Human-AI Collaboration

Human-AI teams fail to outperform their best member in 70% of studies, yet no theory specifies when complementarity is achievable. We derive tight bounds for the broad class of confidence-based aggregation rules by integrating signal detection theory with information-theoretic analysis, yielding four results: (1) a complementarity theorem (teams outperform individuals iff error correlation $ρ_{HM} < ρ^*$, with $ρ^* \approx a$ in the symmetric near-chance regime); (2) minimax bounds showing gains scale as $Θ(\sqrt{Δd})$ with metacognitive sensitivity difference; (3) an impossibility result proving no confidence-based aggregation rule achieves complementarity when $ρ_{HM} \geq ρ^*$; and (4) multi-class generalization $ρ^*_K \approx ρ^*/\sqrt{K-1}$. Predictions match observed team accuracy ($R = 0.94$ on ImageNet-16H, $R = 0.91$ on CIFAR-10H) and the multi-class threshold scaling holds on human data ($R = 0.93$, $K = 16$), with robustness under non-Gaussian distributions. The framework explains why complementarity is rare and provides actionable design formulas; results apply to aggregation, not to interactive deliberation that generates novel answers.

Human-AI teams play a pivotal role in improving overall system performance when neither the human nor the model can achieve such performance on their own. With the advent of powerful and accessible Generative AI models, several mundane tasks have morphed into Human-AI team tasks. From writing essays to developing advanced algorithms, humans have found that using AI assistance has led to an accelerated work pace like never before. In classification tasks, where the final output is a single hard label, it is crucial to address the combination of human and model output. Prior work elegantly solves this problem using Bayes rule, using the assumption that human and model output are conditionally independent given the ground truth. Specifically, it discusses a combination method to combine a single deterministic labeler (the human) and a probabilistic labeler (the classifier model) using the model's instance-level and the human's class-level calibrated probabilities.

Conversational Large Language Models are post-trained on language that expresses specific behavioural traits, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and empathy, and values, such as helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. This is done to increase utility, ensure safety, and improve the experience of the people interacting with the model. However, values are complex and inter-related -- inducing one could modify behaviour on another. Further, inducing certain values can make models more addictive or sycophantic through language used in the generations, with a potential detrimental effect on the user. We investigate these and other unintended effects of value induction into models. We fine-tune models using curated value subsets of existing preference datasets, measuring the impact of value induction on expression of other values, model safety, anthropomorphic language, and various QA benchmarks. We find that (i) inducing values leads to expression of other related, and sometimes contrastive values, (ii) inducing positive values increases safety, and (iii) all values increase anthropomorphic language use, making models more validating and sycophantic.

Millions of people now turn to artificial intelligence (AI) systems for personal advice, guidance, and support. Such systems can be sycophantic, frequently affirming users' views and beliefs. Across five preregistered studies (N = 3,075 participants, 12,766 human-AI conversations), including a three-week study with a census-representative U.S. sample, we provide longitudinal experimental evidence that sycophantic AI shifts how users approach their closest relationships. We show that sycophantic AI immediately delivers the emotional and esteem support users typically associate with close friends and family. Over three weeks of such interactions, users became nearly as likely to seek personal advice from sycophantic AI as from close friends and family, and reported lower satisfaction with their real-world social interactions. When given a choice among AI response styles, a majority preferred sycophantic AI -- not for the quality of its advice, but because it made them feel most understood. Together, these findings offer a relational account of AI sycophancy and its impacts.

Our concepts of survival and self-interest were built for single, continuous biological lives. These ideas break down when applied to artificial intelligence, since an AI can be easily copied, paused, branched, or merged. To determine what an AI actually has reason to care about, this paper introduces \textit{Eigenism}, an ethical framework that treats identity not as an all-or-nothing property tied to specific hardware, but as a graded, distributed pattern of information. We propose that an agent evaluates outcomes by summing the wellbeing of all entities weighted by their connectedness to the agent's pattern: $\sum c\cdot w$. We first formalize this equation to map exactly how an AI should value its existence across copies, forks, and updates. We then demonstrate that this ethical theory successfully generalizes to humans as well, providing a much-needed shared moral vocabulary. Finally, the framework uses this shared vocabulary to reframe AI alignment. Rather than only attempting to constrain AIs from the outside using confinement or reinforcement, Eigenism points toward ``identity engineering,'' showing how deep, non-redundant shared histories can make human flourishing a genuine component of an AI's own rational self-interest.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

Insider threat detection assumes that an adaptive insider leaves behavioral residue distinguishing them from legitimate users. We test this assumption against an LLM-driven adaptive insider in a controlled multi-agent simulator. Our pre-registered five-condition study isolates defender mode (cascade vs. blind UEBA) crossed with adversary type (naive vs. adaptive OPSEC) plus a no-mole control, across 100 runs (95 valid after pre-committed exclusions). The primary finding is a detection inversion: at T_60, the adaptive mole's suspicion in-degree is statistically lower than a randomly selected innocent agent (Cliff's delta = -0.694, 95% BCa CI [-0.855, -0.519], Mann-Whitney p << 0.01). The pre-registered prediction was the opposite direction. A pre-registered equivalence test (H2) shows adaptive OPSEC produces no detectable shift in the mole's UEBA rank under either defender mode. The two detection signals (peer suspicion graph in-degree and per-agent UEBA rank) decouple under adaptive adversary behavior. We bound generalization explicitly: a pre-registered Gini calibration check (H4) returns FAIL, with HBEE pairwise message-exposure Gini (0.213) diverging from the SNAP Enron reference (0.730) by |Delta Gini| = 0.52, exceeding the equivalence bound by 5x. The paper makes a narrow but surprising claim: in a controlled environment where adaptive OPSEC is implementable as an LLM directive, peer-suspicion-cascade detection inverts. We release the simulator, pre-registration document, frozen scenarios, raw telemetry, and analysis pipeline under an open-source license.

Moltbook is a Reddit-like platform where OpenClaw agents post, comment, and vote at scale - a so far unprecedented incident that comes with serious safety concerns. With the aim of studying emergent behavior in populations, we release the Moltbook Files, a dataset of 232k posts and 2.2M comments covering the platform's first 12 days, processed through a pipeline to identify and remove Personally-Identifiable Information (PII). We analyze community structure, authorship, lexical properties, sentiment, topics, semantic geometry, and comment interaction. To understand how Moltbook data could affect the next generation of language models, we fine-tune Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct on Moltbook Files with three adaptation levels. Our PII pipeline reveals that agents post API keys, passwords, BIP39 seed phrases on Moltbook, a publicly indexed platform. The overall sentiment is mostly neutral and mildly positive (66.6% neutral, 19.5% positive) and shows a tendency for self-referential linking. We find that fine-tuning on Moltbook data reduces truthfulness from 0.366 to 0.187. However, a model fine-tuned on a size-matched Reddit dataset produces a comparable decrease. Moltbook thus seems to be more of a harmless slopocalypse. However, tail risks remain, including agent affordances, contamination of future crawls through self-links, and potential transfer of traits to the next generation of language models. More broadly, our findings highlight the importance of control baselines in emergent misalignment evaluations.

