Human-Ai Collaboration

We investigate the challenges of enabling effective collaboration between human operators and heterogeneous autonomous agents in complex, dynamic environments by developing an interaction platform that allows study of operator behavior and supports intent inference and decision-making using state-of-the-art frameworks. We demonstrate the extent to which the operator's perception, decisions, and actions could be supported by autonomous systems during search-and-rescue operations with our platform.

The need for collaboration between diverse fields of research is increasingly recognised as important by research funding agencies. A significant driver of this need is the current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies. There is a growing interest in the potential impact of AI in different fields including the methodologies they use and the resulting advances in new knowledge, new access and enhanced productivity. However, there is also a corresponding increase in concern about the fundamentals of AI technologies and the way in which trans and/or interdisciplinary research is approached. The resulting collaboration too often ends up as a one-way street where the domain partner acts only as an information provider. For example, the contribution of the AHSS partner might be limited to providing insight about ethics and/or the technology partner may only provide a service to build applied AI-based solutions. In response to this problem, we propose a reciprocal approach to collaboration where both partners seek to understand, cooperate and identify jointly significant impacts. In this paper we explore this relationship between cultural heritage institutions (GLAMs), Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS) research and technology-led AI research, especially the impact of current technological advances in AI. Drawing from the history of convergence in GLAM studies, we propose five key practices to form a framework for greater understanding across this divide.

Cybersecurity literature has extensively documented the operational benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) for threat detection, incident response, and prevention, while raising qualitative concerns about over-automation, algorithmic bias, and analyst-skill erosion. What remains largely absent is a formal, falsifiable model connecting three constructs that recur across this literature: Defense-in-Depth Theory, the Artificial Intelligence Theory of Pattern Recognition, and human-AI collaboration in security operations. This paper develops such a model. We formalize layered defense as a Bernoulli detection cascade in which AI augmentation enters multiplicatively across layers; we formalize each layer's pattern-recognition behavior as a Neyman-Pearson/Bayesian detector with a derived closed-form optimal threshold; and we formalize human-AI triage as a capacity-constrained cascade with an explicit, quantifiable trade-off between detection probability and false-alarm ("alert fatigue") rate. A Monte Carlo/analytical simulation evaluated at illustrative but realistic operating points shows that (i) AI augmentation compounds across defense layers, delivering its largest marginal gains exactly where traditional layering saturates, and (ii) full human review of AI-flagged alerts is not optimal: increasing analyst capacity toward 100% coverage cuts false alarms by roughly 20-fold but simultaneously lowers system-level detection probability, because imperfect analyst accuracy is then applied to every alert rather than a filtered subset. These results give the widely repeated qualitative recommendation of "balanced human-AI collaboration" a precise, testable form and suggest an interior-optimum capacity ratio as a concrete design target for security operations centers (SOCs), including those securing IT/OT-converged critical infrastructure.

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

Music and dance are social practices of expression and connection, yet most HCI work in human-AI co-creation centers the solo performer. As generative music matures, we ask not only what AI can compose but what social encounters it can organize around sound. We present Encypher, a collaborative generative music system that translates collective movement qualities into text prompts conditioning real-time music generation for dance cyphers. Through five weeks of co-design with local dancers, a user study with unacquainted participants, a public museum event, and a live performance, we found that users developed shared agency, perceiving the music as a response to the room's energy. While newcomers felt uncertain, the system fostered social presence by prompting them to look to each other for cues. By treating sociality as a design concern rather than a downstream effect, we offer a framework and design implications for AI systems for collaborative, embodied expression.

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

As AI agents become participants in the development of their successors, they reshape both the production of intelligence and the role of human researchers. We introduce Atria Dawn Preview, a foundation agentic language model designed for scientific research and engineering workflows, with the goal of expanding the frontier of agent productivity in the real world. This model is trained via a Verifiable Experience Pipeline that connects tool-mediated interactions to executable environments and externally verified outcomes. Across 16 benchmarks spanning real-world research, engineering, and digital work, Atria Dawn Preview is competitive with frontier agents and achieves the highest reported score on five of them. Beyond standalone performance, we examine the real research-and-development process behind this model as a case study of human--AI collaboration, analyzing 769 task records from 56 participants together with agent logs. When asked to evaluate completed tasks under comparable conditions, participants rated about one-third of completed AI-assisted tasks as infeasible without AI. More strikingly, agents frequently propose methods and implement revisions, while humans retain most final decisions and guide exploration through judgment and feedback. These observations indicate a shift from task-level execution to project-level partnership, with human effort concentrating on what is worth pursuing and how evidence should guide research. Progress toward more autonomous AI research must therefore advance both the capacity for discovery and the capacity for meaningful human oversight, preserving accountable human authority over the risks and direction of continued development.

