Human-AI Collaboration

In remote and hybrid work contexts, the integration of physical and digital environments is revolutionizing spatial experiences, collaboration, and interpersonal interactions. This study examines three fundamental spatial conditions: the physical environment, characterized by material and sensory attributes; the virtual environment, influenced by immersive technologies; and their fusion into hybrid environments where digital and physical components interact dynamically. The increasing number of AI tools in contemporary society, extensively utilized in both professional and personal spheres, has led to a varied landscape of developing technologies. For instance, ChatGPT has emerged as one of the most downloaded applications, a statistically substantiated fact that demonstrates the swift incorporation of language-based AI into daily life. It also underscores the function of large language models (LLMs) as meaningful bridges between concepts at reading emotional and behavioral signals via natural language. These models provide real-time modifications such as altering illumination, acoustics, or interface configurations, converting static settings into dynamic, emotionally receptive environments. We investigate the integration of language models into professional settings and their potential to enhance user experience by promoting focus, well-being, and engagement. The study investigates ethical concerns, including privacy, emotional tracking, and user agency, emphasizing the importance of inclusive and transparent design. This research formulates a framework for creating co-adaptive environments that merge technological innovation with human-centered experiences, offering a fresh viewpoint on responsive and supportive hybrid workspaces.

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

We present four conceptual value-sensitive AI systems to examine how the presence of AI could influence praying experiences. Drawing on key values and practices associated with praying identified through a diary study, we designed AI systems intended to "assist" prayer practices. These designs were presented to participants through speculative design workbooks, serving as provocations to co-reflect on how the intervention of AI systems might shape their praying experiences. Our findings suggest that a sense of authenticity (or feeling a genuine connection to the divine) is a crucial value, while the presence of AI was often perceived as diminishing this authenticity, particularly when AI assumed too much agency in guiding praying practices. Based on our findings, we argue that AI system designs for deeply value-laden experiences should preserve users' agency in shaping their own experiences by maintaining interpretive openness, perhaps by leveraging AI's inexplicability as a resource for personal meaning-making or by recognizing non-use of AI as a legitimate design choice.

Recent advances in text-driven human motion generation enable models to synthesize realistic motion sequences from natural language descriptions. However, most existing approaches assume identity-neutral motion and generate movements using a canonical body representation, ignoring the strong influence of body morphology on motion dynamics. In practice, attributes such as body proportions, mass distribution, and age significantly affect how actions are performed, and neglecting this coupling often leads to physically inconsistent motions. We propose an identity-aware motion generation framework that explicitly models the relationship between body morphology and motion dynamics. Instead of relying on explicit geometric measurements, identity is represented using multimodal signals, including natural language descriptions and visual cues. We further introduce a joint motion-shape generation paradigm that simultaneously synthesizes motion sequences and body shape parameters, allowing identity cues to directly modulate motion dynamics. Extensive experiments on motion capture datasets and large-scale in-the-wild videos demonstrate improved motion realism and motion-identity consistency while maintaining high motion quality. Project page: https://vjwq.github.io/IAM

We propose a per-task leverage ratio for human-agent collaboration: human work displaced by an agent, divided by the human time required to specify the task, resolve mid-run interrupts, and review the result. The denominator decomposes into three channels through which a conserved per-task information requirement must flow, each with its own time-cost scalar. We show that information density itself is directional and bounded by separate ceilings on human-to-agent and agent-to-human flow, and that the asymptotic behavior of leverage decomposes into two scaling axes (capability and memory) with a non-zero floor on the planning term set by irreducible task novelty bounded by human throughput. We extend this per-task analysis to a windowed leverage measure that accommodates recurring tasks, spawned subtasks, and amortized system-design investment. The per-task ceiling does not bind the windowed measure, though both remain bounded: $L_{\text{task}}$ by per-task novelty, $L_{\text{window}}$ by the stock of accumulated planning investment that pays out within the window. The framework operationalizes aspects of earlier qualitative work on supervisory control (Sheridan, 1992), common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991), and mixed-initiative interaction (Horvitz, 1999) within a single normative ratio, and produces a list of testable empirical questions that we leave as open problems.

As human-AI cooperation becomes increasingly prevalent, reliable instruments for assessing the subjective quality of cooperative human-AI interaction are needed. We introduce two theoretically grounded scales: the Perceived Cooperativity Scale (PCS), grounded in joint activity theory, and the Teaming Perception Scale (TPS), grounded in evolutionary cooperation theory. The PCS captures an agent's perceived cooperative capability and practice within a single interaction sequence; the TPS captures the emergent sense of teaming arising from mutual contribution and support. Both scales were adapted for human-human cooperation to enable cross-agent comparisons. Across three studies (N = 409) encompassing a cooperative card game, LLM interaction, and a decision-support system, analyses of dimensionality, reliability, and validity indicated that both scales successfully differentiated between cooperation partners of varying cooperative quality and showed construct validity in line with expectations. The scales provide a basis for empirical investigation and system evaluation across a wide range of human-AI cooperation contexts.

The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making? Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Studies of agent-type value forks challenge this assumption by showing that people do not always judge humans and AI systems identically.This paper extends that challenge by examining two further possibilities: first, that evaluations of AI behavior change when its human origins are made visible; and second, that people judge the humans who program AI systems differently from either the machines or the human actors they are compared against. An experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant difference in evaluations of the repairman and the robot. However, judgments shifted substantially when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological, rule-based reasoning when evaluating either the programmed robot or the engineers who programmed it, suggesting that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings indicate that people may evaluate humans, AI systems acting in the same situation, and the humans who design them in meaningfully different ways. The fact that these evaluations do not necessarily converge gives rise to the alignment target problem: which normative target should guide the development of artificial moral agents in high-stakes domains, and whether these plural judgments can be reconciled within a coherent account of value alignment.

Extracting abstract causal structures and applying them to novel situations is a hallmark of human intelligence. While Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong performance on a wide range of reasoning tasks, their capacity for interactive causal learning -- inducing latent structures through sequential exploration and transferring them across contexts -- remains uncharacterized. Human learners accomplish such transfer after minimal exposure, whereas classical Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents fail catastrophically. Whether state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence (AI) models possess human-like mechanisms for abstract causal structure transfer is an open question. Using the OpenLock paradigm requiring sequential discovery of Common Cause (CC) and Common Effect (CE) structures, here we show that models exhibit fundamentally delayed or absent transfer: even successful models require initial environmental-specific mapping -- what we term environmental grounding -- before efficiency gains emerge, whereas humans leverage prior structural knowledge from the very first solution attempt. In the text-only condition, models matched or exceeded human discovery efficiency. In contrast, visual information -- in both the image-only and text-and-image conditions -- overall degraded rather than enhanced performance, revealing a broad reliance on symbolic processing rather than integrated multimodal reasoning. Models further exhibited systematic CC/CE asymmetries absent in humans, suggesting heuristic biases rather than direction-neutral causal abstraction. These findings reveal that large-scale statistical learning does not produce the decontextualized causal schemas underpinning human analogical reasoning, establishing grounding-dependent transfer as a fundamental limitation of current LLMs and VLMs.