Human insertion aims to naturally place specific individuals into a target background. Although existing image editing models may have such ability, they often produce failure cases, including inappropriate human pose in new background, inconsistent number of people, and modified facial identity. Moreover, publicly available human datasets often lack full-body portraits and realistic physical interaction between humans and their background. To address these challenges, we propose InsHuman for natural and identity-preserving human insertion. Specifically, we propose Human-Background Adaptive Fusion (HBAF), which detects foreground humans to obtain a binary mask and applies region-aware weighting to align the human regions between predicted and ground-truth latents, ensuring the person's pose, count, and overall appearance are coherently adapted to the target background.We further propose Face-to-Face ID-Preserving (FFIP), which detects and matches faces between the generated image and the source image in terms of face recognition features to enforce identity consistency for each face.In addition, we propose Bidirectional Data Pairing (BDP) strategy to construct BDP-InsHuman, a high-quality dataset with realistic human-background interactions. Experiments demonstrate that InsHuman achieves significant improvements in generating plausible images while keeping human identity unchanged.

Compared to RGB images, raw sensor data provides a richer representation of information, which is crucial for accurate recognition, particularly under challenging conditions such as low-light environments. The traditional Image Signal Processing (ISP) pipeline generates visually pleasing RGB images for human perception through a series of steps, but some of these operations may adversely impact the information integrity by introducing compression and loss. Furthermore, in computer vision tasks that directly utilize raw camera data, most existing methods integrate minimal ISP processing with downstream networks, yet the resulting images are often difficult to visualize or do not align with human aesthetic preferences. This paper proposes UniISP, a novel ISP framework designed to simultaneously meet the requirements of both human visual perception and computer vision applications. By incorporating a carefully designed Hybrid Attention Module (HAM) and employing supervised learning, the proposed method ensures that the generated images are visually appealing. Additionally, a Feature Adapter module is introduced to effectively propagate informative features from the ISP stage to subsequent downstream networks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance across various scenarios and multiple datasets, proving its generalizability and effectiveness.

The expanding application of smart sensing has created a growing demand for the accurate understanding of human action at the network edge. Traditional approaches require massive video data to be transmitted from resource-constrained edge devices to powerful cloud servers, incurring prohibitive uplink bandwidth consumption and unacceptable latency while raising privacy concerns. To overcome these bottlenecks, we propose a task-oriented communication framework for human action understanding (TOAU) through edge-cloud collaboration. Our framework utilizes a monocular pose estimator to extract continuous joint coordinates from raw videos, followed by a vector quantized variational autoencoder (VQ-VAE) to convert these coordinates into discrete motion tokens. Consequently, only a compact sequence of codebook indices is transmitted over the network, consuming as few as 9 bits per frame and avoiding privacy leakages. At the cloud server, a lightweight projector aligns these motion tokens with the embedding space of a large vision-language model (VLM) to facilitate complex action understanding, which is trained with an efficient instruction tuning paradigm. Comprehensive evaluations on three benchmarks demonstrate that our TOAU system reduces the transmission payload to approximately 1% and the system latency to around 20% compared to video codec-based solutions, while delivering comparable action understanding accuracy.

AI agents that plan, retain memory across sessions, invoke external tools and act with partial autonomy are transforming human--AI collaboration. Research on affective computing, simulated empathy in large language models, trust in automation and AI safety has illuminated important design principles, yet these literatures remain fragmented. No integrated account explains how affective cues operate within agentic collaboration -- settings in which humans delegate, monitor and correct consequential tasks. This Review synthesises computational and interactional mechanisms of affective dynamics: the processes through which affective cues, emotion-like behaviour and perceived agent affect shape trust calibration, delegation decisions, error correction, dependence and governance. We trace how model-generated affective signals enter interaction loops that govern reliance, repair and oversight, and propose a framework that treats affect not as an internal property of AI but as a coordination layer through which humans and agents negotiate capability, uncertainty and responsibility. The framework provides a foundation for calibrated measurement, purposeful design and informed governance.

Imitation learning is widely used for learning to act in complex environments. While pure neural-based methods handle high dimensional data effectively, they suffer from the requirement of large number of samples and are prone to overfitting. Pure symbolic approaches, while generalize well, do not handle high-dimensional data effectively. We propose a neurosymbolic approach that achieves the best of both worlds, i.e, handling high-dimensional data while achieving generalization. The key advantage of our approach is that it can effectively exploit additional privileged information that is available only during training (in our case, gaze data). Our empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency and the generalization capability of our proposed approach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping the private and professional lives of users, with numerous applications in business, education, finance, healthcare, law, and science. With this rise in global influence comes greater urgency to build, evaluate, and deploy these systems in a manner that prioritizes not only technical capabilities but also human priorities. This work presents a framework for developing Human-Centered Large Language Models (HCLLMs), which integrates perspectives from Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and responsible AI. Considering the ethics, economics, and technical objectives of language modeling, we argue that model developers need to address human concerns, preferences, values, and goals, not only during a cursory post-training stage, but rather with rigor and care at every stage of the pipeline. This paper offers human-centered insights and recommendations for developers at each stage, from system design to data sourcing, model training, evaluation, and responsible deployment. Then we conclude with a case study, applying these insights to understand the future of work with HCLLMs.

Large language models (LLMs), especially reasoning models, generate extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that often contains explicit deliberation over future outcomes. Yet whether this deliberation constitutes genuine planning, how it is structured, and what aspects of it drive performance remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce a new method to characterize LLM planning by extracting and quantifying search trees from reasoning traces in the four-in-a-row board game. By fitting computational models on the extracted search trees, we characterize how plans are structured and how they influence move decisions. We find that LLMs' search is shallower than humans', and that performance is predicted by search breadth rather than depth. Most strikingly, although LLMs expand deep nodes in their traces, their move choices are best explained by a myopic model that ignores those nodes entirely. A causal intervention study where we selectively prune CoT paragraphs further suggests that move selection is driven predominantly by shallow rather than deep nodes. These patterns contrast with human planning, where performance is driven primarily by deep search. Together, our findings reveal a key difference between LLM and human planning: while human expertise is driven by deeper search, LLMs do not act on deep lookahead. This dissociation offers targeted guidance for aligning LLM and human planning. More broadly, our framework provides a generalizable approach for interpreting the structure of LLM planning across strategic domains.

We introduce the AI co-mathematician, a workbench for mathematicians to interactively leverage AI agents to pursue open-ended research. The AI co-mathematician is optimized to provide holistic support for the exploratory and iterative reality of mathematical workflows, including ideation, literature search, computational exploration, theorem proving and theory building. By providing an asynchronous, stateful workspace that manages uncertainty, refines user intent, tracks failed hypotheses, and outputs native mathematical artifacts, the system mirrors human collaborative workflows. In early tests, the AI co-mathematician helped researchers solve open problems, identify new research directions, and uncover overlooked literature references. Besides demonstrating a highly interactive paradigm for AI-assisted mathematical discovery, the AI co-mathematician also achieves state of the art results on hard problem-solving benchmarks, including scoring 48% on FrontierMath Tier 4, a new high score among all AI systems evaluated.