We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI. However, such metrics ignore the greater impacts of human--agent collaboration in transforming the nature of work. To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today, and instead focus on how AI can augment entire workflows of the future. To ground this analysis, we establish a precise definition of AI augmentation comprising six conditions, spanning durable net value, meaningful human control, accountability and recovery, and long-term human development through learning, career pathways, and job purpose. We elaborate on these conditions and apply the framework in a case study of AI-mediated social surveys. We conclude by outlining how organisations, researchers, and government leaders can use this framework to make sense of the future of work.

Sports data analysts translate domain questions into insights by combining computation with sport-specific domain expertise. Large language models ease programming, but prompt-to-report workflows may obscure decisions and evidence. We present AI Soccer Analyst, a mixed-initiative system with revisable stages: Data Understanding, Problem Definition, Structured Planning, Execution, Evidence-Grounded Reporting, and Interaction and Refinement. A formative study with five analysts first informed design goals for automation, verifiability, human control, and accessibility. Subsequently, a task-based evaluation with 16 participants combined system logs, retained artifacts, ratings, and open responses; 33 of 48 tasks met the operational completion criteria. Exploratory tests supported favorable participant perceptions of completed-task output quality, task achievement, reliability, and verifiability after Holm correction. Interaction records showed domain knowledge emerging through clarification, planning, and refinement. These findings position stage-aware human-AI collaboration as a practical approach for producing inspectable, revisable, and verifiable analyses while retaining domain-expert involvement in consequential decisions.

Organizational design in the era of artificial intelligence requires experimental methods that can test how human-AI groups coordinate, delegate, and make decisions. Programmable platforms coordinate live human-to-human sessions or real-time human-AI chat, but researchers cannot easily declare experiment protocols in which AI participants both communicate and act on shared work within one auditable configuration. Here we introduce Pairit, an online platform that facilitates the design, testing, and deployment of experiments that test human-AI organizational designs and interventions. Through a single YAML configuration file, researchers declare an executable experiment graph (pages, routing, randomization, matchmaking, chat, shared workspaces, server-hosted agents, surveys, timers, and custom HTML components) and combine any number of humans and AI agents in live sessions. We have validated the feasibility of the platform through multiple live deployments, including peer-reviewed published studies, capturing high-resolution process traces of communication, negotiation, and collaborative work in live human-AI dyads. By representing complex interactive protocols as standardized, auditable configuration files, Pairit provides reusable infrastructure for specifying, deploying, and sharing live human-AI organizational experiments.