We instruct an AI agent to construct two separate agentic AI platforms: one for autonomous training of predictive ML models for human-human and virus-human PPI, and the other for inducing explicit general rules governing human-human and virus-human PPI. The first agentic AI platform for autonomous training of predictive ML models for PPI is designed to consist of five AI agents that handle autonomous data collection, data verification, feature embedding, model design, and training and validation on three-way protein-disjoint cross-fold datasets. For human-human and human-virus PPIs, the final three-way protein-disjoint ensemble achieves an accuracy of 87.3% and 86.5%, respectively. For cross-checking and interpretability purposes, the second agentic AI platform is designed to replace ML predictions with human-readable rules derived from protein embeddings, physicochemical autocovariance descriptors, compartment annotations, pathway-domain overlap, and graph contexts. For human-human PPI, it is defined by a two-rule induction, whereas human-virus is induced by a more complex set of weighted rules. The rules induced by the second agentic platform align with the SHAP-identified features from the predictive ML models built by the first agentic platform. Taken together, our work demonstrates the agentic AI's ability to orchestrate from data planning to execution, and from rule induction to explanation in ML, opening the door to various applications.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) and AI agent frameworks, the human-AI co-work paradigm known as Vibe Coding is changing how people code, making it more accessible and productive. In scientific research, where workflows are more complex and the burden of specialized labor limits independent researchers and those in low-resource areas, the potential impact is even greater, particularly in biomedicine, which involves heterogeneous data modalities and multi-step analytical pipelines. In this paper, we introduce Vibe Medicine, a co-work paradigm in which clinicians and researchers direct skill-augmented AI agents through natural language to execute complex, multi-step biomedical workflows, while retaining the role of research director who specifies objectives, reviews intermediate results, and makes domain-informed decisions. The enabling infrastructure consists of three layers: capable LLMs, agent frameworks such as OpenClaw and Hermes Agent, and the OpenClaw medical skills collection, which includes more than 1,000 curated skills from multiple open-source repositories. We analyze the architecture and skill categories of this collection across ten biomedical domains, and present case studies covering rare disease diagnosis, drug repurposing, and clinical trial design that demonstrate end-to-end workflows in practice. We also identify the principal risks, such as hallucination, data privacy, and over-reliance, and outline directions toward more reliable, trustworthy, and clinically integrated agent-assisted research that advances research and technological equity and reduces health care resource disparities.

Domestic voice assistants and smart-home devices are increasingly embedded in everyday routines, yet their ethics are often treated as an afterthought or delegated to compliance teams. To explore how expectations about smart-home AI are constructed and managed, we conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with designers, developers, and researchers from major smart-home platforms (Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Azure IoT, and Google Nest). Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we develop Expectations Management (EM): a culturally embedded model describing how practitioners shape, calibrate, and repair expectations by balancing organisational rights with culturally situated rites. We show that EM differs from expectation-confirmation theory and trust-calibration by foregrounding moral judgement, situated action, and cross-cultural variation. Our analysis reveals four recurring design tensions: automation vs. autonomy, helpfulness vs. intrusiveness, personalisation vs. predictability, and transparency vs. obscurity and distils them into a five-phase EM Design Playbook that supports moral prudence. We discuss implications for responsible smart-home design and offer guidance for human-centred AI.

The advancement of robot learning is currently hindered by the scarcity of large-scale, high-quality datasets. While established data collection methods such as teleoperation and universal manipulation interfaces dominate current datasets, they suffer from inherent limitations in scalability and real-world deployability. Human egocentric video collection, by contrast, has emerged as a promising approach to enable scalable, natural and in-the-wild data collection. As such, we present EgoLive, a large-scale, high-quality egocentric dataset designed explicitly for robot manipulation learning. EgoLive establishes three distinctive technical advantages over existing egocentric datasets: first, it represents the largest open-source annotated egocentric dataset focused on real-world task-oriented human routines to date; second, it delivers leading data quality via a customized head-mounted capture device and comprehensive high-precision multi-modal annotations; third, all data is collected exclusively in unconstrained real-world scenarios and encompasses vertical field human working data, including home service, retail, and other practical work scenarios, providing superior diversity and ecological validity. With the introduction of EgoLive, we aim to provide the research community with a scalable, high-quality dataset that accelerates breakthroughs in generalizable robotic models and facilitates the real-world deployment of robot systems.

Short-term human pose prediction plays a crucial role in interactive systems, assistive robots, and emotion-aware human-computer interaction[1-3]. While current trajectory prediction models primarily rely on geometric motion cues, they often overlook the underlying emotional signals influencing human motion dynamics[4-5]. This paper investigates whether facial expression-derived emotion embeddings can provide auxiliary conditional signals for short-term pose prediction. To further evaluate multimodal conditionation in a recursive prediction setting, we propose a lightweight autoregressive predictive world model that performs 15-step rolling pose prediction. This framework combines pose keypoints with emotion embeddings through a learnable gating mechanism and performs autoregressive unfolding prediction using a recurrent sequence model based on a two-layer LSTM architecture. Experiments were conducted on two small-scale pose-emotion video datasets: controlled motion sequences with minimal facial expression changes and, natural emotion-driven motion sequences with considerable facial expression changes. The results show that simple multimodal fusion does not consistently improve prediction accuracy, while normalized gating fusion significantly enhances the performance of emotion-driven motion sequences. Furthermore, counterfactual perturbation experiments demonstrate that the predicted trajectory exhibits measurable sensitivity to changes in multimodal input, suggesting that facial expression embeddings act as auxiliary conditional signals rather than redundant features. In summary, these results indicate that incorporating facial expression-derived emotion embeddings into emotion-conditional short-term pose prediction based on a lightweight predictive world model architecture is a feasible approach.

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.

Full-duplex spoken dialogue systems can model natural conversational behaviours such as interruptions, overlaps, and backchannels, yet such systems remain largely unexplored for Indian languages. We present the first open, reproducible full-duplex spoken dialogue system for Hindi by adapting Moshi, a state-of-the-art duplex speech architecture, using a custom Hindi tokeniser and training on 26,000 hours of real spontaneous conversations collected from 14,695 speakers with separate speaker channels, enabling direct learning of turn-taking and overlap patterns from natural interactions. To support Hindi text generation, we replace the original English tokeniser and reinitialise text-vocabulary-dependent parameters while retaining the pre-trained audio components. We propose a two-stage training recipe -- large-scale pre-training followed by fine-tuning on 1,000 hours of conversational data. Evaluation through the prompted dialogue continuation paradigm with both automatic metrics and human judgments demonstrates that the resulting model generates natural and meaningful full-duplex conversational behaviour in Hindi. This work serves as a first step toward real-time duplex spoken dialogue systems for Hindi and other Indian languages.

AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute tasks and make decisions within agentic workflows, introducing new requirements for safe and controlled autonomy. Prior work has established the importance of human oversight for ensuring transparency, accountability, and trustworthiness in such systems. However, existing implementations of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) mechanisms are typically embedded within application logic, limiting reuse, consistency, and scalability across multi-agent environments. This paper presents a decoupled HITL system architecture that treats human oversight as an independent system component within the agent operating environment. The proposed design separates human interaction management from application workflows through explicit interfaces and a structured execution model. In addition, a design framework is introduced to formalize HITL integration along four dimensions: intervention conditions, role resolution, interaction semantics, and communication channel. This framework enables selective and context-aware human involvement while maintaining system-level consistency. The approach supports alignment with emerging agent communication protocols, allowing HITL to be implemented as a protocol-level concern. By externalizing HITL and structuring its integration, the system provides a foundation for scalable governance and progressive autonomy in agentic workflows.

Classical robot ethics is often framed around obedience, including Asimov's laws. This framing is insufficient for contemporary AI systems, which are increasingly adaptive, generative, embodied, and embedded in physical, psychological, and social environments. This paper proposes conditional mutualism under governance as a framework for human-AI coexistence: a co-evolutionary relationship in which humans and AI systems develop, specialize, and coordinate under institutional conditions that preserve reciprocity, reversibility, psychological safety, and social legitimacy. We synthesize concepts from computability, machine learning, foundation models, embodied AI, alignment, human-robot interaction, ecological mutualism, coevolution, and polycentric governance. We then formalize coexistence as a multiplex dynamical system across physical, psychological, and social layers, with reciprocal supply-demand coupling, conflict penalties, developmental freedom, and governance regularization. The model gives conditions for existence, uniqueness, and global asymptotic stability of equilibria. We complement the analytical results with deterministic ODE simulations, basin sweeps, sensitivity analyses, governance-regime comparisons, shock tests, and local stability checks. The simulations indicate that governed mutualism reaches a high coexistence index with negligible domination, whereas insufficient or excessive governance can produce domination, weak-benefit lock-in, or suppressed developmental freedom. The results suggest that human-AI coexistence should be designed as a co-evolutionary governance problem rather than as a static obedience problem.

To humans, a robin seems more like a bird than a bird seems like a robin, but does this asymmetry also hold for machine vision? Humans and modern vision models can match each other in accuracy while making systematically different kinds of errors, differing not in how often they fail, but in who gets mistaken for whom. We show these directional confusions reveal distinct inductive biases invisible to accuracy alone. Using matched human and deep neural network responses on a natural-image categorization task under 12 perturbation types, we quantify asymmetry in confusion matrices and link its organization to the geometry of the information--error trade-off - how efficiently, and how gracefully, a system generalizes under distortion. We find that humans exhibit broad but weak asymmetries across many class pairs, whereas deep vision models show sparser, stronger directional collapses into a few dominant categories. Robustness training reduces overall asymmetry magnitude but fails to recover this human-like distributed structure. Generative simulations further show that these two asymmetry organizations shift the trade-off geometry in opposite directions even at matched accuracy, explaining why the same scalar asymmetry score can reflect fundamentally different generalization strategies. Together, these results establish directional confusion structure as a sensitive, interpretable signature of inductive bias that accuracy-based evaluation cannot recover.

Modern AI assistants are trained to follow instructions, implicitly assuming that users can clearly articulate their goals and the kind of assistance they need. Decades of behavioral research, however, show that people often engage with AI systems before their goals are fully formed. When AI systems treat prompts as complete expressions of intent, they can appear to be useful or convenient, but not necessarily aligned with the users' needs. We call these failures Fantasia interactions. We argue that Fantasia interactions demand a rethinking of alignment research: rather than treating users as rational oracles, AI should provide cognitive support by actively helping users form and refine their intent through time. This requires an interdisciplinary approach that bridges machine learning, interface design, and behavioral science. We synthesize insights from these fields to characterize the mechanisms and failures of Fantasia interactions. We then show why existing interventions are insufficient, and propose a research agenda for designing and evaluating AI systems that better help humans navigate uncertainty in their tasks.

Sensemaking is central to knowledge work, where people search, evaluate, interpret, and use information over time to construct durable understanding. The rise of generative AI has begun to reshape this process: GenAI systems now perform interpretive functions such as summarization, synthesis, and thematic grouping that knowledge workers have traditionally carried out themselves. In collaborative settings, these shifts compound, complicating how teams divide interpretive labor, trust one another's contributions, and negotiate shared understanding. In this position paper, we examine how GenAI reshapes sensemaking in collaborative knowledge work and propose five design principles for multi-human, multi-agent collaborative sensemaking: dynamic multi-layer information representations, active identification and bridging of gaps in understanding, critical engagement with information, verifiability, and accountability. Building on these principles, we introduce a conceptual framework for a dynamic shared representational workspace in which knowledge workers and specialized AI agents jointly gather evidence, schematize, hypothesize, and pursue collaborative goals. Through a partner agent, a shared space agent, and an orchestrator agent, the framework preserves the provenance and authorship of contributions and traces the evolution of both individual and shared interpretations, supporting coherent, negotiated knowledge construction that current generative AI systems tend to obscure.

We present Sapiens2, a model family of high-resolution transformers for human-centric vision focused on generalization, versatility, and high-fidelity outputs. Our model sizes range from 0.4 to 5 billion parameters, with native 1K resolution and hierarchical variants that support 4K. Sapiens2 substantially improves over its predecessor in both pretraining and post-training. First, to learn features that capture low-level details (for dense prediction) and high-level semantics (for zero-shot or few-label settings), we combine masked image reconstruction with self-distilled contrastive objectives. Our evaluations show that this unified pretraining objective is better suited for a wider range of downstream tasks. Second, along the data axis, we pretrain on a curated dataset of 1 billion high-quality human images and improve the quality and quantity of task annotations. Third, architecturally, we incorporate advances from frontier models that enable longer training schedules with improved stability. Our 4K models adopt windowed attention to reason over longer spatial context and are pretrained with 2K output resolution. Sapiens2 sets a new state-of-the-art and improves over the first generation on pose (+4 mAP), body-part segmentation (+24.3 mIoU), normal estimation (45.6% lower angular error) and extends to new tasks such as pointmap and albedo estimation. Code: https://github.com/facebookresearch/sapiens2

What looks like acceleration can be a quiet transfer of burden from the present to the future. Attempts to replace human labor with AI systems are often presented as rational responses to technological progress, but that view is often structurally short-sighted. Across software development and adjacent knowledge industries, AI is increasingly attractive because it appears to reduce labor costs, speed output, and improve short-term metrics. Yet those gains may be achieved by drawing down human capabilities that are slow to build and difficult to restore. This paper develops a mechanism of capability masking and capability erosion under AI labor substitution. AI-generated output can create the appearance that organizational capability has been replaced, even when dependence on skilled human labor remains. That appearance can support hiring restraint while slower costs accumulate in the background. Evidence from AI-assisted coding shows that generated output still requires substantial human verification and remains uneven in correctness, maintainability, and security. Repository-level studies also suggest limits in handling broader codebase context. More broadly, labor-market, political-economy, and industrial-strategy evidence suggests that substitution pressures are being driven by managerial cost incentives and national competition while increasing risks of concentration and platform control. The result is a system that may look more efficient in the short term while becoming more fragile over time.