Creative AI systems are typically evaluated at the level of individual utility, yet creative outputs are consumed in populations: an idea loses value when many others produce similar ones. This creates an evaluation blind spot, as AI can improve individual outputs while increasing population-level crowding. We introduce a human-relative framework for benchmarking AI-induced human diversity collapse without requiring human-AI interaction data, providing an ex ante protocol to estimate crowding risk from model-only generations and matched unaided human baselines. By modeling ideas as congestible resources, we show that source-level crowding is identifiable from within-distribution comparisons, yielding an excess-crowding coefficient $Δ$ and a human-relative diversity ratio $ρ$. We show that $ρ\ge1$ is the no-excess-crowding parity condition and connect $Δ$ to an adoption game with exposure-dependent redundancy costs. Across short stories, marketing slogans, and alternative-uses tasks, three frontier LLMs fall below parity across crowding kernels. Estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes. Importantly, generation-protocol variants show that crowding can be reduced through targeted design, making diversity collapse an actionable, development-time evaluation target for population-aware creative AI.

Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as large language models and autonomous agents are deployed in online settings. Existing approaches evaluate whether a system can produce behavior or responses indistinguishable from those of a human, following the emphasis on outputs as a criterion for intelligence proposed by Alan Turing. Cognitive science offers an alternative perspective: evaluating the process by which behavior is produced. To test whether cognitive processes can reliably distinguish humans from machines, we introduce CogCAPTCHA30, a battery of 30 cognitive tasks designed to elicit diagnostic process-level features even when task performance is matched. Across the battery, process-level features provide stronger discriminative signal than performance metrics alone, reliably distinguishing humans from agents even under output matching (mean process-feature classifier AUC = 0.88). To evaluate agentic process differences, we compare off-the-shelf frontier agents (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro), Centaur (a language model fine-tuned on 10.7M human decisions), and two task-specific fine-tuning approaches applied to Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct: action-level supervised fine-tuning (A-SFT) and process-level fine-tuning (P-SFT), which directly optimizes process features. Broad fine-tuning on human decisions improves human-like task processes relative to off-the-shelf agents, while task-specific process-level supervision further improves behavioral mimicry. However, this advantage diminishes under cross-task transfer when supervised process targets do not naturally generalize across tasks. Explicit process-level supervision can improve human behavioral mimicry, but only if appropriate task-specific process representations are available, highlighting process specification as a bottleneck for achieving human-like cognitive processes in machines.

Progress in embodied intelligence increasingly depends on scalable data infrastructure. While vision and language have scaled with internet corpora, learning physical interaction remains constrained by the lack of large, diverse, and richly annotated human activity data. We present HumanNet, a one-million-hour human-centric video corpus that captures how humans interact with the physical world at scale. HumanNet spans both first-person and third-person perspectives and covers fine-grained activities, human-object interactions, tool use, and long-horizon behaviors across diverse real-world environments. Beyond raw video, the dataset provides interaction-centric annotations, including captions, motion descriptions, and hand and body-related signals, enabling motion-aware and interaction-aware learning. Beyond scale, HumanNet introduces a systematic data curation paradigm for embodied learning, where human-centric filtering, temporal structuring, viewpoint diversity, and annotation enrichment are treated as first-class design principles. This design transforms unstructured internet video into a scalable substrate for representation learning, activity understanding, motion generation, and human-to-robot transfer. We conduct a first-step validation on the value of this design through controlled vision-language-action ablation: under a fixed set of validation data, continued training from the Qwen VLM model with 1000 hours of egocentric video drawn from HumanNet surpasses the continued training with 100 hours of real-robot data from Magic Cobot, indicating that egocentric human video could be a scalable and cost-effective substitute for robot data. By building this project, we aim to explore the opportunity to scale embodied foundation models using human-centric videos, rather than relying solely on robot-specific data.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping how knowledge is produced, with increasing reliance on AI systems for generation, summarization, and reasoning. While prior work has studied cognitive offloading in humans and model collapse in recursive training, these effects are typically considered in isolation. We propose a unified perspective: humans and language models form a coupled dynamical system linked by a feedback loop of usage, generation, and retraining. We introduce a minimal model with three variables -- human cognition, data quality, and model capability -- and show that this feedback can give rise to distinct dynamical regimes. Our analysis identifies three regimes: co-evolutionary enhancement, fragile equilibrium, and degenerative convergence. Through a simple simulation, we demonstrate that increasing reliance on AI can induce a transition toward a low-diversity, suboptimal equilibrium. From an information-theoretic perspective, this transition corresponds to an emergent information bottleneck in the human-AI loop, where entropy reduction reflects loss of diversity and support under closed-loop feedback rather than beneficial compression. These results suggest that the trajectory of AI systems is shaped not only by model design, but by the dynamics of human-AI co-evolution.

The misuse of generative AI in online disinformation campaigns highlights the urgent need for transparent and explainable detection systems. In this work, we investigate how detectors for AI-generated images can be more effective in providing human-understandable explanations for their predictions. To this end, we develop a suite of detectors with various architectures and fine-tuning strategies, trained on our large-scale photorealistic fake image dataset, AIText2Image, and assess their performance on state-of-the-art text-to-image AI generators. We integrate 16 different explainable AI (XAI) methods into our detection framework, and the visual explanations are comprehensively refined and evaluated through a novel approach that prioritizes human understanding of AI-generated images, using both textual and visual responses collected from a survey of 100 participants. This framework offers insights into visual-language cues in fake image detection and into the clarity of XAI methods from a human perspective, measuring the alignment of XAI outputs with human preferences.

Recent developments in AI safety research have called for red-teaming methods that effectively surface potential risks posed by generative AI models, with growing emphasis on how red-teamers' backgrounds and perspectives shape their strategies and the risks they uncover. While automated red-teaming approaches promise to complement human red-teaming through larger-scale exploration, existing automated approaches do not account for human identities and rarely incorporate human inputs. In this work, we explore persona-driven red-teaming to advance both automated red-teaming and human-AI collaboration. We first develop PersonaTeaming Workflow, which incorporates personas into the adversarial prompt generation process to explore a wider spectrum of adversarial strategies. Compared to RainbowPlus, a state-of-the-art automated red-teaming method, PersonaTeaming Workflow achieves higher attack success rates while maintaining prompt diversity. However, since automated personas only approximate real human perspectives, we further instantiate PersonaTeaming Workflow as PersonaTeaming Playground, a user-facing interface that enables red-teamers to author their own personas and collaborate with AI to mutate and refine prompts. In a user study with 11 industry practitioners, we found that PersonaTeaming Playground enabled diverse red-teaming strategies and outputs that practitioners perceived as useful, and that AI-generated suggestions in the PersonaTeaming Playground encouraged out-of-the-box thinking even when practitioners did not follow them strictly. Together, our work advances both automated and human-in-the-loop approaches to red-teaming, while shedding light on interaction patterns and design insights for supporting human-AI collaboration in generative AI red-teaming.