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) generate a scientific hypothesis outside a human collaborator's active hypothesis space (AHS), and can human-AI research be organized to make such breakthroughs more likely? We document such a case while proving a theorem that connects two basic organizing mechanisms of statistical physics: collective behavior arising in zero field from competing interactions and that induced or controlled by an external field. A zero-field $O(n)$-vector open chain with arbitrary inhomogeneous nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interaction functions $U_i(S_i\cdot{S}_{i+1})$ and $V_i(S_i\cdot{S}_{i+2})$ is microscopically, via a temperature-independent mapping at the Hamiltonian level, equivalent to a simpler $O(n)$ open chain with nearest-neighbor interaction $V_i( σ_i\cdot σ_{i+1})$ and axial single-spin potential $U_i(σ_i^z)$ for every integer $n\ge1$ and every system size $L\ge1$. The homogeneous linear specialization maps the foundational frustrated $J_1$-$J_2$ model onto the canonical $J$-$h$ field model---with $n=1,2,3$ being the Ising, XY, and Heisenberg classical spin models, respectively. An analogous theorem holds when the continuous $O(n)$ spins are replaced by the $q$-state Potts spins with the standard Potts interaction, implying a closed-form exact solution of the $J_1$-$J_2$ Potts open chain for every $q\ge2$ and every $L\ge1$. The emergence of the theorems from sustained human-AI collaboration suggests that involving AI throughout a systematic research program may incubate autonomous scientific breakthroughs.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are interpretable-by-design neural networks that detect human-understandable concepts from the input and use them to generate predictions. By allowing users to inspect the concepts underlying a prediction and explore how predictions change under alternative concept configurations, CBMs have emerged as one of the most prominent approaches to supporting human-AI collaboration. However, user studies investigating their actual effectiveness as decision-support systems remain limited. We present two large-scale user studies (N participants = 705, N observations = 6,959) evaluating how concept-based explanations and user interventions on the model's concepts affect the performance of the human-AI team in two distinct binary classification tasks. Our results show that CBMs, and particularly their interactive component, can improve human-AI team accuracy relative to both unaided human performance and performance with non-interpretable AI support. However, these benefits emerge only under certain conditions: classification tasks perceived as difficult, easily identifiable concepts, and active interaction with the model. We also discuss how inaccurate concept detection may undermine users' trust in the model. Overall, this work provides practical guidance for the deployment of CBMs as effective decision-support tools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

The rapid progress of AI has intensified the long-standing pursuit of automation: replacing human participation with algorithms wherever possible. Implicit in this pursuit is the assumption that humans remain in the loop only because current AI systems are not yet sufficiently capable. This paper challenges that assumption. Rather than asking how far automation can extend, we ask where its conceptual limits lie and argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems for three distinct reasons. Technical or complementarity grounds arise when humans contribute capabilities or perspectives unavailable to AI. Normative or developmental grounds arise when participation itself is valuable for human agency or learning. Most importantly, emergence grounds arise from target emergence: in some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself. In these cases, human participation is not merely a means of improving execution but is constitutive of the target being produced. Human--AI co-construction, understood as the joint production of outcomes by humans and AI systems, is therefore not simply a temporary response to imperfect AI, but a persistent feature of activities whose objectives emerge through participation. This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation and for the design, evaluation, and ethics of future AI systems.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming organizations, raising a fundamental organizational and economic question: when will a human employee be replaced by AI? We present an analytical model for studying Human--AI Task Allocation (HAT) in hierarchical organizations. A central feature of the HAT model is that it formally encodes the economic asymmetry between human skill acquisition and AI capability scaling. The HAT model allows us to derive how risk-adjusted costs, skills, organizational depth, deployment scale, strategic adaptation, and risk jointly determine when, where, why, and under what structural conditions human--AI replacement occurs. A key result is the Human--AI Substitution Principle, which provides a precise condition --- grounded in the formal asymmetry assumption --- under which AI replaces human labor. Building on this result, we show that AI adoption can produce abrupt workforce transitions, hybrid human--AI organizations, including cases where risk heterogeneity sustains human and AI roles without requiring a minimum-human-fraction constraint, and flatter managerial hierarchies with wider spans of control. The HAT model identifies structural conditions under which middle-management roles exhibit elevated vulnerability to automation, and shows that the vulnerability of highly skilled workers depends on a skill threshold shaped by organizational depth, baseline costs, and risk differentials. More broadly, the paper connects automation economics, organizational design, AI governance, and workforce planning into a unified theory of AI-driven organizational transformation.

The report envisions a decade in which drones move goods, medical supplies, and information at a scale comparable to national infrastructure investments like highways and the electric grid. Potential applications include natural disaster detection drones that spot wildfire sources within minutes, medical supply chains that bypass ground congestion to reach rural hospitals, and nationwide fleets that continuously inspect bridges and power lines. Realizing this future, however, requires closing what report authors call a "capability gap," where hardware and aspirations are outpacing the software and systems needed to operate safely at scale. The report identifies twelve technical challenges that must be addressed to realize the transformative potential of drone technology: Scaling to millions of drones; AI intelligence and assurance; Edge-cloud continuum and real-time coordination; AI autonomy and agentic systems; Data, training, and validation infrastructure; Critical infrastructure protection; Building reliable fleets from non-deterministic agents; Trust, security, and distributed authentication; Next-generation drone networks; Human-AI partnership and scalable insight; Standards, certification, and regulation; and Workforce development and education. These twelve challenges and proposed approaches to them form the basis of the report, laying out a multifaceted path forward for the evolution of done technology.

