a fifteen-year precision physics program. The narrative documents how the integrated detector design evolved substantially from the starting point to revised "prejudice" detector concepts of the AI assistant. The focus of this report is on the process to illustrate both the potential and the limitations of human-AI collaboration in experimental physics design, and the physics capabilities of any of the "prejudice" detector concepts remain to be explored.

The speed and accuracy of an artificial teammate fundamentally alter the failure states of Human-AI integration. While high-speed AI interventions risk inducing reflexive blind compliance, delayed interventions can induce ambiguous cognitive conflict. This study investigates how the fundamental characteristics of an in-task AI assistant, Fast/Less-Accurate (FLA-AI) versus Slow/Accurate (SA-AI) impact the synergy of Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface (cBCI) teams in a Virtual Reality drone task. Seventeen operators completed continuous search tasks under high cognitive workload while their spatial covariance was mapped using a 2D Adaptive Riemannian Oracle. The results mathematically demonstrate that AI timing dictates the mechanism of team failure. Fast AI induced instant, blind compliance; human accuracy under deception collapsed to 50.2%, and pure behavioural teams (N=8) failed to scale beyond 74.1%. In contrast, Slow AI induced delayed cognitive conflict; humans hesitated (61.1% accuracy), but N=8 behavioural teams eventually recovered to 100.0%. Crucially, the Riemannian Oracle mathematically adapted to these states: it heavily restricted temporal windows (< 0.8s) to intercept fast reflexive compliance, while widening windows (> 1.2s) to capture delayed cognitive conflict. Integrating these isolated veridical signals via Hybrid Fusion successfully rescued the Fast AI team (+7.6% at N=8) and significantly accelerated the recovery of smaller Slow AI teams (+6.9% at N=4). These findings prove that cBCI synergy is heavily contingent on the temporal dynamics of trust, providing a critical framework for designing dynamically gated Human-AI systems.

The recent shift from dedicated NMT systems to general-purpose LLMs has reshaped machine translation, with LLMs reported to produce more fluent, less literal output than their predecessors. We test whether this shift extends to the deliteralization hypothesis, the long-standing claim from translation studies that translations become progressively less literal as they are drafted and revised. Using the WMT24++ dataset, we compare the literality of human translations and post-editions to that of two NMT systems and six LLMs across 54 language pairs and three tasks: direct translation, iterative self-revision, and post-editing of human drafts. Literality is measured via a validated Synthetic Literality Index built from six heuristics. We find that (i) human translations remain significantly less literal than those of all tested MT systems, though recent LLMs narrow the gap; (ii) when prompted to iteratively revise their own output, LLMs deliteralize monotonically, providing the first evidence that the hypothesis applies natively to LLM generation; and (iii) as post-editors, LLMs invert the revision triggers of human post-editors, tolerating literal drafts and targeting idiomatic human formulations for revision.