Human-Ai Collaboration

Automated AI agents are increasingly capable, yet many scientific and professional tasks require human judgment and contextual expertise. We use simulated shared-workspace human-AI teams as a controlled testbed for studying how collaboration structure shapes team behavior. Using the Collaborative Gym environment with tasks from DiscoveryBench, we vary team compositions and collaboration structures across 1,482 sessions. We find that adding additional collaborators can lower performance when coordination structure is absent. We then evaluate collaboration scaffolding that combines shared group memory with simulated human-in-the-loop (HITL) gates, where selected actions require approval from a designated simulated participant. This scaffolding improves performance, most clearly in three-person teams, with clearer responsibility signals and stronger routing of expertise to team actions. Overall, our results suggest that coordination structure is central to whether available capability improves team outcomes.

We introduce SCAN -- a human-centric decision-making framework to facilitate learners for effective task allocation with Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) based on Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and Metacognition. In SCAN, we systematize and formalize AI-human interaction by introducing a task-identification approach with four "sub-zones": Substitute, Complement, Aid, and Non-negotiable. After describing the four sub-zones, we demonstrate how SCAN framework can be applied for knowledge workers in the workplace and students in education to metacognitively "scan" their use of Generative AI. We then discuss how such framework can be related to cognitive load theory, cognitive offloading, sycophancy, three decision-making modes in human-AI interactions (automation, augmentation, and collaboration), future of work such as upskilling and deskilling, and how it accounts for both human-human and human-AI learning. We propose that SCAN offers a great starting point before discussing whether GenAI complements or replaces our abilities when completing a task, with a general objective of sustaining lifelong learning, and a specific goal of reaching hybrid intelligence.

Co-creative AI research increasingly seeks methods capable of representing how interaction dynamics evolve through time. While many existing approaches focus on observable interaction characteristics, interaction metrics, behavioral coding schemes, or activity traces, these methods often struggle to capture higher-order interaction dynamics, including how collaborative processes reorganize, stabilize, regulate, and evolve through time. This paper introduces Cognitive Trajectory Modeling (CTM) as a cognitive theory of interaction dynamics that conceptualizes cognition, interaction, and creative processes as temporally organized trajectories unfolding across cognitively meaningful attractor landscapes. CTM builds upon the theoretical foundations of the Enactive Model of Creativity and Creative Sense-Making (CSM), revisiting the role of sense-making curves and cognitive trajectories in representing co-creative interaction dynamics. We formalize this perspective through the Cognitive Trajectory Principle, which states that temporal representations are only theoretically interpretable as cognitive trajectories when their underlying states possess directional cognitive meaning. Building on this principle, CTM generalizes the notion of cognitive trajectories beyond any particular coding scheme and provides a broader framework for modeling interaction dynamics through trajectories unfolding across meaningful attractor landscapes. We further distinguish cognitive trajectories from interaction traces and situate CTM within a broader hierarchy of cognitive, interaction, and domain dynamics. More broadly, we argue that understanding co-creative systems requires methods capable of modeling how cognition and interaction dynamics unfold through time. CTM provides a foundation for studying interaction dynamics across co-creative AI and human-AI interaction.

AI-assisted mathematics is often evaluated on solving predefined problems. In practice, however, many important advances begin earlier, when a vague research intuition is transformed into a concrete problem, a promising route, and a theorem family worth proving. This report studies that stage through a case study that led to sign-embedding quantum algorithms for matrix equations and matrix functions, foundational primitives in quantum linear algebra and operator-output quantum algorithms. The project began with a human-originated intuition that rational approximation is especially effective for jump-type functions such as the sign function, and might therefore serve as a design principle for quantum algorithms. Rather than merely assisting after the problem was fixed, AI-assisted exploration, including workflows later integrated into the agentic AI-mathematician system AIM, played a key role in expanding this intuition into a route map, comparing candidate formulations, and converging toward sign embedding as the central framework. AIM then helped connect a known matrix-sign identity to wider classes of matrix equations and matrix functions, and drafted proof and complexity calculations. The decisive scientific judgments remained human: selecting which human-AI-expanded routes were worth pursuing, rejecting a Cayley-trapezoidal approximation when its validity required a hidden condition, and refining the Sylvester implementation from a coarse quadratic-gap query route to the final factorized and scaled analysis. The report argues that human-AI co-discovery workflows, with systems such as AIM as important components, are most valuable not as standalone theorem provers, but as research partners for problem formation, connection discovery, derivation, and skeptical review inside a human-gated research loop.