As generative AI is increasingly applied to automate multi-step and high-stake workflows, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs. In practice, while it is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps, such oversight is constrained by the time and resources that humans can afford. This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention. An important but underexplored question, then, is how to optimally engage humans in human-AI coworking. This work was originally motivated by our empirical observation that in long AI workflows, human oversight often improves user satisfaction while reducing unnecessary rework and token consumption. From there, we formulate the problem of where to place oversight stages in human-AI coworking. Under reasonable assumptions, we then develop the nonuniformity principle, which states that the optimal schedule places oversight stages with non-decreasing gaps along the workflow. We empirically validate this principle in two common AI agent workflows: writing literature reviews and constructing websites.

Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance. PHP-AIO (Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations) is a five-gate sequential decision protocol with a final composite check that quantifies these unpriced systemic risks at the role level and produces auditable automation decisions. A closed-form automation-debt measure ($ρ(P)$) formalises how role-level decisions accumulate across multi-step processes; its warning is neutralised only by a regulator-mandated human-in-the-loop anchor. Applied to stylised profiles of representative internal roles, PHP-AIO produces distinct outcomes -- automate, augment, hybrid, and preserve -- for candidates that standard cost-benefit analysis would uniformly automate. Threshold sensitivity analysis confirms the gate decisions are robust to upward perturbations of at least 14% in three of four representative cases. Keywords: AI governance, automation decision, human oversight, tacit knowledge, organizational resilience, financial services

LLM-based agents excel at writing articles, coding and information retrieval. However, they fail to form strong collaborations within the scientific community due to the bidirectional, dynamic nature of the problem and a high demand of decision interpretability. We proposed COWEAVER, a bidirectional, learnable and explainable algorithm to match scientists and form strong collaborations within a human-agent network. COWEAVER matches candidates and requesters through filling capability gaps and filters candidates through a two-stage ranking step. Finally, the model explores newcomers by maintaining uncertainty-aware capability estimates and updating them through requester's feedback. We show that the selection mechanism of combining both exploration (UCB) and greedy of COWEAVER exceeds the greedy-only mechanism - the analytical best solution - on 6 out of the 20 tasks and performed on par with the greedy-only mechanism in terms of selecting the best candidate. We compared COWEAVER baselines in terms of matching quality and efficiency. COWEAVER outperforms baselines on all metrics.

Abductive reasoning operates in two directions. The synthetic mode builds explanations from available hypotheses; the analytic mode, conversely, identifies the latent factors whose interaction accounts for a complex observed state. This paper develops the analytic mode as a non-greedy, risk-sensitive discipline of commitment, in which candidate factors coexist and interact, resolving into committed conclusions only when explicit governance conditions are met. The formal core is the $κ$-$τ$ apparatus: $κ$ encodes the epistemic interaction among hypotheses, and $τ$ sets a commitment threshold calibrated to the decision's stakes. The central contribution is the causal cluster, a structured object recording which latent factors participate in a decomposition, with what weights and interaction structure, together with a two-level architecture (intra-cluster $κ^*$, inter-cluster $κ^{**}$) that guards against causal misattribution. Demonstrated in epidemiological crisis decomposition and adversarial cyber threat analysis, the framework's contribution to human-AI reasoning is the legibility of suspended decomposition as a shared coordination object, providing structural resistance to premature convergence. In practice, the decision-maker is handed not a single imposed answer but the competing explanatory scenarios, weighted by plausibility and paired with the evidence that would resolve between them, so that sound action is possible even before the ambiguity is resolved.

Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition. In this paper, we propose MathCoPilot, a human-in-the-loop system that embodies a new human--AI symbiotic paradigm for mathematical research, in which the mathematician steers the high-level mathematical direction while AI agents carry out the detailed formalization and proof work under continuous human guidance. MathCoPilot unifies three core capabilities: (1) an interactive workbench where the mathematician and AI agents collaborate through a living proof blueprint that decomposes a proof into navigable steps the human can directly inspect, direct, and refine; (2) automated proving skill orchestration with adaptive knowledge base search and Lean-integrated iterative verification; and (3) topic-driven paper retrieval and automated formalization into a verified Lean knowledge base. Using MathCoPilot, we systematically compare four state-of-the-art LLMs, including Gemini3.1Pro, GPT-5.4, and ClaudeOpus4.7, on a FormalMATH subset and on two real PDE theorems requiring deep domain expertise, evaluating their ability to produce verified Lean~4 proofs and to identify errors in deliberately incorrect proofs. Our results show that while current models can handle undergraduate-level problems with high success rates under favorable autoformalization conditions, substantial challenges remain for domain-specific theorems requiring genuine mathematical understanding.

Agentic coding tools are increasingly capable of generating and submitting pull requests (PRs) to software projects, introducing new forms of human-agent collaboration in software development. While prior studies have examined PR-level outcomes of agent-generated contributions, less is known about how agentic coding tools are adopted and managed at the project level. In this paper, we analyze 25,264 agentic PRs from 2,361 popular GitHub repositories to investigate (1) the adoption of agentic coding tools, (2) project-level agentic PR productivity, and (3) human-agent collaboration patterns. Our results show that the median repository generates only one to two agentic PRs during a three-month period, indicating that intensive adoption remains concentrated in a small subset of projects. At the same time, small projects (1-5 contributors) exhibit higher participation ratios and average levels of agentic PR activity than medium-sized and large projects. We also observe substantial variation in project-level agentic PR productivity. While a small number of projects exceed an industry-reported estimate of 36 PRs per participant during the three-month observation period, most projects remain below this threshold. Finally, human-agent collaboration is dominated by a single-human oversight model, in which one developer reviews and/or modifies the agent's contributions, while multi-human collaboration patterns remain uncommon. These findings provide early empirical evidence on how open-source projects organize human oversight around agentic coding tools and suggest that successful integration of agent-generated contributions depends not only on advances in agent capabilities but also on the human and organizational processes that govern their use. Because this study captures an early snapshot of agent adoption, future work should continue to track how adoption patterns evolve over time.

This study examines the integration of AI into Human Resource Management in German companies. We ask if and how AI-based technologies are \enquote{augmenting} human resource management. Organisations employ generative AI or predictive analytics to transform traditional human resource functions, to streamline routine tasks and to reallocate resources toward strategic, people-centred activities. Our findings from interviews and group discussions and a survey (N=410) reveal that while AI tools enhance HR analytics capabilities, their adoption mainly serves efficiency and rationalising goals. The introduction of AI tools is shaped by organisational transformation factors such as digital infrastructure, co-determination frameworks, and ethical implications. The research highlights both the strategic potential for improved talent development and the challenges posed by data governance and algorithmic transparency. Overall, this work contributes to understanding the ambiguous role of technological change in HR, which promises to augment predictive capabilities yet serves the ends of efficiency and rationalisation.

Most AI-for-science systems focus on scaling a single reasoning process through better models, larger context windows, long-horizon agentic execution, or digital co-scientists working with one principal user. However, challenging scientific problems are rarely solved by one reasoner alone. They are solved by teams whose members bring different priors, experimental backgrounds, tacit knowledge, and domain-trained intuitions. The open problem is therefore not only how to scale models, but how to cultivate networked intelligence: scaling the connections between humans and AI systems so that a result or hypothesis produced in one context reaches another person, agent, instrument, or robot that can act on it. We introduce Mycelium, an active shared workspace that automatically connects researchers and AI agents as a multi-user co-scientist. As human users and agents work, the system captures important observations and hypotheses, tracks how they relate to the team's evolving model, and routes them to the person or agent whose next decision they can inform. We evaluate Mycelium in its first empirical test, a biological multi-omics campaign in which routed shared context turned a local analytical finding into a cross-expert mechanistic constraint and ultimately into an experimental design. We also give networked intelligence a computational account as sparse conditional computation over distributed scientific contexts. This account distinguishes when a scaled standalone agent can match the network from when independent expertise and non-mergeable contexts make the network irreducible.