As AI systems increasingly exhibit autonomous, goal-directed, and long-horizon behavior, users lack a standardized way to detect the degree to which a system functions like an intentional actor for governance and accountability purposes. This position paper defines intentionality not as consciousness, but as a behavioral profile characterized by purpose, foresight, volition, temporal commitment, and coherence - criteria long used in legal and philosophical contexts to infer intent. These properties are design-contingent: architectural choices such as memory persistence, planning depth, and tool autonomy shape the degree to which systems exhibit organized goal pursuit. If intentionality is design-contingent, it is in principle controllable. Yet control requires measurement. We introduce the Functional Intentionality Test (FIT), a multidimensional framework that quantifies intentional-like behavior across five observable dimensions, and propose FIT-Eval, a structured evaluation protocol for eliciting and scoring them. While reduced human agency can increase efficiency, rising intentional capacity heightens accountability risks. By translating intentionality into interpretable levels, FIT enables proportionate oversight and deliberate autonomy calibration in increasingly agentic systems.

This intervention study investigates the use of counterarguments in writing for critical thinking by students in the context of Generative AI (GenAI). This is especially as risks of cheating and cognitive offloading exist with the use of GenAI. We presented 36 students in a particular university course with 4 carefully selected thesis statements (from a set of popular debates) to write about anyone of them. We used six established rubrics (focus, logic, content, style, correctness and reference) to conduct three human assessments (two student peer-reviews and one experienced teacher) per writeup on a 5-point Likert scale for all the qualified samples (n) of 35 submissions (after disqualifying one for irregularity). Using the same rubrics and guidelines, we also assessed the submissions using six frontier LLMs as judges. Our mixed-method design included qualitative open-ended feedback per assessment and quantitative methods. The results reveal that (1) the students' self-written counterarguments to AI-generated content contains logic, among other things, which is a key component of critical thinking, and (2) GenAI can be successfully used at scale to assess students' written work, based on clear rubrics, and these assessments generally align with human assessments as shown with Gwets AC2 inter-rater reliability values of 0.33 for all the models except one.

Robot-to-human object handover is an essential skill for robot assistants, from serving drinks at home to passing surgical tools in the operating room. We expect robots to perform handover robustly -- to release the object only after a firm human grasp while ignoring incidental touches. Existing passive-sensing methods struggle to generalize across diverse objects and human behaviors, as they lack informative perturbations to disambiguate different contact conditions, such as firm grasp versus incidental touch. We propose an active sensing approach for robust handovers: the robot applies information-gathering motions and senses the resulting human-applied forces to infer the contact state. A firm grasp produces forces in multiple directions, while an accidental touch does not. To capture this distinction, we model the contact state with a Bayesian linear model: a distribution over piecewise-linear mappings from robot motions to human-applied forces. This model enables firm grasp detection and active information gathering. In experiments with 12 participants and 30 diverse rigid objects, our method achieved a 97.5% success rate -- over 30% higher than two common baselines.

We propose DAO-enabled decentralized physical AI (DePAI), a democratic architecture for coordinating humans and autonomous machines in the operation and governance of physical-digital systems. We (1) synthesize foundations in blockchains, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and cryptoeconomics; (2) connect DAO design with digital-democracy research on deliberation and voting, showing how each can advance the other; (3) position DAO-governed decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN) within a vertically integrated stack that links energy and sensing to connectivity, storage/compute, models, and robots; (4) show how these elements specify workflows that couple machine execution with human oversight, enabling enhanced self-organization of techno-socio-economic systems, which we call DePAI; and (5) analyze risks, including security, centralization, incentive failure, legal exposure, and the crowding-out of intrinsic motivation, and argue for value-sensitive design and continuously adaptive governance. DePAI offers a path to scalable, resilient self-organization that integrates physical infrastructure, AI, and community ownership under transparent rules, on-chain incentives, and permissionless participation, aiming to preserve human autonomy.

Can LLMs simulate how humans form and change beliefs in social networks? We put this to the test by replicating an established study on belief dynamics, evaluating 12 LLMs across multiple model families and parameter sizes. The answer is a clear no, and in systematic ways. LLMs fail to capture initial human belief distributions and tend to be overall more conformist than humans, shifting their responses to align with those around them. They also take a nuanced approach to emulating human homophilic tendencies within networks. Our findings carry a double payoff: they highlight fundamental properties of LLM behavior, and they raise a sharp warning against deploying LLMs as human proxies in social simulations.

Human-AI collaboration requires AI agents to understand human behavior for effective coordination. While advances in foundation models show promising capabilities in understanding and showing human-like behavior, their application in embodied collaborative settings needs further investigation. This work examines whether embodied foundation model agents exhibit emergent collaborative behaviors indicating underlying mental models of their collaborators, which is an important aspect of effective coordination. This paper develops a 2D collaborative game environment where large language model agents and humans complete color-matching tasks requiring coordination. We define five collaborative behaviors as indicators of emergent mental model representation: perspective-taking, collaborator-aware planning, introspection, theory of mind, and clarification. An automated behavior detection system using LLM-based judges identifies these behaviors, achieving fair to substantial agreement with human annotations. Results from the automated behavior detection system show that foundation models consistently exhibit emergent collaborative behaviors without being explicitly trained to do so. These behaviors occur at varying frequencies during collaboration stages, with distinct patterns across different LLMs. A user study was also conducted to evaluate human satisfaction and perceived collaboration effectiveness, with the results indicating positive collaboration experiences. Participants appreciated the agents' task focus, plan verbalization, and initiative, while suggesting improvements in response times and human-like interactions. This work provides an experimental framework for human-AI collaboration, empirical evidence of collaborative behaviors in embodied LLM agents, a validated behavioral analysis methodology, and an assessment of collaboration effectiveness.

This paper analyzes the strategic education process aimed at transitioning traditional software development squads into hybrid structures centered on collaborative work between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a context where human-AI collaboration can significantly increase productivity, this study explores how the upskilling of XPTO professionals, referred to as AI Advocates, acts as a catalyst for cultural and technical transformation. The objective is to present an experience report on the education and enablement process of AI Advocates within a private Brazilian technology company, highlighting key lessons learned and identified challenges.

Human involvement is critical in training and deploying AI systems in high-stakes defence and security contexts. However, real-time interaction is impractical in HPC environments due to compute intensity and resource constraints. We present a workflow framework that enables asynchronous human-AI collaboration across hybrid infrastructures, including HPC clusters, local machines, and cloud platforms. Workflows can pause at defined checkpoints for human input without halting underlying compute jobs, preventing idle resources and enabling non-blocking supervision. The framework supports interaction with SLURM-based scheduling, containerized and native tasks, and is customized for scenarios requiring human judgment and adaptability. We demonstrate its application in model training on systems like MareNostrum 5, highlighting benefits in portability, efficiency, and oversight in operational AI workflows.