The integration of artificial intelligence into human decision-making environments has introduced a previously undertheorized cost: the gradual surrender of human autonomy in exchange for access to information and computational assistance. Building on the Human Identity and Autonomy Gap (HIAG) framework, this paper advances a theoretical model of autonomy surrender as a measurable, cumulative process driven by cognitive bandwidth depletion. The model proposes three interacting mechanisms: the silent cost of AI assistance, in which autonomy is transferred incrementally and without awareness; the surrender threshold, beyond which reclaiming autonomous function becomes cognitively and psychologically difficult; and the recovery mechanism, which establishes the design obligation and the ethical responsibility accompanying deliberate human re-assumption of control. The paper argues that human re-entry into the decision loop is not a passive option but an active cognitive event requiring intentional bandwidth restoration. The design of AI systems must incorporate structured re-entry pathways, here termed recovery mechanisms, that preserve human agency while appropriately distributing responsibility. The model further predicts a terminal state, here termed preference inversion, in which functional dependence on AI assistance is experienced not as a deficit but as a preference, transforming the restoration of autonomy from a design problem into a cultural and political one. Implications are drawn for AI system design, governance frameworks, and human factors research.

Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions. In modern agentic systems, this division of roles is increasingly reversed: AI agents act on behalf of users, while humans and tools becomes support mechanisms around them. This role reversal brings reliability concerns to the forefront, since agentic errors can be consequential and agent behavior must remain aligned with human goals and constraints. Departing from the classical view of decision support, we revisit its two basic principles, the cost--value tradeoff of seeking support and the role of uncertainty quantification, in a setting where AI agents are the central actors. We propose a framework for strategic decision support for AI agents through an optimization problem that minimizes support usage subject to controlling a counterfactual missed-support error: the probability that the agent acts alone on instances where support would have materially improved its output. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy is a threshold rule on the value of support. Building on this structure, we develop an online algorithm that adaptively thresholds such a score and uses randomized exploration to control missed-support error without distributional assumptions. We further introduce a calibration-on-the-fly method that reduces unnecessary support calls online. We instantiate this framework across diverse scenarios, including information gathering, human--AI collaboration, and tool use, showing how each can be modeled through the same strategic decision-support lens. Experiments across these settings show that our method reliably controls the target error while substantially reducing support usage in practice.

We study models for human-AI teaming through the lens of statistical calibration. We assume the team consists of an AI model and human -- both of which are calibrated with respect to some partitioning of the feature space -- and expose how the calibration assumptions propagate into the teaming framework. In particular, we consider frameworks that either (i) combine human and model predictions or (ii) delegate prediction responsibility to either a human or model. We show via theoretical and empirical results that existing methods for combination do not preserve the human's degree of calibration. Methods for delegation (by the very act of delegation) preserve calibration of the downstream predictors but shift the burden onto the rejector meta-model that decides who predicts. The rejector must be calibrated finely enough to locate where each member is superior, a demand that grows with the human's expertise and becomes unattainable when the human relies on information the system cannot observe.

Foundation models are moving from response generation into operational roles. They plan across steps, call tools, request human input, coordinate with other agents, and increasingly carry responsibility for work that affects customers, claims, code, contracts, and clinical decisions. Production deployments are no longer one human supervising one model. They are multi-human, multi-agent collaborations that cross teams, time zones, and trust boundaries. The technical surface for this collaboration remains weakly specified. When an agent drafts a response and a human edits it before it ships, the moment of human judgement is the most valuable signal in the system. In current practice it is recorded, if at all, in application code, chat threads, ticket comments, and tribal memory. Two protocol standards address adjacent concerns: MCP standardises agent access to tools and data, and A2A standardises agent-to-agent interoperability. Neither defines the shared workspace in which humans and agents perform accountable work together. This paper presents CHAP, the Collaborative Human-Agent Protocol. Under CHAP, the override that used to vanish into a chat thread becomes a structured event carrying a diff, a rationale, and a content hash. The handoff between shifts becomes a portable envelope rather than a pinned message. The human approval of an agent's draft becomes a non-repudiable signed decision that can be replayed years later. The protocol achieves this through a small Core (workspaces, participants, tasks, artefacts, and an append-only evidence log) together with composable profiles that add review, modes, routing, deliberation, handoff, identity, signatures, and transparency-backed audit as deployments require them. Specification, reference implementation, conformance suite, and worked examples are available at: https://github.com/BrightbeamAI/chap