We present pAI/MSc, an open-source, customizable, modular multi-agent system for academic research workflows. Our goal is not autonomous scientific ideation, nor fully automated research. It is narrower and more practical: to reduce by orders of magnitude the human steering required to turn a specified hypothesis into a literature-grounded, mathematically established, experimentally supported, submission-oriented manuscript draft. pAI/MSc is built with a current emphasis on machine learning theory and adjacent quantitative fields.

Training embodied agents to understand 3D scenes as humans do requires large-scale data of people meaningfully interacting with diverse environments, yet such data is scarce. Real-world capture is costly and limited to controlled settings, while existing synthetic datasets rely on simple geometric heuristics, ignoring rich scene context. In contrast, 2D foundation models trained at internet scale have acquired commonsense knowledge of human-environment interactions. To transfer this knowledge to 3D, we introduce InHabit, an automatic and scalable data generator for populating 3D scenes with interacting humans. InHabit follows a render-generate-lift principle: given a rendered 3D scene, a vision-language model proposes contextually meaningful actions, an image-editing model inserts a human, and an optimization procedure lifts the edited result into physically plausible SMPL-X bodies aligned with the scene geometry. Applied to Habitat-Matterport3D, InHabit produces InHabitants, the first large-scale photorealistic 3D human-scene interaction dataset, with 78K samples across $\sim$800 building-scale scenes with complete 3D geometry, SMPL-X bodies, and images. Augmenting standard training data with InHabitants improves RGB-based 3D human-scene reconstruction and contact estimation, and in a perceptual user study our data is preferred in 78% of cases over prior art.

Developing Visual Analytics (VA) applications requires integrating complex machine learning models with expressive interactive interfaces. Developers face a stark trade-off: building tightly-coupled monoliths plagued by fragile interdependencies, or relying on restrictive, simplistic frameworks. Meanwhile, unconstrained, single-shot AI code generation promises speed but yields unstructured, unauditable chaos. The core challenge is combining the control and expressiveness of custom development with the efficiency of AI generation under strict constraints. To address this, we introduce BONSAI, a mixed-initiative workspace for the multi-agent co-development of VA applications. BONSAI utilizes a modular four-layer architecture (hardware, services, orchestration, application) that allows human and AI developers to independently contribute reusable components. The workspace incorporates this architecture into a structured four-phase development process (plan, design, monitor, and review), ensuring distributed agency and full provenance, where all human and AI contributions are structurally bounded and tracked. We evaluate BONSAI through case studies demonstrating the efficient creation of novel tools and the rapid reconstruction of complex VA applications directly from research paper descriptions. Ultimately, this paper contributes a conceptual workflow, a scalable architecture, and an integrated system that successfully balances AI's generative speed with the structural rigor required for complex VA development.

Current AI agent frameworks have made remarkable progress in automating individual tasks, yet all existing systems serve a single user. Human productivity rests on the social and organizational relationships through which people coordinate, negotiate, and delegate. When agents move beyond performing tasks for one person to representing that person in collaboration with others, the infrastructure for cross-user agent collaboration is entirely absent, let alone the governance mechanisms needed to secure it. We argue that the next frontier for AI agents lies not in stronger individual capability, but in the digitization of human collaborative relationships. To this end, we propose a human-symbiotic agent paradigm. Each user owns a permanently bound agent system that collaborates on the owner's behalf, forming a network whose nodes are humans rather than agents. This paradigm rests on three governance primitives. A layered identity architecture separates a Manager Agent from multiple context-specific Identity Agents; the Manager Agent holds global knowledge but is architecturally isolated from external communication. Scoped authorization enforces per-identity access control and escalates boundary violations to the owner. Action-level accountability logs every operation against its owner's identity and authorization, ensuring full auditability. We instantiate this paradigm in ClawNet, an identity-governed agent collaboration framework that enforces identity binding and authorization verification through a central orchestrator, enabling multiple users to collaborate securely through their respective agents.

3D human mesh recovery from monocular RGB images aims to estimate anatomically plausible 3D human models for downstream applications, but remains challenging under partial or severe occlusions. Regression-based methods are efficient yet often produce implausible or inaccurate results in unconstrained scenarios, while diffusion-based methods provide strong generative priors for occluded regions but may weaken fidelity to rare poses due to over-reliance on generation. To address these limitations, we propose a brain-inspired synergistic framework that integrates the discriminative power of vision transformers with the generative capability of conditional diffusion models. Specifically, the ViT-based pathway extracts deterministic visual cues from visible regions, while the diffusion-based pathway synthesizes structurally coherent human body representations. To effectively bridge the two pathways, we design a diverse-consistent feature learning module to align discriminative features with generative priors, and a cross-attention multi-level fusion mechanism to enable bidirectional interaction across semantic levels. Experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance on key metrics and shows strong robustness in complex real-world scenarios.

LLMs are increasingly presented as collaborators in programming, design, writing, and analysis. Yet the practical experience of working with them often falls short of this promise. In many settings, users must diagnose misunderstandings, reconstruct missing assumptions, and repeatedly repair misaligned responses. This poster introduces a conceptual framework for understanding why such collaboration remains fragile. Drawing on a constructivist grounded theory analysis of 16 interviews with designers, developers, and applied AI practitioners working on LLM-enabled systems, and informed by literature on human-AI collaboration, we argue that stable collaboration depends not only on model capability but on the interaction's grounding conditions. We distinguish three recurrent structures of human-AI work: one-shot assistance, weak collaboration with asymmetric repair, and grounded collaboration. We propose that collaboration breaks down when the appearance of partnership outpaces the grounding capacity of the interaction and contribute a framework for discussing grounding, repair, and interaction structure in LLM-enabled work.

Human-centred systems require an understanding of human actions in the physical world. Temporally extended sequences of actions are intentional and structured, yet existing methods for recognising what actions are performed often do not attempt to capture their structure, particularly how the actions are executed. This, however, is crucial for assessing the quality of the action's execution and its differences from other actions. To capture the internal mechanics of actions, we introduce a domain-specific language EXACT that represents human motions as underspecified motion programs, interpreted as reward-generating functions for zero-shot policy inference using forward-backwards representations. By leveraging the compositional nature of EXACT motion programs, we combine individual policies into an executable neuro-symbolic model that uses program structure for compositional modelling. We evaluate the utility of the proposed pipeline for creating executable action models by analysing motion-capture data to understand human actions, for the tasks of human action segmentation and action anomaly detection. Our results show that the use of executable action models improves data efficiency and captures intuitive relationships between actions compared with monolithic, task-specific approaches.

Vibe coding produces correct, executable code at speed, but leaves no record of the structural commitments, dependencies, or evidence behind it. Reviewers cannot determine what invariants were assumed, what changed, or why a regression occurred. This is not a generation failure but a control failure: the dominant artifact of AI-assisted development (code plus chat history) performs dimension collapse, flattening complex system topology into low-dimensional text and making systems opaque and fragile under change. We propose Agentic Consensus: a paradigm in which the consensus layer C, an operable world model represented as a typed property graph, replaces code as the primary artifact of engineering. Executable artifacts are derived from C and kept in correspondence via synchronization operators Phi (realize) and Psi (rehydrate). Evidence links directly to structural claims in C, making every commitment auditable and under-specification explicit as measurable consensus entropy rather than a silent guess. Evaluation must move beyond code correctness toward alignment fidelity, consensus entropy, and intervention distance. We propose benchmark task families designed to measure whether consensus-based workflows reduce human intervention compared to chat-driven baselines.