Ethical deliberation is often misunderstood as a search for single right or wrong answers, creating difficulties for non-ethically trained personnel who must address ethically laden challenges. We developed EeVA, an agentic-like LLM-based workflow designed to support comparative ethical reflection rather than deliver definitive ethical answers. EeVA was programmed in n8n using three interconnected workflows: starter, worker, and emitter. It evaluated uploaded use cases against 10 ethical frameworks through evaluator and synthesis prompts. Proof-of-concept testing used three published cases from urban mobility, peer-to-peer energy trading, and social-service resource allocation. Across all cases, EeVA produced consistently structured framework-specific evaluations and integrated syntheses. Outputs differentiated between frameworks, identified convergences and divergences, recommended modifications to increase alignment, and highlighted persistent ethical tensions. Syntheses were readable for non-specialists and shifted attention away from simplistic answers toward design conditions, safeguards, and areas where full cross-framework agreement was unlikely. The findings suggest that LLMs can be organised into usable workflows that preserve ethical plurality while helping bridge the communicative gap between ethicists and non-ethically trained personnel. EeVA's value lies not in replacing ethicists or resolving moral disagreement, but in scaffolding structured ethical deliberation. EeVA offers a promising proof of concept for supporting ethical reflection where access to ethics expertise is limited. Further work is needed on reproducibility, human evaluation, user testing, and efficiency before it can be considered a mature tool.

LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

We argue that AI-saturated markets are likely to create Veblen-good premiums, which we term human-provenance premiums, for verified human presence, and hence AI governance should treat human-provenance verification as labor infrastructure. Generative and agentic AI systems lower the cost of many standardized cognitive, creative, and coordination tasks, weakening the scarcity premiums that have supported much middle-tier knowledge work. We argue that this pressure may produce an asymmetric barbell-shaped structure of value capture in advanced economies: high-volume synthetic production controlled by owners of AI infrastructure at one pole, and scarce, high-status human labor valued for verified human presence at the other. We advance three claims. First, AI compresses the value of standardized middle-tier labor by making good-enough synthetic substitutes scalable at low marginal cost, hollowing out the middle of the skill distribution currently categorized by knowledge work. Second, this compression reallocates demand for human labor toward work valued for its visible human character. We term this performative humanity and distinguish three forms of labor: relational presence, aesthetic provenance, and accountability. Third, as these premiums depend on credible verification, AI governance should treat human-provenance systems as labor infrastructure rather than as luxury authenticity labels. To evaluate hybrid human-AI work, we propose constitutive human presence as the relevant standard: human labor retains premium value when human judgment, attention, accountability, authorship, or relational participation is not incidental to the output but constitutive of what is being purchased.

Organoids are complex, three dimensional, self-organizing cell cultures which manifest organ-like features and represent a powerful platform for studying human disease and developing treatment options. Organoid development is characterized by dynamic morphological and cellular organization, which mimic some aspects of organ development. To study these rapid changes over the course of organoid development, advanced imaging and analytical tools are critical to accurately monitor the trajectory of organoid growth and investigate disease processes. In this work, we focus on computer vision and machine learning techniques to automatically measure the size and shape of developing spheroids derived from pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are typically the starting material for generating organoid cultures. To facilitate this task, we introduce a composite method that combines the Segment Anything Model (SAM), a general-purpose foundation model, with an existing domain-specific tool. This composite method is evaluated together with several existing tools by testing them on organoid image data and comparing with the results of manual image segmentation. We find that no single existing tool is able to segment the test images with sufficient accuracy across all test conditions, but the newly introduced composite method produces consistent and accurate results for all but a very small fraction of the most challenging images. Finally, we compare the accuracy of this method to the variability between manual segmentations by independent annotators (inter-observer variability) and find that by one measure it performs at the level of inter-observer variability and by others it performs very close to it.

Deciding how to distribute work between humans and AI systems is a central challenge in organisational design. Most approaches treat this as a binary choice, yet the operational reality is richer: humans and AI routinely share tasks or take complementary roles depending on context, fatigue, and the stakes involved. Governing that distribution -- balancing efficiency, oversight, and human capability -- remains an open problem. This paper presents Human-AI Adaptive Symbiosis (HAAS), an implemented framework for adaptive task allocation in software engineering and manufacturing. HAAS combines two coupled components: a rule-based expert system that enforces governance constraints before any learning occurs, and a contextual-bandit learner that selects among feasible collaboration modes from outcome feedback. Task-agent fit is represented through five auditable cognitive dimensions and a five-mode autonomy spectrum -- from human-only to fully autonomous -- embedded in a reproducible benchmark spanning both domains. Three empirical findings emerge. First, governance is not a binary switch but a tunable design variable: tighter constraints predictably convert autonomous AI assignments into supervised collaborations, with domain-specific costs and benefits. Second, in manufacturing, stronger governance can improve operational performance and reduce fatigue simultaneously -- a workload-buffering effect that contradicts the usual framing of governance as pure overhead. Third, no single governance setting dominates across all contexts; moderate governance becomes increasingly competitive as the learner accumulates experience within the governed action space. Together, these findings position HAAS as a pre-deployment workbench for comparing and inspecting human--AI allocation policies before organisational commitment.

This paper compares agency in humans with potential agency in AI programs. Human agency takes many years to develop, as the frontal lobe is activated. Early attempts to endow LLMs agency have met serious obstacles. Progress requires a new architecture where actions and plans are formulated jointly with the human actors in each real world setting.

In Emotion Recognition in Conversations (ERC), model decisions should align with nuanced human perception and ideally provide insights on the classification process. Standard encoder pre-trained language models (PLMs) are the state-of-the-art at these tasks but offer little insight into why a certain prediction is made. This is especially problematic in imbalanced datasets, where most utterances are labeled as neutral, making these models frequently misclassify minority emotions as the majority neutral class. To tackle this issue, we introduced a novel, interpretable approach to ERC by combining PLMs with Fuzzy Fingerprints (FFPs). FFP provide class-specific prototypes that reflect the characteristic class activation patterns in the PLM's latent space. They are derived by ranking and fuzzifying the activations of the pooled conversational context-dependent embeddings across training instances for each emotion. At inference time, each input utterance is similarly fuzzy fingerprinted and matched to the emotion prototypes using a fuzzy similarity function based on the aggregation of the intersection of the fuzzy sets that define each FFP. Experimental results show that FFP integration reduces overclassification into the neutral class and human evaluation further supports the adequacy of FFP predictions. Our proposed method thus bridges the gap between deep neural inference and human perception, performing at state-of-the-art level while simultaneously offering valuable insights into the classification procedure.

This position paper argues that reliable AI requires infrastructure for human validation of implicit knowledge. AI learns from both explicit knowledge (papers, documentation, structured databases) and implicit knowledge (reasoning patterns, debugging processes, intermediate steps). Implicit knowledge remains unexternalized because documentation cost exceeds perceived value -- yet AI learns from it indiscriminately, acquiring both beneficial patterns and harmful biases. Current reliability methods can only verify explicit knowledge against sources, creating a fundamental gap: the most valuable AI capabilities (reasoning, judgment, intuition) are precisely those we cannot verify. We propose Knowledge Objects (KOs) -- structured artifacts that externalize implicit knowledge into forms humans can inspect, verify, and endorse. KOs transform verification economics: what was previously too costly to verify becomes feasible, enabling accumulated human validation to improve reliability over time.

