Human-AI Collaboration

Human-AI collaboration often requires dividing complex tasks into complementary subtasks. As a task unfolds, users may want to shift which subtasks they perform and which their AI partner performs, in response to evolving task demands and perceptions of the AI's capabilities. In this work, we investigate whether behavioral signals can reveal such changes during a sequential decision-making task. We conducted a study using hand-and-brain chess, where, on each turn, participants chose either to select the piece type (brain) while their AI partner chose the move (hand), or to choose the move after the AI selected the piece type. Across 21 chess players, this yielded more than 1,100 decisions to retain their role from the previous turn or switch to the other role. Players generally retained their current roles across turns. When participants did switch, they exhibited more exploratory gaze patterns and role switches were associated with lower subsequent move quality. Using these behavioral and task-specific signals, we trained a classifier to distinguish switch from stay decisions, achieving a PR-AUC of 0.56 (compared to a random baseline of 0.39). Feature-set ablations showed that gaze and task-specific features contributed most to model performance. Role switching was not a simple choice between controlling and delegating the task as both roles required participants to perform one subtask and delegate the other. However, interviews showed that many participants perceived selecting the piece type as giving them greater control. Perceived AI ability, relative subtask difficulty, and desired influence over the direction of play shaped these role preferences. These findings suggest that behavioral cues could help intelligent systems recognize when users want to reallocate complementary responsibilities during collaboration.

Agentic Software Engineering (SE 3.0) represents a new era where intelligent agents are tasked not with simple code generation, but with achieving complex, goal-oriented SE objectives. To harness these new capabilities while ensuring trustworthiness, we must recognize a fundamental duality within the SE field in the Agentic SE era, comprising two symbiotic modalities: SE for Humans and SE for Agents. This duality demands a radical reimagining of the foundational pillars of SE (actors, processes, tools, and artifacts) which manifest differently across each modality. We propose two purpose-built workbenches to support this vision. The Agent Command Environment (ACE) serves as a command center where humans orchestrate and mentor agent teams, handling outputs such as Merge-Readiness Packs (MRPs) and Consultation Request Packs (CRPs). The Agent Execution Environment (AEE) is a digital workspace where agents perform tasks while invoking human expertise when facing ambiguity or complex trade-offs. This bi-directional partnership, which supports agent-initiated human callbacks and handovers, gives rise to new, structured engineering activities (i.e., processes) that redefine human-AI collaboration, elevating the practice from agentic coding to true agentic software engineering. This paper presents the Structured Agentic Software Engineering (SASE) vision, outlining several of the foundational pillars for the future of SE. The paper culminates in a research roadmap that identifies a few key challenges and opportunities while briefly discussing the resulting impact of this future on SE education. Our goal is not to offer a definitive solution, but to provide a conceptual scaffold with structured vocabulary to catalyze a community-wide dialogue, pushing the SE community to think beyond its classic, human-centric tenets toward a disciplined, scalable, and trustworthy agentic future.

The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) is growing in the productive completion of Software Engineering tasks. Yet, studies investigating productive prompting techniques often employed a limited problem space, focusing primarily on well-known prompting patterns and targeting function-level SE practices. We identify significant gaps in real-world workflows that involve complexities beyond class-level (e.g., multi-class dependencies) and different features that can impact Human-LLM Interaction (HLI) processes in code generation. To address these issues, we designed an experiment to comprehensively analyze HLI features related to code generation productivity. Our study presents two project-level benchmark tasks that extend beyond function-level evaluations. We conducted a user study with 36 participants from diverse backgrounds, asking them to solve the assigned tasks by interacting with the GPT assistant using specific prompting patterns. We also examined participants' experiences and behavioral features during interactions by analyzing screen recordings and GPT chat logs. Our empirical investigation, based on statistical guidance, revealed (1) that three out of 15 HLI features emerged as consistently supported factors for productivity; (2) five primary guidelines for enhancing productivity for HLI processes; and (3) a taxonomy of 29 runtime and logic errors that can occur during HLI processes, along with suggested mitigation plans.

Collaborative partnerships play a crucial role in inquiry-oriented education. However, most learning partners are currently assigned through experience-driven heuristics or rule-based machine assistants, which often result in limited knowledge expansion and low adaptability. To address these challenges, this study introduces InqEduAgent, an LLM-empowered generative agent framework designed to simulate and select adaptive learning partners for inquiry-based learning. InqEduAgent integrates a Gaussian process-augmented matching mechanism to model the cognitive and evaluative characteristics of learners, allowing adaptive partner selection based on prior knowledge patterns. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that InqEduAgent consistently achieves superior performance across diverse learning scenarios and large language model configurations. This study advances human-AI collaborative learning by enabling intelligent pairing between human- and AI-based learning partners, and contributes to adaptive user modeling and personalized recommendation within Web-based educational environments.