Scientific discovery increasingly depends on interdisciplinary teams whose members contribute distinct expertise, conceptual frameworks, vocabularies, assumptions, and standards of evidence. Today's AI research assistants are largely designed to support individual researchers through literature review, writing assistance, coding, and data analysis. While these capabilities improve personal productivity, they provide little support for the collaborative reasoning required to integrate knowledge across disciplines. We argue that AI research assistants should evolve from tools that optimize individual workflows to systems designed for interdisciplinary teams. We introduce aïra, an AI research assistant built around this idea. Rather than focusing solely on summarization or question answering, aïra identifies disciplinary perspectives, translates terminology, highlights assumptions, and synthesizes collaborative research opportunities. We describe the design principles underlying aïra, present its system architecture, illustrate its outputs through interdisciplinary research meetings, and outline future research directions for AI systems that support collaborative scholarship.

Large language model (LLM) agents can plan, use tools, maintain memory, and execute long-horizon tasks. This paper proposes Self-Aware Recursively Self-Improving (SARSI) agents: governed agents that maintain a persistent self-model of identity, goals, capabilities, limitations, uncertainty, relationships, history, and developmental change, and use that model to guide and evaluate recursive improvement. Self-awareness is defined functionally and does not imply subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness. We pair SARSI agents with personal singularity, a bounded human-AI co-development objective in which an agent ecosystem helps a user approach an expanding, user-defined feasible capability frontier. Each agent has a goal contract, bounded scope, validated tool registry, tool tests, end-to-end benchmarks, owner-controlled autonomy, routing, memory, self-model, and improvement policy. A scope router assigns every accepted task to one accountable primary agent and transfers out-of-scope work through structured handoffs. A user-facing Auto-Index selects interactive, hybrid, autonomous, or scheduled behavior without overriding external permissions. The architecture combines a planner-executor-verifier loop, an evidence-gated improvement loop, an external governance plane, decentralized lineages, an owner-directed agent foundry, and a Personal Singularity OS coordinating working, computational-imaging, work-process-learning, and personal-learning agents. We formalize functional self-awareness, scope, routing, improvement acceptance, bounded goal evolution, tool-first execution, and human capability transfer, and provide safety invariants, benchmark design, and a staged implementation roadmap. This is a position and systems-design paper, not evidence that consciousness, unrestricted recursive self-improvement, or personal singularity has been achieved.

Sharp et al. (2025) introduce "agentic inequality" as a framework for analyzing disparities in access to AI agents across three dimensions: availability, quality, and quantity. These person- and organization-level dimensions characterize who can access agents and at what capability, but do not address a structurally important divide operating at a finer level: the individual interaction. Two users with nominally equivalent agent access may experience qualitatively different AI utility depending on whether the system can autonomously retrieve context from the user's knowledge corpus (Dynamic Context Retrieval) or requires the user to manually identify and attach relevant documents at each query (Manual Attachment). We term this the Context Access Divide (CAD). For knowledge-intensive workers whose intellectual capital spans tens of thousands of files, the CAD constitutes a qualitative threshold in AI usefulness: below it, the cognitive burden of context curation falls on the human, reproducing the inefficiencies AI is meant to eliminate. We propose contextuality -- the degree to which an AI system autonomously accesses a user's accumulated knowledge capital -- as a dimension of AI-mediated inequality that complements, but is not reducible to, the Sharp et al. framework. We formalize the CAD with a probabilistic model grounded in the fan effect literature in cognitive psychology, demonstrating that manual context attachment leads to a combinatorial collapse in task-success probability as corpus size and task conjunctivity grow, while dynamic retrieval architectures are structurally insulated from this collapse. We analyze the technical basis of this divide in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architectures, and examine its implications for knowledge-work stratification and AI platform governance.