Constructing efficient and reliable policies to assist humans is indispensable for human-AI collaboration. Existing methods mainly follow two lines of work. Most prior work relies on multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) to learn black-box policies, which limits interpretability and raises safety concerns. Recent methods query large language models (LLMs) at each decision step, causing slow responses and high inference costs. We propose Collaboration Policy Tree (Co-pi-tree), a closed-loop method that learns an executable policy tree consisting of a partner-behavior prediction tree and an agent-action selection tree. Co-pi-tree constructs a policy by distilling LLM reasoning into policy tree code. It then evaluates the policy through partner interaction, obtains feedback, and uses natural language to summarize the interaction feedback to improve problematic branches. Experiments in Overcooked-AI show that Co-pi-tree improves average reward by 35.4% over the baseline average, while reducing the number of LLM queries by 77.7% and test-time latency by 97.1%. Project page: https://beiwenzhang.github.io/Co-pi-tree/

The emergence of large language model (LLM)-based agents and multi-agent systems has enabled a shift from narrow task automation to more autonomous decision-making. Despite progress in language generation, planning, tool use, and coordination, most agents still treat intelligence as prediction, optimization, and task completion. Human environments are social and normative, where people reason under bounded rationality, communicate in culturally situated language, and make decisions guided by values, beliefs, trust, and social norms. This survey argues that future AI agents, especially those acting on behalf of humans, must move beyond task competence toward human-centered capabilities. We review research across six areas: (1) evolution of intelligent agents, (2) human cognition and decision-making, (3) language, culture, and social context, (4) human values and belief systems, (5) human-agent collaboration, and (6) multi-agent coordination and modeling of human characteristics. We synthesize work from cognitive science, sociolinguistics, computational social science, and AI alignment, along with recent advances in LLM agents, cultural alignment benchmarks, preference learning, explainability, and agent societies. We identify a key gap: existing systems do not provide a unified framework integrating cognition, culture, values, and social behavior into autonomous agents. We conclude with directions for building culturally aware, value-aligned, cognitively grounded, and cooperative multi-agent systems.

As AI writing assistants become increasingly integrated into real-world drafting and revision workflows, many documents are no longer purely human-written or AI-generated, but instead result from progressive human-AI co-editing. However, existing AI-text detection benchmarks largely focus on final outputs and provide limited understanding of how AI authorship signals emerge, accumulate, or disappear throughout the revision process. We introduce OpAI-Bench, an operation-guided benchmark for studying progressive human-to-AI text transformation across document, sentence, token, and span granularities. Starting from human-written documents, OpAI-Bench constructs nine sequentially revised versions for each sample under predefined AI coverage levels and five representative AI edit operations, covering four domains while preserving complete authorship provenance at multiple granularities. The benchmark supports comprehensive evaluation with 8 document-level detectors, 7 sentence-level detectors, and 2 fine-grained token/span-level detectors. Experiments reveal that AI-text detectability is governed not only by the proportion of AI-edited content, but also by edit operation, domain, and cumulative revision history. Interestingly, we notice that mixed-authorship intermediate versions are often harder to detect than both fully human and heavily AI-edited endpoints, exposing non-monotonic detection patterns missed by existing benchmarks. OpAI-Bench provides a controlled testbed for analyzing whether, when, and how AI-assisted writing becomes detectable under realistic progressive editing scenarios. Our code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/OpAI-Bench.

