Human-Ai Collaboration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite rapid progress in autonomous web agents, human involvement remains essential for shaping preferences and correcting agent behavior as tasks unfold. However, current agentic systems lack a principled understanding of when and why humans intervene, often proceeding autonomously past critical decision points or requesting unnecessary confirmation. In this work, we introduce the task of modeling human intervention to support collaborative web task execution. We collect CowCorpus, a dataset of 400 real-user web navigation trajectories containing over 4,200 interleaved human and agent actions. We identify four distinct patterns of user interaction with agents -- hands-off supervision, hands-on oversight, collaborative task-solving, and full user takeover. Leveraging these insights, we train language models (LMs) to anticipate when users are likely to intervene based on their interaction styles, yielding a 61.4-63.4% improvement in intervention prediction accuracy over base LMs. Finally, we deploy these intervention-aware models in live web navigation agents and evaluate them in a user study, finding a 36.8% increase in user-rated agent usefulness. Together, our results show structured modeling of human intervention leads to more adaptive, collaborative agents.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in education, posing significant challenges for teachers adapting to these changes. GenAI offers unprecedented opportunities for accessibility, scalability and productivity in educational tasks. However, the automation of teaching tasks through GenAI raises concerns about reduced teacher agency, potential cognitive atrophy, and the broader deprofessionalisation of teaching. Drawing findings from prior literature on AI in Education, and refining through a recent systematic literature review, this chapter presents a conceptualisation of five levels of teacher-AI teaming: transactional, situational, operational, praxical and synergistic teaming. The framework aims to capture the nuanced dynamics of teacher-AI interactions, particularly with GenAI, that may lead to the replacement, complementarity, or augmentation of teachers' competences and professional practice. GenAI technological affordances required in supporting teaming, along with empirical studies, are discussed. Drawing on empirical observations, we outline a future vision that moves beyond individual teacher agency toward collaborative decision-making between teachers and AI, in which both agents engage in negotiation, constructive challenge, and co-reasoning that enhance each other's capabilities and enable outcomes neither could realise independently. Further discussion of socio-technical factors beyond teacher-AI teaming is also included to streamline the synergy of teachers and AI in education ethically and practically.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

In the quest for scientific progress, communicating research is as vital as the discovery itself. Yet, researchers are often sidetracked by the manual, repetitive chore of building project webpages to make their dense papers accessible. While automation has tackled static slides and posters, the dynamic, interactive nature of webpages has remained an unaddressed challenge. To bridge this gap, we reframe the problem, arguing that the solution lies not in a single command, but in a collaborative, hierarchical process. We introduce $\textbf{AutoPage}$, a novel multi-agent system that embodies this philosophy. AutoPage deconstructs paper-to-page creation into a coarse-to-fine pipeline from narrative planning to multimodal content generation and interactive rendering. To combat AI hallucination, dedicated "Checker" agents verify each step against the source paper, while optional human checkpoints ensure the final product aligns perfectly with the author's vision, transforming the system from a mere tool into a powerful collaborative assistant. To rigorously validate our approach, we also construct $\textbf{PageBench}$, the first benchmark for this new task. Experiments show AutoPage not only generates high-quality, visually appealing pages but does so with remarkable efficiency in under 15 minutes for less than $0.1. Code and dataset will be released at $\href{https://mqleet.github.io/AutoPage_ProjectPage/}{Webpage}$.

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.

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.

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.

Scientific discovery is driven by scientists generating novel hypotheses for complex problems that undergo rigorous experimental validation. To augment this process, we introduce Co-Scientist, a multi-agent AI system built on Gemini for structured scientific thinking and hypothesis generation. Co-Scientist aims to help scientists discover new original knowledge. Conditioned on their research objectives and prior scientific evidence, it formulates demonstrably novel research hypotheses for experimental verification. The system's design involves agents continuously generating, critiquing and refining hypotheses accelerated by scaling test-time compute. Key contributions include: (1) a multi-agent architecture with an asynchronous task execution framework for flexible compute scaling; (2) a tournament evolution process for self-improving hypotheses generation. Automated evaluations show continued benefits of test-time compute scaling, improving hypothesis quality over time. While general purpose, we focus the validation in three biomedical applications: drug repurposing, novel target discovery, and explaining mechanisms of anti-microbial resistance. Specifically, Co-Scientist helped identify new drug repurposing candidates and synergistic combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia, which were validated through in vitro experiments. These real-world validations demonstrate the potential of Co-Scientist to accelerate scientific discovery and usher in an era of AI empowered scientists.

With the growing prevalence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.