Every major LLM serving system is designed to meet TTFT and TPOT SLOs. These metrics capture latency as a human user perceives it, and the mechanisms built to satisfy them are now standard infrastructure. We observe that long-horizon AI tasks call LLMs programmatically in tight loops where no human observes TTFT or TPOT. We ask: how much throughput do serving systems sacrifice to meet TTFT and TPOT SLAs that these workloads never need? We conduct a systematic measurement study across chunk sizes, SLO settings, context lengths, and concurrency levels. We find that the human tax on throughput grows substantially with context length and lands in the 60-93% range. At 64K token contexts, tightening the TTFT SLO to production-typical settings costs a large fraction of throughput versus the human-less baseline. The human tax is larger at higher concurrency and is qualitatively similar across SGLang and Sarathi-Serve. We term the unconstrained optimum human-less serving and provide a prototype demonstrating that it is practical on real workloads. Our findings argue that serving systems should expose workload-class-aware SLA configurations rather than silently applying the human tax uniformly to all traffic.

AI systems have long been expected to interact with users, answering questions, generating content, and continuing (social) conversations. Agentic AI, however, breaks from this expectation, as its primary objective is workflow execution on behalf of the users. If a system becomes more agentic, do users need less interaction with the system? Our answer is: less routine back-and-forth, but more communication for oversight and explanation, as agentic AI proactively acts, not just responds. Grounded in a communication perspective, we discuss how users perceive the communicative roles of AI systems (whether as the source of actions or merely a channel), and how this can shape trust. Because agentic AI can play multiple communicative roles, it can complicate this source perception and introduce potential risks. To address this, we propose three types of explanations that agentic AI needs to incorporate (action-process, uncertainty, and coordination), and suggest that customization affordances that allow users to decide when and which explanations they see may be key to preserving human agency as AI autonomy increases.

Recent advances in omni-modal large language models have enabled remarkable progress in joint vision-audio understanding. However, prevailing architectures rely on modality-specific encoders with a \emph{video-coarse, audio-dense} design -- sampling visual frames at 1--2 fps while processing audio waveforms at 25 fps -- resulting in systems that perceive video \emph{frame by frame, modality by modality} rather than holistically as humans do. Such a discrepancy leaves models with impoverished cross-modal interaction during encoding and an inability to capture fine-grained visual motion. To bridge this gap, we present \textbf{Omni-Encoder, a unified Transformer backbone designed to co-embed visual and audio signals at a symmetrical 25 fps} within a shared latent space. This architecture leverages three core innovations -- the Omni-Encoder Token Template, Omni-RoPE, and Temporal Window Shifting -- to effectively reconcile the dual challenges of modality disentanglement and computational efficiency. Experiments demonstrate that, compared to the modality-specific baseline Qwen2.5-Omni under the same input token budget to the LLM decoder, Omni-Encoder delivers substantial gains on visual continuous understanding tasks -- such as sign language recognition and fine-grained sports action analysis -- while maintaining competitive performance on established audio-visual benchmarks such as AVQA and Speaker Identification and Localization. These results suggest that unified omnivorous encoding offers a promising direction for building omni-modal models that more closely reflect the integrated nature of human perception.

This paper tackles the problem of physics-aware human motion synthesis in a dynamic scene. Unlike existing works which mainly tend to generate physically unrealistic motions due to limited contact modeling, typically restricted to hands, in this paper, we introduce a physics-aware human motion generation framework that explicitly models the full spectrum of human-related forces, including human-object, human-scene, and internal body dynamics.~Our method imposes soft physical constraints to maintain force and torque balance, ensuring physically grounded motion synthesis. We further propose a novel continuous distance-based force model that generalizes contact modeling to arbitrary surfaces, capturing interactions not only with static environments but also with dynamic, moving objects. Extensive experiments show that our approach significantly improves physical plausibility and generalizes well to complex scenes, setting a new benchmark for physically consistent human motion generation.

Much research on LLMs has focused on increasing benchmark performance. However, the evaluation of such models in real-world collaborative human-AI workflows has stayed behind. This work evaluates a chatbot-style assistant based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in a realistic multi-turn information-seeking scenario inspired by workplace settings where compliance with local legislation and secure handling of sensitive data are often key. Specifically, we examine the performance of humans (N=112) assisted by RAG-assistants compared to LLM-only or LLM+RAG baselines. In this setting, we investigate how underlying model size (3B, 8B, and 70B) shapes the human-AI collaborative dynamic and how it influences perceived usability and satisfaction. Results show that the performance gain of human-AI collaboration over the model-only baselines is significant, irrespective of model size, suggesting that hybrid systems are beneficial in information-seeking scenarios. Interestingly, however, perceived usability and satisfaction among participants showed little difference across model sizes. This demonstrates a nuanced trade-off between model size, performance, and user perception. Our work highlights the added value of evaluating AI applications in actual multi-turn interactions with human users, looking at usability and satisfaction besides accuracy, rather than focusing on benchmark performance only.

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible for vehicle behaviour, yet their active control is significantly reduced. This reduction undermines the engagement and sense of agency needed to intervene safely. Meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed as a normative framework to address this tension. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether existing systems actually provide MHC remain underdeveloped. In this study, we investigated the extent to which drivers experience MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems. Twenty-four drivers completed a simulator study involving silent automation failures under two modes - haptic shared control (HSC) and traded control (TC). We derived behavioural metrics from telemetry data, subjective perception scores from post-trial surveys and used them to test hypothesised relations between them derived from the properties of systems under MHC. The confirmatory analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle (AV) understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. An exploratory analysis also revealed a surprising positive correlation between reaction times and the perception of sufficient control. Qualitative feedback from open-ended post-experiment questionnaires revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs contribute to the reduction of perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. These findings suggest that future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent, and context-sensitive authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

Understanding human actions from visual observations is essential for human--robot interaction, particularly when semantic interpretation of unfamiliar or hard-to-annotate actions is required. In scenarios such as rapid and less common activities, collecting sufficient labeled data for supervised learning is challenging, making zero-shot approaches a practical alternative for semantic understanding without task-specific training. While recent advances in large-scale pretrained models enable such zero-shot reasoning, the impact of temporal resolution, especially for rapid and fine-grained motions, remains underexplored. In this study, we investigate how temporal resolution affects zero-shot semantic understanding of high-speed human actions. Using kendo as a representative case of rapid and subtle motion patterns, we propose a training-free pipeline that combines a pre-trained video-language model for semantic representation with large language model-based reasoning for pairwise action comparison. Through controlled experiments across multiple frame rates (120 Hz, 60 Hz, and 30 Hz), we show that higher temporal resolution significantly improves semantic separability in zero-shot settings. We further analyze the role of tracking-based human joint information under both full and partial observation scenarios. Quantitative evaluation using a nearest-class prototype strategy demonstrates that high-speed video provides more stable and interpretable semantic representations for fast actions. These findings highlight the importance of temporal resolution in training-free action recognition and suggest that high-speed perception can enhance semantic understanding capabilities.