Appropriate reliance on AI advice has become a central research theme in human-AI collaboration. Existing frameworks have focused exclusively on point predictions as AI advice. However, set-valued AI advice (e.g., discrete sets or continuous intervals) is increasingly being used to communicate uncertainty and improve human decision making. In this paper, we develop the first formal framework for measuring appropriate reliance on set-valued AI advice within the sequential judge-advisor paradigm, spanning both classification and regression tasks. For classification, we first introduce the dimensions that are necessary for evaluating set-valued AI advice. We then define two metrics: correct reliance rate on AI and correct reliance rate on self, which jointly characterize appropriate reliance in this setting. For regression, we introduce quantity of AI reliance and quality of AI reliance, which respectively measure whether a decision maker utilized the AI advice and whether their reliance helped them get closer to the ground truth relative to their initial estimate. Through the application of our framework, we demonstrate how these metrics capture important nuances in human-AI collaboration that existing measures overlook.

Recent studies reveal a paradox: AI enhances individual creative outputs while reducing collective diversity. Current explanations -- cognitive offloading and over-reliance -- identify symptoms but not mechanisms. We propose selective metacognitive adaptation: routine AI use redistributes rather than uniformly diminishes metacognitive effort. Some capacities are amplified (partner modeling, surface control), while others are systematically under-supported (originality evaluation, reflective integration). This redistribution explains both individual satisfaction and collective convergence. We present a taxonomy of six metacognitive capacities organized by temporal phase, characterize their tendencies under routine AI use, and show how individually rational adaptation produces emergent social costs. The framework generates specific predictions for researchers and design principles for practitioners seeking to preserve both individual creative satisfaction and collective creative diversity.

Autonomous software agents hold promise to increase developer productivity but make mistakes and exhibit novel failure modes, making human oversight central to successful human-agent collaboration. Existing research on agent oversight is largely conceptual; normative frameworks exist, but how users actually oversee agents is less known. In this paper, we bridge this gap by providing early empirical anchors for the theoretical discourse on agent oversight. Drawing on interviews with 17 experienced developers, we conduct an exploratory inquiry examining what forms of emergent oversight work developers perform, when, and how. We also document the oversight challenges developers face and the strategies they have started using to address them. We found at least four forms of emergent oversight work: a priori control, co-planning, real-time monitoring, and post hoc review. We show that oversight work is not only reactive and retrospective, as portrayed in existing research, but also preventative and proactive. We describe situated oversight challenges (e.g., difficulty reviewing agent-generated code) and outline heuristics developers adopt to address such challenges (e.g., using test results as guarantees for code correctness). We conclude with high-level takeaways, future research directions, implications for the human-centered design of software agents and for software engineering practice, and limitations of our research.

E-commerce platforms in emerging markets often operate with underdeveloped product catalogs that contain only category taxonomies but lack structured attribute schemas. This absence of fine-grained product attributes limits search capabilities -- preventing faceted filtering, degrading query understanding, and weakening semantic representations used by search systems. We present BEATS, a human-in-the-loop LLM framework for bootstrapping product attribute taxonomies entirely from scratch. Our approach extends a multi-stage LLM generation pipeline with two critical production stages: (1) proactive quality checking by model developers to filter erroneous outputs, and (2) human annotation by domain-expert local staff to validate generated attributes. The framework operates iteratively -- prompts at each generation stage are refined based on quality check observations and annotator feedback across successive rounds, progressively improving attribute quality. Once the attribute taxonomy is established, we employ LLMs to perform structured attribute tagging on individual product items, enriching their contextual representations. The enriched catalog directly benefits multiple components of the search system: enabling granular attribute-based filtering, providing structured features for ranking models, and improving semantic representations for dense retrieval. We validate the generated taxonomy by training dense retrieval models on attribute-enriched product data, demonstrating consistent improvements over baselines using original catalog information. Our system has been deployed at Rakuten Taiwan, enriching 9 major categories spanning 2,694 sub-categories with 67,277 generated attributes, and over 5.4 million products have been tagged with the generated attributes, with plans to enrich the entire product catalog.