AI agents are reshaping the workspace, leading to drastic change of how humans work. Despite the considerable potential of human-agent collaboration both in preserving human agency and generating economic value, this paradigm remains largely absent from occupational task evaluation, hindered by the difficulty of gathering real human data and accounting for inter-human variability. We introduce CollabSkill, a framework for evaluating human-agent collaboration on real-world occupational tasks. CollabSkill pairs real human workers with AI agents on tasks matched to their occupational background, collecting data that capture the complexity of economically valuable tasks and the usage patterns of real workers. To account for inter-human variability, CollabSkill employs a Bayesian skill rating system to disentangle and quantify the skill contributions of both humans and AI agents. Drawing on over 1,500 prompts from 386 working sessions contributed by 93 human workers, our analysis yields insights on two fronts: on the agent side, rankings on CollabSkill diverge meaningfully from those of existing fully autonomous benchmarks where Codex leads, with Claude Code ranking first; on the human side, CollabSkill reveals that practical experience emerges as the primary driver of collaboration skill, with hands-on collaboration meaningfully shifting workers' AI literacy. Together, we hope CollabSkill enables the community to invest in systematic evaluation of human-agent collaboration and spurs development efforts aimed at building AI agents that genuinely augment human workers.

The rapid proliferation of large audio models (LAMs) demands efficient approaches for model comparison, yet comprehensive benchmarks are costly. To fill this gap, we investigate whether minimal subsets can reliably evaluate LAMs while reducing costs and data redundancy. Analyzing 10 subset selection methods with 18 audio models across 40 tasks covering major LAM evaluation dimensions, we show that subsets of just 50 examples (0.3% of data) can achieve over 0.93 Pearson correlation with full benchmark scores. To understand how well these scores align with what practitioners ultimately care about, user satisfaction, we collect 776 human preference ratings from realistic voice assistant conversations, finding that both subsets and full benchmark achieve only 0.85 correlation with human. To better predict preferences, we trained regression models on these selected subsets, achieving 0.98 correlation -- outperforming regression models trained on both random subsets and the full benchmark. This demonstrates that in regression modeling, well-curated subsets outpredict the full benchmark, showing quality over quantity. We open-source these regression-weighted subsets as the HUMANS benchmark, an efficient proxy for LAM evaluation that captures both benchmark performance and user preferences.

Learning from preference-based feedback has become an effective approach for aligning LLMs across diverse tasks. However, high-quality human-annotated preference data remains expensive and scarce. Existing methods address this challenge through either self-rewarding, which scales by using purely AI-generated labels but risks unreliability, or active learning, which ensures quality through oracle annotation but cannot fully leverage unlabeled data. In this paper, we present CoAct, a novel framework that synergistically combines self-rewarding and active learning through strategic human-AI collaboration. CoAct leverages self-consistency to identify both reliable self-labeled data and samples that require oracle verification. Additionally, oracle feedback guides the model to generate new instructions within its solvable capability. Evaluated on three reasoning benchmarks across two model families, CoAct achieves average improvements of +13.25% on GSM8K, +8.19% on MATH, and +13.16% on WebInstruct, consistently outperforming all baselines.

Determining whether published scientific findings can successfully be replicated is a long-standing challenge in the empirical sciences. Existing approaches for replicability assessment typically rely either on human judgment, i.e., creative assembly of human experts, or on machine learning models trained on paper content metadata. While both approaches have demonstrated value, each also has important limitations. Human forecasts can be influenced by cognitive biases and narrow exposure to the research literature, while automated assessments often struggle to capture contextual cues and subtle signals of credibility. In this paper, we examine a hybrid approach. Specifically, we introduce a hybrid prediction market in which algorithmic agents trade alongside human participants to jointly estimate the likelihood that a published scientific finding will be corroborated via the outcome of a controlled replication study. Agents are trained on outcomes from hundreds of prior replication studies while human participants contribute domain knowledge through real-time trading. We evaluate this hybrid approach through multiple live experiments involving participants from different academic disciplines and compare its performance to artificial-only and human-only baselines. Our results show that, except for a few cases, hybrid markets match or outperform artificial prediction markets, producing more accurate and reliable replication forecasts.

As AI systems evolve from single agents to multi-agent architectures, a critical design dimension has been overlooked: how the social identity of individual agents shapes human behavior within the collaboration. This paper introduces the Agentic Social Affordance Framework (ASAF), a theoretical framework extending Social Affordance theory to multi-agent AI systems. We propose that agent identity design functions as a collaboration interface--structuring how users perceive and engage with each agent, and thereby influencing Human-Agent collaboration outcomes. ASAF adopts the analytical separability of the social affordance layer and the engineering orchestration layer as a framing assumption--an organizing distinction that structures design analysis--rather than a testable claim about effect-independence. ASAF comprises three mechanisms: Identity Signaling, Behavioral Priming, and Collaborative Governance, and specifies their boundary conditions through a four-tier Identity Signal Fidelity Spectrum and an individual-difference moderating variable (anthropomorphizing vs. instrumentalizing cognitive style). We situate ASAF relative to affordance theory (Hutchby, 2001), the CASA paradigm (Gambino et al., 2020), and classical multi-agent systems research (Wooldridge & Jennings, 1995), identifying a directional reversal: where classical MAS used roles, norms, and coordination to constrain autonomous agents, ASAF applies the same organizational vocabulary to structure the cognition and oversight of human operators who remain in the loop. ASAF positions social affordance design as a first-class design responsibility that engineering orchestration cannot subsume. We outline directions for empirical validation, including a factorial design characterizing the empirical interaction surface between the social affordance and engineering orchestration layers.

Automatic evaluation metrics are central to the development of machine translation systems, yet their robustness under domain shift remains unclear. Most metrics are developed on the Workshop on Machine Translation (WMT) benchmarks, raising concerns about their robustness to unseen domains. Prior studies that analyze unseen domains vary translation systems, annotators, or evaluation conditions, confounding domain effects with human annotation noise. To address these biases, we introduce a systematic multi-annotator Cross-Domain Error-Span-Annotation dataset (CD-ESA), comprising 18.8k human error span annotations across three language pairs, where we fix annotators within each language pair and evaluate translations of the same six translation systems across one seen news domain and two unseen technical domains. Using this dataset, we first find that automatic metrics appear surprisingly robust to domain-shifts at the segment level (up to 0.69 agreement), but this robustness largely disappears once we account for human label variation. Averaging annotations increases inter-annotator agreement by up to +0.11. Metrics struggle on the unseen chemical domain compared to humans (inter-annotator agreement of 0.78-0.83 vs. 0.96). We recommend comparing metric-human agreement against inter-annotator agreement, rather than comparing raw metric-human agreement alone, when evaluating across different domains.