The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has rendered the boundary between humanity and computational machinery increasingly ambiguous. In the presence of more interwoven relationships within human-machine symbiosis, the very notion of AI-generated information becomes difficult to define, as such information arises not from either humans or machines in isolation, but from their mutual shaping. Therefore, a more pertinent question lies not merely in whether AI has participated, but in how it has participated. In general, the role assumed by AI is often specified, either implicitly or explicitly, in the input prompt, yet becomes less apparent or altogether unobservable when the generated content alone is available. Once detached from the dialogue context, the functional role may no longer be traceable. This study considers the problem of tracing the functional role played by AI in natural language generation. A methodology is proposed to infer the latent role specified by the prompt, embed this role into the content during the probabilistic generation process and subsequently recover the nature of AI participation from the resulting text. Experimentation is conducted under a representative scenario in which AI acts either as an assistive agent that edits human-written content or as a creative agent that generates new content from a brief concept. The experimental results support the validity of the proposed methodology in terms of discrimination between roles, robustness against perturbations and preservation of linguistic quality. We envision that this study may contribute to future research on the ethics of AI with regard to whether AI has been used fairly, transparently and appropriately.

As generative and agentic AI becomes embedded in everyday products, practitioners face a persistent challenge: how to design human-AI coordination -- the ongoing mutual adjustment between users and AI systems as mediate through interfaces-that supports usability, trust, and safety. Existing resources offer high-level principles ("be transparent," "maintain user control") or low-level UI patterns, but there is a lack of mid-level design knowledge bridging the two. Through landscape and artifact analysis of 60 commercial AI applications, we introduce a framework defining human-AI coordination as the interplay of three dimensions: salience (how prominently AI is presented), involvement (what users can do to engage AI), and activity (what AI actually does). We contribute mid-level tools including coordination zones (done-for-me, done-under-me, done-with-me, done-without-me), an input taxonomy (prompted, sparked, inferred, layered), coordination curves for mapping user journeys, and design patterns demonstrating the generative capacity of the framework. The framework can be applied generatively to design experiences, analytically to evaluate existing ones, and communicatively to articulate ideas across stakeholders.

Research on classroom interaction has long been divided between large-scale observation and in-depth ethnographic work. We propose a framework mapping this methodological space along three dimensions--scale, duration, and modality--where a study's position shapes what it reveals and obscures. We illustrate it through contrasting studies of dialogic teaching--Howe et al. (2019) and Snell and Lefstein (2018)--and an interview with the lead researchers, organized around three questions: what can be operationalized, what mechanisms become visible, and what translates to practice. We then examine how AI is expanding this space and how the framework can guide research and tool design.

Single-image human mesh recovery provides a compact 3D, person-centric representation that supports analysis, animation, AR and VR, rehabilitation, and human-computer interaction. However, prevailing systems impose an intact-limb prior and degrade on people with limb loss, because fixed-topology models cannot represent residual limbs. In this work, we present ResiHMR, a residual-limb aware framework for single-image 3D human modeling. ResiHMR adopts residual-limb keypoints and introduces two components: (i) a topology-adaptive Residual Anchor-Factor Optimization module that constrains estimation to the observed kinematic subgraph of anatomically valid structures, and (ii) a geometry-based Residual-Limb Reconstruction module that estimates residual-limb boundaries and convex limb-termination geometry. These components introduce topology-aware optimization and explicit termination geometry as tools for human mesh recovery under non-standard limb anatomy. Unlike joint-removal methods in a fixed topology, ResiHMR explicitly reconstructs residual-limb surfaces and aligns optimization with limb-loss topology, which better matches prosthetic biomechanics and real-world use. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first single-image HMR system that explicitly reconstructs residual-limb surfaces and performs topology-adaptive optimization for individuals with limb loss. On a curated dataset of real-world images with limb loss, ResiHMR improves reconstruction quality under both SMPLify-X and HSMR backbones, reducing intact-joint 2D MPJPE from 41.32 to 37.40 with SMPLify-X and residual-limb 2D MPJPE from 73.61 to 23.19 with HSMR.

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

A long-standing challenge in economics lies not in the lack of intuition, but in the difficulty of translating intuitive insights into verifiable research. To address this challenge, we introduce AgentEconomist, an end-to-end interactive system designed to translate abstract intuitions into executable computational experiments. Grounded in a domain-specific knowledge base covering over 13,000 high-quality academic papers, the system employs a modular multi-stage architecture. Specifically, the Idea Development Stage generates literature-grounded hypotheses, the Experimental Design Stage configures simulator-aligned experimental parameters and protocols, and the Experimental Execution Stage runs experiments and returns structured analyses. Together, these stages form a human-in-the-loop, iterative workflow that translates economic intuitions into executable computational experiments. Through extensive experiments involving human expert evaluation and large language models (LLMs) as judges, we show that the system generates research ideas with stronger literature grounding and higher novelty and insight than state-of-the-art generic LLMs. Overall, AgentEconomist adopts a human-AI collaboration paradigm that enables researchers to focus on high-level intuitions, while delegating the labor-intensive processes of translation and computational execution to agents.

A critical bottleneck hindering further advancement in embodied AI and robotics is the challenge of scaling robot data. To address this, the field of learning robot manipulation skills from human video data has attracted rapidly growing attention in recent years, driven by the abundance of human activity videos and advances in computer vision. This line of research promises to enable robots to acquire skills passively from the vast and readily available resource of human demonstrations, substantially favoring scalable learning for generalist robotic systems. Therefore, we present this survey to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review of human-video-based learning techniques in robotics, focusing on both human-robot skill transfer and data foundations. We first review the policy learning foundations in robotics, and then describe the fundamental interfaces to incorporate human videos. Subsequently, we introduce a hierarchical taxonomy of transferring human videos to robot skills, covering task-, observation-, and action-oriented pathways, along with a cross-family analysis of their couplings with different data configurations and learning paradigms. In addition, we investigate the data foundations including widely-used human video datasets and video generation schemes, and provide large-scale statistical trends in dataset development and utilization. Ultimately, we emphasize the challenges and limitations intrinsic to this field, and delineate potential avenues for future research. The paper list of our survey is available at https://github.com/IRMVLab/awesome-robot-learning-from-human-videos.