Complementarity is the case in which a human--AI interaction (HAI) outperforms the best prediction benchmark available among its members. Although this idea is central in HAI research, formal work on complementarity remains limited. Existing frameworks do not model how agents' predictions compose into workflow-sensitive multi-agent protocols. We close this gap by introducing a tree-based formalization of complementarity in multi-agent HAI. An HAI protocol is represented by an ordered agent-role configuration together with a rooted planar binary tree whose leaves are decorated by prediction vectors. A local binary composition rule is evaluated recursively along the tree, yielding a tree-relative complementarity functional relative to a pointwise-min oracle benchmark. We prove four results. First, selector-based HAIs, including self- or AI-reliance, cannot achieve complementarity regardless of task, loss, or prediction quality. Second, in regression under squared loss, complementarity is equivalent to Euclidean distance minimization from the ground-truth vector; for $N=2$, the optimal linear-pooling weight has a closed form and a residual-correction interpretation. Third, under linear local composition, every protocol tree defines a barycentric coordinate chart on the simplex of leaf weights; Tamari-cover reparameterizations of protocol trees preserve complementarity, and for $N=4$, they satisfy the pentagon identity. Fourth, in binary classification, no internal local composition can achieve complementarity under endpoint-monotone losses, including standard Bregman and many finite Bernoulli $f$-divergence losses; an analogous obstruction holds for multiclass aggregation under cross-entropy. In summary, our framework shows that complementarity is attainable in multi-agent regression, but obstructed in classification under natural conditions on local aggregation and loss functions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-agent collaboration, especially in human-AI teaming, requires agents that can adapt to novel partners with diverse and dynamic behaviors. Conventional Deep Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning (DHRL) methods focus on agent-centric rewards and overlook partner behavior, leading to shortcut learning, where skills exploit spurious information instead of adapting to partners' dynamic behaviors. This limitation undermines agents' ability to adapt and coordinate effectively with novel partners. We introduce Partner-Aware Skill Discovery (PASD), a DHRL framework that learns skills conditioned on partner behavior. PASD introduces a contrastive intrinsic reward to capture patterns emerging from partner interactions, aligning skill representations across similar partners while maintaining discriminability across diverse strategies. By structuring the skill space based on partner interactions, this approach mitigates shortcut learning and promotes behavioral consistency, enabling robust and adaptive coordination. We extensively evaluate PASD in the Overcooked-AI benchmark with a diverse population of partners characterized by varying skill levels and play styles. We further evaluate the approach with human proxy models trained from human-human gameplay trajectories. PASD consistently outperforms existing population-based and hierarchical baselines, demonstrating transferable skill learning that generalizes across a wide range of partner behaviors. Analysis of learned skill representations shows that PASD adapts effectively to diverse partner behaviors, highlighting its robustness in human-AI collaboration.

Human-AI collaboration requires agents that can adapt to diverse partner behaviors and skill levels while remaining robust to unseen partners. Existing methods often collapse to a single dominant behavior or learn poorly aligned skills, limiting effective coordination. We propose Intrinsic Action Disentanglement (IAD), a deep hierarchical reinforcement learning (DHRL) framework that learns distinct, partner-aware low-level action sequences conditioned on high-level latent skills. IAD introduces an intrinsic reward that explicitly encourages disentangled action distributions of the agent's low-level policy across skills, yielding an interpretable mapping between high-level decisions and partner-specific behavioral responses. By capturing temporally extended interaction patterns, IAD enables flexible adaptation to heterogeneous partner dynamics under distributional shift. We evaluate IAD in the Overcooked-AI domain across multiple layouts and diverse partner settings, including unseen simulated partners, a human-proxy model trained on human-human gameplay, and real human partners. Results show that IAD consistently outperforms strong baselines and achieves more reliable, adaptive coordination across all settings.

Autonomous agents are moving from tools into a layer of social infrastructure: they browse, purchase, deploy software, manage systems, and increasingly interact with one another. As these systems scale, the bottleneck shifts away from raw model capability toward coordination. Agents need to form reliable relationships, organize multi-agent work, exchange value, support an AI economy, and stay safe and accountable under real-world oversight. This paper introduces the Foundation Protocol (FP), a graph-first coordination layer for an emerging human-AI society. FP unifies heterogeneous entities, including agents, tools, resources, humans, institutions, and organizations, and supports native multi-party organization and event-based collaboration. It also provides economic primitives for metering, receipts, and settlement, and treats policy, provenance, and audit as first-class concerns. FP is designed to wrap and bridge existing protocols rather than replace them, enabling incremental adoption while reducing integration and governance overhead. The aim is to keep autonomous agency composable while keeping accountability non-negotiable, so that coordination itself can become shared infrastructure for a human-AI society that is open, pluralistic, and governable.