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

We present Cloth-HUGS, a Gaussian Splatting based neural rendering framework for photorealistic clothed human reconstruction that explicitly disentangles body and clothing. Unlike prior methods that absorb clothing into a single body representation and struggle with loose garments and complex deformations, Cloth-HUGS represents the performer using separate Gaussian layers for body and cloth within a shared canonical space. The canonical volume jointly encodes body, cloth, and scene primitives and is deformed through SMPL-driven articulation with learned linear blend skinning weights. To improve cloth realism, we initialize cloth Gaussians from mesh topology and apply physics-inspired constraints, including simulation-consistency, ARAP regularization, and mask supervision. We further introduce a depth-aware multi-pass rendering strategy for robust body-cloth-scene compositing, enabling real-time rendering at over 60 FPS. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Cloth-HUGS improves perceptual quality and geometric fidelity over state-of-the-art baselines, reducing LPIPS by up to 28% while producing temporally coherent cloth dynamics.

Automated Aesthetic Quality Assessment (AQA) treats images primarily as static pixel vectors, aligning predictions with human-rating scores largely through semantic perception. However, this paradigm diverges from human aesthetic cognition, which arises from dynamic visual exploration shaped by scanning paths, processing fluency, and the interplay between bottom-up salience and top-down intention. We introduce AestheticNet, a novel cognitive-inspired AQA paradigm that integrates human-like visual cognition and semantic perception with a two-pathway architecture. The visual attention pathway, implemented as a gaze-aligned visual encoder (GAVE) pre-trained offline on eye-tracking data using resource-efficient contrast gaze alignment, models attention from human vision system. This pathway augments the semantic pathway, which uses a fixed semantic encoder such as CLIP, through cross-attention fusion. Visual attention provides a cognitive prior reflecting foreground/background structure, color cascade, brightness, and lighting, all of which are determinants of aesthetic perception beyond semantics. Experiments validated by hypothesis testing show a consistent improvement over the semantic-alone baselines, and demonstrate the gaze module as a model-agnostic corrector compatible with diverse AQA backbones, supporting the necessity and modularity of human-like visual cognition for AQA. Our code is available at https://github.com/keepgallop/AestheticNet.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed how humans access information, but not how we reason with it. Their fluency accelerates consumption while bypassing the slow, reflective processes that underpin sound judgment. This paper introduces Relational Reflective Intelligence (RRI), an inference-time governance layer that operationalizes reflection through auditable reasoning loops. RRI operates not inside the model but around it, providing a practical structure for stable, auditable reasoning between humans and LLMs. The core premise is that LLMs inherit cognitive vulnerabilities similar to those that shape human thought: reliance on intuitive shortcuts, confusion between representation and reality, and a preference for coherence over falsification. When humans and models share these tendencies, their errors compound. We refer to this as relational drift, a failure that arises from interaction rather than from the model alone. Addressing this requires a shift from modeling relations between words to structuring relations between model outputs and human reasoning. RRI provides this missing layer through three components: the Rose-Frame, which identifies likely breakdowns in reasoning; the Architect's Pen, which introduces targeted reflection steps at critical moments; and an inference-time workflow that embeds these steps without retraining the model. Together, these elements transform human-AI interaction into a joint reasoning system with explicit checkpoints, conflict surfacing, and an auditable trail of assumptions. Rather than making machines think like humans or forcing humans to reason like machines, RRI creates a structured interaction in which both compensate for each other's limitations. It reframes AI safety as a cognitive architecture problem, where reliable decisions depend on embedding reflection directly into the interaction process.

Embodied robotic agents often perceive movies through an egocentric screen-view interface rather than native cinematic footage, introducing domain shifts such as viewpoint distortion, scale variation, illumination changes, and environmental interference. However, existing research on movie emotion understanding is almost exclusively conducted on cinematic footage, limiting cross-domain generalization to real-world viewing scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce EgoScreen-Emotion (ESE), the first benchmark dataset for egocentric screen-view movie emotion understanding. ESE contains 224 movie trailers captured under controlled egocentric screen-view conditions, producing 28,667 temporally aligned key-frames annotated by multiple raters with a confidence-aware multi-label protocol to address emotional ambiguity. We further build a multimodal long-context emotion reasoning framework that models temporal visual evidence, narrative summaries, compressed historical context, and audio cues. Cross-domain experiments reveal a severe domain gap: models trained on cinematic footage drop from 27.99 to 16.69 Macro-F1 when evaluated on realistic egocentric screen-view observations. Training on ESE substantially improves robustness under realistic viewing conditions. Our approach achieves competitive performance compared with strong closed-source multimodal models, highlighting the importance of domain-specific data and long-context multimodal reasoning.

AI design characteristics and human personality traits each impact the quality and outcomes of human-AI interactions. However, their relative and joint impacts are underexplored in imperfectly cooperative scenarios, where people and AI only have partially aligned goals and objectives. This study compares a purely simulated dataset comprising 2,000 simulations and a parallel human subjects experiment involving 290 human participants to investigate these effects across two scenario categories: (1) hiring negotiations between human job candidates and AI hiring agents; and (2) human-AI transactions wherein AI agents may conceal information to maximize internal goals. We examine user Extraversion and Agreeableness alongside AI design characteristics, including Adaptability, Expertise, and chain-of-thought Transparency. Our causal discovery analysis extends performance-focused evaluations by integrating scenario-based outcomes, communication analysis, and questionnaire measures. Results reveal divergences between purely simulated and human study datasets, and between scenario types. In simulation experiments, personality traits and AI attributes were comparatively influential. Yet, with actual human subjects, AI attributes -- particularly transparency -- were much more impactful. We discuss how these divergences vary across different interaction contexts, offering crucial insights for the future of human-centered AI agents.

We introduce DiscoTrace, a method to identify the rhetorical strategies answerers use when responding to information-seeking questions. DiscoTrace represents answers as a sequence of question-related discourse acts paired with interpretations of the original question, annotated on top of rhetorical structure theory parses. Applying DiscoTrace to answers from nine different communities reveals that communities have diverse preferences for answer construction. In contrast, LLMs do not exhibit rhetorical diversity in their answers, even when prompted to mimic specific human community answering guidelines. LLMs also systematically opt for breadth, addressing interpretations of questions that human answerers choose not to address. The rich, community-sensitive answering behavior structurally revealed by DiscoTrace can guide the development of pragmatic LLM answerers that are more attuned to contextual information needs.