Mental health is a growing global concern, prompting interest in AI-driven solutions to expand access to psychosocial support. Peer support, grounded in lived experience, offers a valuable complement to professional care. However, variability in training, effectiveness, and definitions raises concerns about quality, consistency, and safety. Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to enhance peer support interactions, particularly in real-time, text-based interactions. We present and evaluate an AI-supported system with an LLM-simulated distressed client (SimClient), context-sensitive LLM-generated suggestions (Suggestions), and real-time emotion visualisations. 2 mixed-methods studies with 12 peer supporters and 6 mental health professionals (i.e., experts) examined the system's effectiveness and implications for practice. Both groups recognised its potential to enhance training and improve interaction quality. However, we found a key tension emerged: while peer supporters engaged meaningfully, experts consistently flagged critical issues in peer supporter responses, such as missed distress cues and premature advice-giving. This misalignment highlights potential limitations in current peer support training, especially in emotionally charged contexts where safety and fidelity to best practices are essential. Our findings underscore the need for standardised, psychologically grounded training, especially as peer support scales globally. They also demonstrate how LLM-supported systems can scaffold this development--if designed with care and guided by expert oversight. This work contributes to emerging conversations on responsible AI integration in mental health and the evolving role of LLMs in augmenting peer-delivered care.

The goal of the current study is to introduce a triadic human-AI collaboration framework that could be applied in transportation systems such as automated vehicles, micromobility systems, and vehicle teleoperation. Previous standards, such as SAE Levels of Automation, have focused on defining automation levels based on who controls the vehicle. However, it is still not clear how human users and AI should collaborate in real time, especially in dynamic driving contexts where roles can shift frequently. To fill this gap, this study proposed a triadic human-AI collaboration framework with three AI roles: Advisor, Co-Pilot, and Guardian. These roles can dynamically adapt to human needs based on real-time data, such as mental states and environmental conditions. The Advisor AI offers informational support without direct intervention. The Co-Pilot AI provides partial intervention when needed, with the goal of sharing control with humans. The Guardian AI performs emergency overrides if necessary. The use cases for these AI roles in micromobility devices, such as e-scooters, are presented to demonstrate how these roles can influence user preferences and trust. Overall, the study takes a first step toward a universal role-based collaborative framework for AI standardization and explores how AI technologies can be embedded in future transportation systems while considering human interactions.

Professional users need tools to help them gain actionable insights from large multimedia collections. Foundation models and AI agents have rapidly changed the playing field, and improving their accuracy, trustworthiness, and reasoning capabilities are active topics in the computer vision, machine learning, and multimedia communities. Most current research focuses on benchmark driven algorithmic improvements. The multimedia community is the place to go beyond algorithms and consider complete multimedia analytics systems that support professional users in their complex tasks and achieve a true teaming of humans and AI. Supporting users with machine learning and visualizations has been studied for decades in the visual analytics field. In this paper, we propose a framework to bring multimedia and visual analytics together and indicate how it could impact current and new multimedia analytics solutions. Additional information can be found at https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/m.worring/analytics-model.html

Thematic analysis (TA) is a widely used qualitative approach for uncovering latent meanings in unstructured text data. TA provides valuable insights in healthcare but is resource-intensive. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been introduced to perform TA, yet their applications in high-stakes healthcare settings, particularly for qualitative clinical interview analysis, remain limited. Here, we propose TAMA: A Human-AI Collaborative Thematic Analysis framework using Multi-Agent LLMs for clinical interviews. We leverage the scalability and coherence of multi-agent systems through structured conversations between agents and coordinate the expertise of cardiac experts in TA. Using interview transcripts from parents of children with Anomalous Aortic Origin of a Coronary Artery (AAOCA), a rare congenital heart disease, we demonstrate that TAMA outperforms single-agent LLM TA approaches, achieving higher thematic hit rate, coverage, and distinctiveness. TAMA demonstrates strong potential for automated TA in clinical settings by leveraging multi-agent LLM systems with human-in-the-loop integration by enhancing quality while significantly reducing manual workload. The full implementation is publicly available at https://github.com/Charlie-Yi-SJ/TAMA.

Generative AI, particularly Language Models (LMs), has the potential to transform real-world domains with societal impact, particularly where access to experts is limited. For example, in education, training novice educators with expert guidance is important for effectiveness but expensive, creating significant barriers to improving education quality at scale. This challenge disproportionately harms students from under-served communities, who stand to gain the most from high-quality education. We introduce Tutor CoPilot, a novel Human-AI approach that leverages a model of expert thinking to provide expert-like guidance to tutors as they tutor. This study is the first randomized controlled trial of a Human-AI system in live tutoring, involving 900 tutors and 1,800 K-12 students from historically under-served communities. Following a preregistered analysis plan, we find that students working with tutors that have access to Tutor CoPilot are 4 percentage points (p.p.) more likely to master topics (p<0.01). Notably, students of lower-rated tutors experienced the greatest benefit, improving mastery by 9 p.p. We find that Tutor CoPilot costs only $20 per-tutor annually. We analyze 550,000+ messages using classifiers to identify pedagogical strategies, and find that tutors with access to Tutor CoPilot are more likely to use high-quality strategies to foster student understanding (e.g., asking guiding questions) and less likely to give away the answer to the student. Tutor interviews highlight how Tutor CoPilot's guidance helps tutors to respond to student needs, though they flag issues in Tutor CoPilot, such as generating suggestions that are not grade-level appropriate. Altogether, our study of Tutor CoPilot demonstrates how Human-AI systems can scale expertise in real-world domains, bridge gaps in skills and create a future where high-quality education is accessible to all students.