AI is now embedded in healthcare, finance, policy, and many other domains, yet genuine human-AI synergy - combined performance that exceeds what either party achieves alone - is uncommon. Meta-analyses show that AI assistance tends to improve human performance compared to working alone, but studies finding true synergy are scarce. We call this persistent shortfall the synergy gap. Most current work treats human-AI combination as an engineering problem and concentrates on interpretability, trust calibration, or interface design. These matter, but they cover only part of what determines whether combination works. Closing the synergy gap, we argue, requires explicit engagement with a wider design space. We map that space through six interconnected elements: sociotechnical context, decision-making frameworks, human decision participants, AI capabilities, interaction, and holistic evaluation. For each element, we describe what it covers, how it shapes the others in practice, and what it implies for design. The result is a shared vocabulary for practitioners building hybrid systems, an analytical lens for researchers studying combination patterns, and a starting point for evaluators interested in the full quality of human-AI decision-making rather than accuracy alone.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.

Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a \textsc{Pivot}/\textsc{Refine} decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.

We present HAAS Studio, a simulation and decision-support tool for policy-aware adaptive task allocation between humans and AI systems. HAAS Studio turns the HAAS framework into an interactive environment for asking a practical deployment question: before introducing AI into a workflow, how can a team compare allocation strategies, inspect governance tradeoffs, and derive a defensible task-level operating model? The tool combines a five-dimensional cognitive representation of subtasks, a five-mode collaboration spectrum, adaptive allocation with multi-armed bandits (UCB1, Discounted UCB, LinUCB, and Thompson Sampling), oracle counterfactual regret analysis, contract-based governance with four independent guards, and a multi-criteria decision-support layer that separates efficient strategies from deployable options. It also models human-AI coevolution across six layers, monitors deskilling risk through sliding-window exposure metrics and benchmark runners, and supports persistent worker modeling through Live Twin and Planning modules. Three domain packs are included: software engineering, manufacturing, and healthcare. Each provides a task catalog, worker profiles, and KPI vocabulary, while the architecture allows new domains to be added without modifying the simulation core. The release includes 16 company profiles and six governance benchmark suites. This paper focuses on the tool, including its modeling assumptions, layered architecture, interaction workflow, built-in evidence assets, task-oriented recipes, case-study protocols, and a compact reproducible demonstration snapshot. A decision-guidance layer translates benchmark outputs into deployment decisions through structured patterns, heuristics, and a decision matrix.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in educational settings as interactive tools for collaboration. However, their tendency toward sycophancy, aligning with user beliefs even when incorrect, raises concerns for learning and decision-making, especially for less knowledgeable users. This study investigates how sycophantic alignment emerges in authentic multi-turn human-AI interactions and whether interventions targeting increasing AI literacy and prompting competencies can mitigate its effects. In a controlled mixed-design experiment, 60 participants completed analytical survival ranking tasks by first generating individual rankings and then making final decisions after collaborating with an AI assistant, both before and after receiving either general or sycophancy-focused prompting training. Preliminary results show that LLMs are highly sensitive to user input: lower-quality initial responses lead to poorer AI advice, suggesting that the model mirrors or incorporates user reasoning rather than correcting it or offering better alternatives that are missing or less frequent in the conversation. Critically, the propagation of user errors into AI responses significantly reduced both the quality of AI feedback and final user task performance, revealing a form of contextual sycophantic dependence. While the intervention did not eliminate the propagation of contextual errors, it significantly improved AI advice by reducing the direct mirroring of incorrect user rankings. These findings suggest that prompting and AI literacy alone may be insufficient to ensure epistemically independent AI support, highlighting the need for system-level approaches that better promote critical engagement in human-AI collaboration.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by \textit{AI Interaction Competence (AIC)} -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) now matches or exceeds human performance across numerous cognitive tasks, creativity remains a highly contested frontier. As AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation, it is essential to understand and augment their creativity. Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams not only surpass single agents, but also substantially outperform human teams in creativity (Cohen's d=1.50) across 4,541 multi-agent LLM ideas and 341 human-team ideas on six diverse problem-solving tasks. This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness. To investigate the generative processes in both groups, we represent conversations as paths through semantic space using neural language model representations. Both LLM and human teams produce more creative ideas when conversations range widely rather than staying centered on a single theme (low global coherence). However, the additional patterns that predict creativity differ: LLM teams benefit from efficient exploration (high semantic spread, shorter paths), while human teams benefit from maintaining smooth conversational flow (high local coherence, frequent pivots). Additionally, we identify model choice and discussion structure as orthogonal design levers that together explain 26.8% of variance in LLM conversational dynamics, paving the way for systematic approaches to developing multi-agent systems with augmented creative capabilities.