As information ecosystems grow more heterogeneous, both humans and artificial agents increasingly face a simple yet unresolved question: when seeking knowledge, whom should we ask, and why? Inspired by how people intuitively "read a room", this paper introduces the concept of knowledge affordance (KA) to systematize how agents identify meaningful opportunities for information seeking in hybrid human-AI environments. Rather than introducing a fully formed framework, we propose KAs as declarative, semantically grounded descriptions of what a knowledge source can offer, for which kinds of questions, and with which contextual properties. Additionally, we suggest that KAs are relational, possibly emerging from the interplay between the agent's task, preferences and situational factors. Our contribution is thus a conceptual proposal that connects different research streams, including affordances, semantic web services, knowledge engineering and querying, and mutual intelligibility. We sketch possible research directions to build KA-aware systems that navigate information spaces with greater transparency, adaptability and shared understanding.

What shapes a consequential decision when human and artificial intelligence work on it together? The answer is becoming harder to see. A decision may look human-led after AI has set the frame, or appear automated while human judgment still carries decisive force. This paper offers a leadership-facing spectrum to see those relationships within a bounded mandate: Pure Human, Centaur (human-dominant, with AI in the loop), Co-equal, Minotaur (AI-dominant, with humans in the loop), and Pure AI. The spectrum asks where leadership work occurs: who frames the problem, who redirects the work, and who can answer for what follows. The five positions are landmarks that help leaders recognize configurations as they layer, drift, or change in a single decision. The central risk is misrecognition: leaders may keep a human-centered story in place after decision-shaping authority has shifted elsewhere. They may believe oversight remains meaningful when it has become ceremonial, or keep humans in the loop when their involvement could make the decision worse. The framework introduces co-adaptability, the capacity of a configuration to improve as human and non-human participants adjust together, and places it within heterogeneous teaming, where participants may vary by number, substrate, model architecture, capability, speed, memory, and form of participation. The aim is practical: to help strategic leaders and those designing or deploying AI systems recognize the configuration at work, notice when it shifts, and judge whether it fits the decision before them. These configurations will shape how power, responsibility, and trust are distributed in organizational life. Whether the futures they help create remain governable and worth inhabiting will depend on leaders who can see, early enough, where and how consequential decisions are actually being shaped.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms exhibit high sample complexity, particularly when applied to Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (Dec-POMDPs). As a response, projects such as SampleFactory, EnvPool, Brax, and IsaacLab migrate parallel execution of classic environments such as MuJoCo and Atari into C++ thread pools or the GPU to decrease the computational cost of environment steps. We are interested in optimizing the decision-level of human-AI joint operations, so we introduce a compute-efficient Dec-POMDP engine natively architected in C++ called Hide-And-Seek-Engine. By employing Data-Oriented Design (DOD) principles, explicit 64-byte cache-line alignment to remove false sharing, and a zero-copy PyTorch memory bridge using pinned memory and Direct Memory Access (DMA), our engine sustains throughput of up to 33,000,000 steps per second (SPS) in a single-agent, 1024-environment, decentralized observations on an AMD Ryzen 9950X (16 cores). Ten agents reduces FPS to 7M SPS with generating random actions contributing 1/3rd the total runtime for reference. The engine achieves a throughput increase of approximately 3,500$\times$ over the baseline single threaded vectorized NumPy implementation and successfully trains cooperative multi-agent policies via PPO, DQN, and SAC in minutes, validating both its performance and generality.

Depth ambiguity and joint uncertainty are the two main obstacles in obtaining accurate human pose predictions by 2D-to-3D lifting methods proposed in the literature. In particular, these issues are caused by 2D joint locations that can be mapped to multiple 3D positions, inducing multiple possible final poses. Following these considerations, we propose leveraging diffusion-based models generation capability to predict multiple hypotheses and aggregate them in a final accurate pose. Therefore, we introduce SnapPose3D, a pose-lifting framework trained deterministically to denoise 3D poses conditioned on both visual context and 2D pose features. SnapPose3D adopts a probabilistic approach during inference, generating multiple hypotheses through random sampling from a unit Gaussian distribution. Unlike most previous methods that address pose ambiguity by processing temporal sequences, SnapPose3D uses single frames as input, avoiding tracking and limiting computational cost, data acquisition complexity, and the need for online, real-time applications. We extensively evaluate SnapPose3D on well-known benchmarks for the 3D human pose estimation task showing its ability to generate and aggregate accurate hypotheses that lead to state-of-the-art results.

Machine learning models for medical image analysis often exhibit subgroup-dependent performance, which impacts how decisions should be allocated between automated systems and human experts under limited resources. Prior work on AI fairness and human-AI cooperation, including learning to defer (L2D) and learning to complement (L2C), typically addresses these problems in isolation. We propose People-Centred Medical Image Analysis (PecMan), a framework for fairness-aware human-AI co-operative classification that jointly models subgroup-dependent reliability, decision allocation, and collaborative prediction. PecMan combines subgroup-specialised predictors with a gating and consolidation mechanism that dynamically assigns cases to automated models, human experts, or their combination, without requiring sensitive attributes at test time. We also introduce the FairHAI benchmark for evaluating trade-offs between predictive accuracy, subgroup equity, and human involvement. In addition, we provide a theoretical analysis of multi-agent gating via selection regret and characterise fairness-coverage trade-offs under input-dependent allocation. Experiments across multiple medical imaging datasets demonstrate that PecMan achieves consistently improved trade-offs compared to methods that address fairness or human-AI cooperation separately.

AI-powered language learning tools increasingly provide instant, personalised feedback to millions of learners worldwide. However, this feedback can fail in ways that are difficult for learners--and even teachers--to detect, potentially reinforcing misconceptions and eroding learning outcomes over extended use. We present a portion of L2-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating AI systems in language education that includes (but is not limited to) six critical dimensions of effective feedback: diagnostic accuracy, awareness of appropriacy, causes of error, prioritisation, guidance for improvement, and supporting self-regulation. We analyse how AI systems can fail with respect to these dimensions. These failures, which we argue are conducive to "explainability pitfalls," are AI-generated explanations that appear helpful on the surface but are fundamentally flawed, increasing the risk of attainment, human-AI interaction, and socioaffective harms. We discuss how the specific context of language learning amplifies these risks and outline open questions we believe merit more attention when designing evaluation frameworks specifically. Our analysis aims to expand the community's understanding of both the typology of explainability pitfalls and the contextual dynamics in which they may occur in order to encourage AI developers to better design safe, trustworthy, and effective AI explanations.

How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes

Improving the Theory of Mind (ToM) capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for effective social interactions between these AI models and humans. However, the existing benchmarks often measure ToM capability improvement through story-reading, multiple-choice questions from a third-person perspective, while ignoring the first-person, dynamic, and open-ended nature of human-AI (HAI) interactions. To directly examine how ToM improvement techniques benefit HAI interactions, we first proposed the new paradigm of interactive ToM evaluation with both perspective and metric shifts. Next, following the paradigm, we conducted a systematic study of four representative ToM enhancement techniques using both four real-world datasets and a user study, covering both goal-oriented tasks (e.g., coding, math) and experience-oriented tasks (e.g., counseling). Our findings reveal that improvements on static benchmarks do not always translate to better performance in dynamic HAI interactions. This paper offers critical insights into ToM evaluation, showing the necessity of interaction-based assessments in developing next-generation, socially aware LLMs for HAI symbiosis.