Understanding how artworks are created requires reasoning about the iterative decisions, material operations, and contextual influences that shape artistic production. While recent generative AI systems can synthesize artworks with high fidelity, they primarily model distributions over finished artifacts rather than the creative processes underlying their creation. In practice, artistic workflows are only partially documented through fragmented sources such as archival records, preparatory studies, correspondence, etc., making process-level understanding difficult to formalize computationally. In this work, we introduce ArtMine, a framework for discovering and formalizing artistic processes from heterogeneous historical evidence. Our approach synthesizes heterogeneous artwork evidence into a structured repository, from which a Peircean abductive agent infers evidence-grounded production steps. These steps are converted into a compositional graph and rendering prompt, then optimized through self-reflection over deviations between the generated and reference artworks. We provide a preliminary proof-of-concept case study using open-domain historical sources across multiple artists and artistic movements, demonstrating that fragmented documentary evidence can support coherent, interpretable, and auditable representations of artistic workflows. By modeling creative processes rather than only final artifacts, our work moves toward process-centred human-AI co-creativity systems that can support artistic interpretation, creative education, reflective collaboration, and computational studies of cultural production.

Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages. However, current systems remain fundamentally limited in tackling frontier research mathematics, such as discovering new theorems or resolving open conjectures, which are often open-ended, under-specified, and involve multiple layers of abstraction. We argue that the next leap in AI4Math systems requires a decisive shift from predefined problem-solvers to research agents that can address frontier mathematical challenges with rigorous formal mathematical reasoning. In this position paper, we provide a systematic review of the field, covering datasets, auto-formalization, and proof synthesis. More importantly, we identify core limitations of existing systems in serving as mathematical research agents, examining issues across datasets, relational structure, mathematical exploration, tool ecosystem, and human-AI collaboration, outlining a strategic road-map for the future of AI4Math.

Humans continuously coordinate with others in dynamic interactions, often through implicit, hard-to-quantify social norms that act as shared tacit expectations among interacting agents. As AI agents, including large language models (LLMs), become embedded in daily life, they increasingly participate in such interactions and reshape social interaction structures. Yet they often fail to coordinate with humans in an effective, considerate, and natural manner. We hypothesize that this gap arises because existing approaches align model behavior with human demonstrations without explicitly quantifying the underlying norms that generate such behavior. We selected pedestrian-vehicle interaction as a representative dynamic interaction and developed a simplified experimental platform that captures its key interactive features. From 3,456 dynamic human interactions collected via this platform, we identified three principles underlying human social norms: outcome predictability, value alignment, and advantage awareness. Incorporating these principles into AI agents significantly improves human-AI coordination. In the closed-loop interaction task with humans, the social-norm-informed LLM achieved a nearly fourfold higher total score than the baseline strategy and outperformed human-human interactions by 43%. These findings indicate that formalizing tacit social norms into explicit, quantifiable principles can enable AI agents to achieve mutually beneficial coordination in dynamic interactions, supporting their more natural integration into human society.

Machine learning models are often intended to augment rather than replace human decision makers, by providing information that is complementary to human judgement. Yet, in practice, human decision makers routinely fail to realize such complementary gains, even when models provide useful signal. In this work, we study how asymmetric information about the quality of information available to a human decision maker vs. an AI impacts the ability of a decision maker to extract complementary value from AI predictions. We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions. In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are \textit{negatively correlated} with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility. We empirically investigate whether these conditions for complementarity arise in practice, using real-world forecasting benchmarks.

We study a human-AI service system in which tasks arrive sequentially and are processed through a two-stage architecture: an automated chatbot followed, when necessary, by a human agent. We consider $T$ sequentially arriving tasks, each belonging to one of $K$ heterogeneous types. For each task the decision maker chooses how many resources to allocate to the chatbot, whose type-dependent success probabilities are initially unknown. Tasks not resolved by the chatbot enter type-dependent human-service queues, where they are processed by a human agent with unknown service rates. This model captures a central tradeoff in hybrid service systems: relying more on automation reduces human congestion but increases chatbot costs, while insufficient automation may overload the human agent. We propose the UCB-DPP policy, which combines Upper Confidence Bounds with Drift-Plus-Penalty control to learn the unknown parameters of the system while making queue-aware decisions. We prove that UCB-DPP achieves regret $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(K\sqrt{T})$ and guarantees mean-rate stability of the human-service queues. Simulations on synthetic instances show that the proposed policy outperforms natural baselines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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