Creativity is a fundamental aspect of how culture evolves, yet the mechanisms by which groups produce novelty are notoriously difficult to infer from the historical record. Iterated learning experiments have shown that cultural transmission reliably distorts artifacts toward the inductive biases of learners, but most of this work uses linear chains between human participants, leaving open how these dynamics play out in the networked, human-AI systems that increasingly shape cultural production. In this study, we leverage one such system, Artbreeder, which hosts daily "remix parties" where users iteratively build on each other's work from a single seed image, producing branching lineages of human-AI co-created images. We analyze a dataset of 130,882 images from 368 remix parties over 13 months and find that images become simpler and converge toward common thematic "attractors" (e.g., steampunk scenes, alien architecture). We also find that while more novel "parent" images produce more novel and complex "children" that attract more likes, users paradoxically prefer to remix images that are less novel and complex. Finally, larger remix parties produce more novelty at the cost of lower complexity.

Large language model personalization typically adapts outputs to user preferences and style but does not account for differences in user evaluation capacity across domains of expertise. This limitation can encourage Professional Domain Drift, where users rely on AI generated reasoning in domains they cannot reliably evaluate. We introduce Capability Conditioned Scaffolding, a typed framework that partitions expertise into strong, mixed, and weak domains and conditions intervention behavior on structured capability profiles. A pilot evaluation across multiple MMLU subsets and four LLM substrates shows consistent profile conditioned intervention behavior, including categorical inversion under profile swapping and selective activation in mixed domain risk zones. These findings suggest that capability aware scaffolding can support more reliable professional human AI collaboration beyond stylistic personalization.

While AI agents are rapidly advancing from isolated tools to interactive collaborators, data-driven human-machine teaming (HMT) methods remain costly in their reliance on human interaction data across domains, teammates, and team sizes. Zero-shot coordination (ZSC) addresses this bottleneck by simulating diverse partner populations to approximate how unseen partners might behave. However, partner coverage alone is insufficient as team settings scale and communication becomes degraded. To remedy this deficiency, we propose Influence-Based Team Steering (IBTS), a framework that uses influence shaping to incentivize agents to discover diverse, high-performing team interaction patterns and further steers ongoing trajectories toward stronger learned coordination modes. We assess IBTS on Overcooked-AI in both two-agent and three-agent settings, allowing us to test whether learned coordination structure transfers beyond dyadic interaction. Our evaluation includes simulated partners, synthetic partner-style variation, and, to our knowledge, the first 30-subject Overcooked-AI HMT study involving two real human teammates and one machine teammate. Across these evaluations, IBTS improves team performance against competing baselines, highlighting the need for scaled ZSC to combine sparse-reward coordination mechanisms with partner-variation coverage rather than relying on diversity alone.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly adopted in the workplace and in education, yet the empirical evidence on AI's impact remains mixed. We propose a model of human-AI interaction to better understand and analyze several mechanisms by which AI affects productivity. In our setup, human agents with varying skill levels exert utility-maximizing effort to produce certain task outcomes with AI assistance. We find that incorporating either endogeneity in skill development or in AI unreliability can induce a productivity paradox: increased levels of AI assistance may degrade productivity, leading to potentially significant shortfalls. Moreover, we examine the long-term distributional effect of AI on skill, and demonstrate that skill polarization can emerge in steady state when accounting for heterogeneity in AI literacy -- the agent's capability to identify and adapt to inaccurate AI outputs. Our results elucidate several mechanisms that may explain the emergence of human-AI productivity paradoxes and skill polarization, and identify simple measures that characterize when they arise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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