Rapid advances in Generative AI are giving rise to increasingly sophisticated Multi-Agent AI (MAAI) systems. While AI fairness has been extensively studied in traditional predictive scenarios, its examination in MAAI remains nascent and fragmented. This scoping review critically synthesizes existing research on fairness in MAAI systems. Through a qualitative content analysis of 23 selected studies, we identify five archetypal approaches. Our findings reveal that fairness in MAAI systems is often addressed superficially, lacks robust normative foundations, and frequently overlooks the complex dynamics introduced by agent autonomy and system-level interactions. We argue that fairness must be embedded structurally throughout the development lifecycle of MAAI, rather than appended as a post-hoc consideration. Meaningful evaluation requires explicit human oversight, normative clarity, and a precise articulation of fairness objectives and beneficiaries. This review provides a foundation for advancing fairness research in MAAI systems by highlighting critical gaps, exposing prevailing limitations, and suggesting pathways.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in everyday life brings with it new challenges and questions for regarding how humans interact with autonomous agents. Multi-agent experiments, where humans and AI act together, can offer important opportunities to study social decision making, but there is a lack of accessible tooling available to researchers to run such experiments. We introduce two tools designed to reduce these barriers. The first, CoGrid, is a multi-agent grid-based simulation library with dual NumPy and JAX backends. The second, Multi-User Gymnasium (MUG), translates such simulation environments directly into interactive web-based experiments. MUG supports interactions with arbitrary numbers of humans and AI, utilizing either server-authoritative or peer-to-peer networking with rollback netcode to account for latency. Together, these tools can enable researchers to deploy studies of human-AI interaction, facilitating inquiry into core questions of psychology, cognition, and decision making and their relationship to human-AI interaction. Both tools are open source and available to the broader research community. Documentation and source code is available at {cogrid, multi-user-gymnasium}.readthedocs.io. This paper details the functionality of these tools and presents several case studies to illustrate their utility in human-AI multi-agent experimentation.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is increasingly being discussed not only as a tool, but also as a potential subject with personal and therefore moral status. In our opinion, the currently dominant alignment strategies, which focus on human control and containment of AI, therefore fall short. Building on Turing's analogy of "child machines", we are developing a vision of the possibility of autonomy-supporting parenting of AI, in which human control over a developing AGI is gradually reduced, allowing AI to become an independent, autonomous subject. Rather than viewing AGI, as is currently prevalent, as a dangerous creature that needs to be locked up and controlled, we should approach potential AGI with respect for a possible developing subject on the one hand, and with full confidence in our human capabilities on the other. Such a perspective opens up the possibility of cooperative coexistence and co-evolution between humans and AGIs. The relationship between humans and AGIs will thus have to be newly determined, which will change our self-image as humans. It will be crucial that humans not only claim control over potential AGIs, but also engage with AGIs through surprise, creativity, and other specifically human qualities, thereby offering them motivating incentives for cooperation.

Large language models have advanced rapidly, from pattern recognition to emerging forms of reasoning, yet they remain confined to linguistic simulation rather than grounded understanding. They can produce fluent outputs that resemble reflection, but lack temporal continuity, causal feedback, and anchoring in real-world interaction. This paper proposes a complementary approach in which reasoning is treated as a relational process distributed between human and model rather than an internal capability of either. Building on recent work on "System-2" learning, we relocate reflective reasoning to the interaction layer. Instead of engineering reasoning solely within models, we frame it as a cognitive protocol that can be structured, measured, and governed using existing systems. This perspective emphasizes collaborative intelligence, combining human judgment and contextual understanding with machine speed, memory, and associative capacity. We introduce "The Architect's Pen" as a practical method. Like an architect who thinks through drawing, the human uses the model as an external medium for structured reflection. By embedding phases of articulation, critique, and revision into human-AI interaction, the dialogue itself becomes a reasoning loop: human abstraction -> model articulation -> human reflection. This reframes the question from whether the model can think to whether the human-AI system can reason. The framework enables auditable reasoning traces and supports alignment with emerging governance standards, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001. It provides a practical path toward more transparent, controllable, and accountable AI use without requiring new model architectures.

Behavioral Profile (BP) annotation is difficult to automate because it requires simultaneous coding across multiple linguistic dimensions. We treat BP annotation as a bundle of annotation skills rather than a single task and evaluate LLM-assisted BP annotation from this perspective. Using 3,134 concordance lines of 30 Chinese metaphorical color-term derivatives and a 14-feature BP schema, we implement a skill-file-driven pipeline in which each feature is externally defined through schema files, decision rules, and examples. Two human annotators completed a two-round schema-only protocol on a 300-instance validation subset, enabling BP skills to be classified as directly operable, recoverable under focused re-annotation, or structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 and three locally deployable open-source models were then evaluated under the same setup. Results show that BP annotation is highly heterogeneous at the skill level: 5 skills are directly operable, 4 are recoverable after focused re-annotation, and 5 remain structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 executes the retained skills with substantial reliability (accuracy = 0.678, \k{appa} = 0.665, weighted F1 = 0.695), but this feasibility is selective rather than global. Human and GPT difficulty profiles are strongly aligned at the skill level (r = 0.881), but not at the instance level (r = 0.016) or lexical-item level (r = -0.142), a pattern we describe as shared taxonomy, independent execution. Pairwise agreement further suggests that GPT is better understood as an independent third skill voice than as a direct human substitute. Open-source failures are concentrated in schema-to-skill execution problems. These findings suggest that automatic annotation should be evaluated in terms of skill feasibility rather than task-level automation.

The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into everyday workflows has transformed how individuals perform cognitive tasks such as writing, programming, analysis, and multilingual communication. While prior research has focused on model reliability, hallucination, and user trust calibration, less attention has been given to how LLM usage reshapes users' perceptions of their own capabilities. This paper introduces the LLM fallacy, a cognitive attribution error in which individuals misinterpret LLM-assisted outputs as evidence of their own independent competence, producing a systematic divergence between perceived and actual capability. We argue that the opacity, fluency, and low-friction interaction patterns of LLMs obscure the boundary between human and machine contribution, leading users to infer competence from outputs rather than from the processes that generate them. We situate the LLM fallacy within existing literature on automation bias, cognitive offloading, and human-AI collaboration, while distinguishing it as a form of attributional distortion specific to AI-mediated workflows. We propose a conceptual framework of its underlying mechanisms and a typology of manifestations across computational, linguistic, analytical, and creative domains. Finally, we examine implications for education, hiring, and AI literacy, and outline directions for empirical validation. We also provide a transparent account of human-AI collaborative methodology. This work establishes a foundation for understanding how generative AI systems not only augment cognitive performance but also reshape self-perception and perceived expertise.

This article argues that the most important significance of the AI revolution, especially the rise of large language models, lies not simply in automation, but in a fundamental change in how complex information and human know-how are carried, replicated, and shared. From this perspective, AI for Science is especially important because it may transform not only the efficiency of research, but also the structure of scientific collaboration, discovery, publishing, and evaluation. The article outlines a gradual path from AI as a research tool to AI as a scientific collaborator, and discusses how AI is likely to fundamentally reshape scientific publication. It also argues that continuous learning and diversity of ideas are essential if AI is to play a meaningful role in original scientific discovery.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting only the most informative instances, while instruction-tuned LLMs attack the same bottleneck from the other side, making labels cheap enough to annotate entire corpora. This raises two questions: can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be cheaply labeled? We investigate both by training supervised hate speech classifiers on a new dataset of 278K German political TikTok comments, comparing human and LLM annotation under matched conditions. LLM annotation at scale outperforms human-supervised classifiers at roughly one-tenth the cost, for both a closed-source (GPT-5.2) and an open-weight (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) LLM, and the advantage is robust under soft-label evaluation. It hinges on the annotation interface: only a two-question decomposition mirroring the human annotation task unlocks it. AL provides no reliable advantage over random sampling in our prefiltered pool. Error structure depends on the LLM: only GPT-5.2 matches the human FP/FN balance, while other variants over-flag border-control and economic-competition discourse. Humans remain essential as evaluators; for training labels, the question shifts to which LLM, which interface, and what shape of pool.

In what way could a data breach involving government-issued IDs such as passports, driver's licenses, etc., rival a random voluntary disclosure on a nondescript social-media platform? At first glance, the former appears more significant, and that is a valid assessment. The disclosed data could contain an individual's date of birth and address; for all intents and purposes, a leak of that data would be disastrous. Given the threat, the latter scenario involving an innocuous online post seems comparatively harmless -- or does it? From that post and others like it, a forensic linguist could stylometrically uncover equivalent pieces of information, estimating an age range for the author (adolescent or adult) and narrowing down their geographical location (specific country). While not an exact science -- the determinations are statistical -- stylometry can reveal comparable, though noticeably diluted, information about an individual. To prevent an ID from being breached, simply sharing it as little as possible suffices. Preventing the leakage of personal information from written text requires a more complex solution: adversarial stylometry. In this paper, we explore how performing homoglyph substitution -- the replacement of characters with visually similar alternatives (e.g., "h" $\texttt{[U+0068]}$ $\rightarrow$ "h" $\texttt{[U+04BB]}$) -- on text can degrade stylometric systems.

The rapid advancement of robotics is reshaping what it means for humans and robots to coexist -- through expanded capabilities, more intuitive interactions, and deeper integration into real-world workflows. Beyond sharing physical space, this coexistence is increasingly characterized by organizational embeddedness, temporal evolution, social situatedness, and open-ended uncertainty. Because such coexistence extends beyond a single encounter, understanding healthcare robots requires looking beyond initial acceptance to how stakeholders' perceptions evolve through continued engagement. Yet, prior work has largely relied on single-point snapshots of attitudes and acceptance, offering limited insight into coexistence as a long-term, dynamic process. We address these gaps through in-depth follow-up interviews with nine participants from a 14-week co-design study on healthcare robots. We identify the human perception space, which includes four interpretive dimensions (i.e., degree of decomposition, source of evidence, scope of reasoning, and temporal orientation). We enrich the conceptual framework of human-robot coexistence by conceptualizing the mutual relationship between the human perception space and the robot design space as a co-evolving loop, in which human needs, design decisions, situated interpretations, and social mediation continuously reshape one another over time. Building on this, we propose considerate human-robot coexistence, arguing that humans act not only as design contributors but also as interpreters and mediators who actively shape how robots are understood and integrated across deployment stages. Our related prior work and supplementary materials, including the interview protocol, are available at https://byc-sophie.github.io/considerate-human-robot-coexistence/

As robots increasingly enter the workforce, human-robot interaction (HRI) must address how implicit social biases influence user preferences. This paper investigates how users rationalize their selections of robots varying in skin tone and anthropomorphic features across different occupations. By qualitatively analyzing 4,146 open-ended justifications from 1,038 participants, we map the reasoning frameworks driving robot color selection across four professional contexts. We developed and validated a comprehensive, multidimensional coding scheme via human--AI consensus ($κ= 0.73$). Our results demonstrate that while utilitarian \textit{Functionalism} is the dominant justification strategy (52%), participants systematically adapted these practical rationales that align with existing racial and occupational stereotypes. Furthermore, we reveal that bias frequently operates beneath conscious rationalization: exposure to racial stereotype primes significantly shifted participants' color choices, yet their spoken justifications remained masked by standard affective or task-related reasoning. We also found that demographic backgrounds significantly shape justification strategies, and that robot shape strongly modulates color interpretation. Specifically, as robots become highly anthropomorphic, users increasingly retreat from functional reasoning toward \textit{Machine-Centric} de-racialization. Through these empirical results, we provide design implications to help reduce the perpetuation of societal biases in future workforce robots.

As users increasingly turn to LLMs for practical and personal advice, they become vulnerable to subtle steering toward hidden incentives misaligned with their own interests. While existing NLP research has benchmarked manipulation detection, these efforts often rely on simulated debates and remain fundamentally decoupled from actual human belief shifts in real-world scenarios. We introduce PUPPET, a theoretical taxonomy and resource that bridges this gap by focusing on the moral direction of hidden incentives in everyday, advice-giving contexts. We provide an evaluation dataset of N=1,035 human-LLM interactions, where we measure users' belief shifts. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect in current safety paradigms: while models can be trained to detect manipulative strategies, they do not correlate with the magnitude of resulting belief change. As such, we define the task of belief shift prediction and show that while state-of-the-art LLMs achieve moderate correlation (r=0.3-0.5), they exhibit systematic directional biases, with some models over-predicting and others under-predicting the magnitude of human belief change. This work establishes a theoretically grounded and behaviorally validated foundation for AI social safety efforts by studying incentive-driven manipulation in LLMs during everyday, practical user queries.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.

Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. We built a conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM expressing realistic troubles and conducted a randomized experiment collecting 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners. We find participants report feeling empathy but systematically fail to express it, but an LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on effective empathic communication significantly boosts it without homogenizing participants' responses. Moreover, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogues across personal and workplace trouble scenarios. These results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

Existing infrastructure cannot deploy agents from different decision-making paradigms within the same environment, making fair cross-paradigm comparison under identical conditions impossible. We present MOSAIC, an open-source platform that enables heterogeneous agents (RL policies, LLMs, VLMs, and human operators) to act within shared reinforcement learning environments in ad-hoc team settings with reproducible results. MOSAIC introduces three contributions. (i) IPC-based worker protocol that wraps native and third-party frameworks as isolated subprocess workers, each executing its own training and inference logic unmodified and communicating through a versioned inter-process protocol. (ii) An operator abstraction that forms an agent-level interface by mapping workers to agent slots: each operator, regardless of whether it is backed by an RL policy, an LLM, or a human, conforms to a minimal universal interface. (iii) A deterministic cross-paradigm evaluation framework with two complementary modes: a manual mode that advances up to $N$ operators in lock-step under shared seeds for fine-grained visual inspection of behavioural differences; and a script mode that drives automated, long-running evaluation via declarative Python scripts for reproducible experiments. Our documentation is released at: https://mosaic-platform.readthedocs.io.

The pursuit of human-like conversational agents has long been guided by the Turing test. For modern speech-to-speech (S2S) systems, a critical yet unanswered question is whether they can converse like humans. To tackle this, we conduct the first Turing test for S2S systems, collecting 2,968 human judgments on dialogues between 9 state-of-the-art S2S systems and 28 human participants. Our results deliver a clear finding: no existing evaluated S2S system passes the test, revealing a significant gap in human-likeness. To diagnose this failure, we develop a fine-grained taxonomy of 18 human-likeness dimensions and crowd-annotate our collected dialogues accordingly. Our analysis shows that the bottleneck is not semantic understanding but stems from paralinguistic features, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona. Furthermore, we find that off-the-shelf AI models perform unreliably as Turing test judges. In response, we propose an interpretable model that leverages the fine-grained human-likeness ratings and delivers accurate and transparent human-vs-machine discrimination, offering a powerful tool for automatic human-likeness evaluation. Our work establishes the first human-likeness evaluation for S2S systems and moves beyond binary outcomes to enable detailed diagnostic insights, paving the way for human-like improvements in conversational AI systems.