Human-AI Collaboration

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

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

This paper introduces the AI & Economy ATLAS (Activity, Task, Landscape, and Adoption Study), an ongoing economic research initiative using Google AI usage data. The first iteration of ATLAS is built on 15 million de-identified interactions across the Gemini App, Google AI Mode, and Gemini API. Using privacy-preserving algorithms as well as established and bespoke classification methods, we map AI usage to over 800 occupations, 4000 tasks, 300 household activities, 150 countries, and 140 languages. We then make a number of observations on what the data reveals about AI's diffusion, and its usage at work and in day-to-day life. In the workplace, we show that while AI adoption spans occupations covering just above 88% of US employment, penetration remains shallow and overwhelmingly collaborative in nature, with end-to-end task automation limited in scope. Outside of work, AI spans activities making up about 98% of Americans' non-sleep time, with disproportionately high use in high-friction tasks such as engaging with government and professional service providers, likely delivering economic value that standard national accounts may miss. Globally, adoption scales with national wealth and has broad linguistic distribution, with English queries representing only around a third of volume. As we build upon ATLAS and expand its scope and capabilities, we will continue to provide large-scale empirical evidence to inform the public, policy and academic questions about the ongoing AI transformation.

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

Scientific work increasingly spans heterogeneous artifacts -- papers, code, datasets, scientific file formats, model outputs, figures, manuscripts, and team decisions -- yet general-purpose AI assistants rarely preserve these objects as a coherent, auditable research state. We present SciForge, a multimodal research-native AI workbench that reserves the graphical interface for human judgment while search, parsing, model routing, workflow execution, plotting, writing, and presentation generation run as modular agent-accessible services. SciForge is built around five pillars: (i) goal-scoped scientific decision governance for goal-oriented research, with review gates and shared review surfaces; (ii) translate-then-reason for multimodal input, routing scientific objects through domain translators before the agent reasons; (iii) evidence governance for auditable traceability, linking claims to provenance chains and audit findings; (iv) collaborative team science for collaborative research, enabling multi-role decision governance, with shared team workspaces planned for future releases; and (v) real-world application scenarios for practical impact, demonstrated through eight end-to-end user cases, with flagship demonstrations including multi-day agentic research sprints for gene discovery, AI-guided de novo protein design, molecular optimization, and genome-to-BGC discovery. The system combines a thin interaction layer, contextual research capability patterns, an Agent Runtime and Workflow Engine, an Evidence-DAG audit sidecar and a Scientific Model Router. SciForge currently runs as a desktop application, with mobile supervision support; future releases will deepen team collaboration. The system is open-source and available at https://github.com/AGI4Sci/SciForge

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

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

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

Current alignment approaches typically focus on emulating human behavior using static representations of human preferences, failing to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of real-world human-AI interactions. In this paper, we argue for a shift from static and emulative to interactive and complementary alignment, where preferences emerge through interaction and alignment is defined not by satisfying preferences alone. We first formalize this gap by contrasting existing alignment with a trajectory-level view in which human and model behavior co-evolve over time. Because these interaction dynamics have not been adequately captured within existing ML formulations, we ground this perspective in insights from an interdisciplinary workshop. We draw on lessons from social-science accounts of human-human collaboration and then argue that human-AI systems amplify these dynamics, introducing new asymmetries that make reasoning about uncertainty harder and introduce new coordination challenges. Based on these lessons and new challenges, we conclude by outlining a research agenda for developing AI systems that align with humans in interaction, requiring an interdisciplinary synthesis of machine learning and the social and decision sciences.

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

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

AI agents are joining human teams, raising a basic question: when an automated agent becomes a regular participant, does group organization strengthen or weaken? We study this question in open-source software, where bots open pull requests, review code, and merge changes alongside people, leaving a public record of every interaction. Treating bots as participants rather than tools, we examine 2,991 GitHub projects for two years before and after each adopted its first bot. We measure three capabilities that institutional theory links to durable coordination - repeated engagement, social memory, and role differentiation - and two outcomes: conflict cascades and output distinctiveness. Bot adoption is followed by more repeated collaboration, greater recognition of specific bots in discussion, fewer conflict cascades, and more distinctive outputs. These changes cluster around adoption rather than accumulating gradually. Because we lack an untreated comparison group, we interpret the results as precisely timed associations, not causal effects. Two patterns are difficult for alternative explanations to account for: capabilities predict outcomes according to their function - coordination versus differentiation - rather than whether humans or bots provide them, and human-side capabilities account for the bot-conflict association but not the bot-distinctiveness association. The findings are consistent with a specific interpretation: predictable, rule-based agents can become part of a community's social infrastructure. The bot is the occasion; social organization is the mechanism.

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

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

An AI teammate's design properties (personality, communication style, when it speaks) can shape a team's trust, coordination, and decisions. Studying this rigorously demands infrastructure no existing tool provides: reproducible configuration of an AI teammate embedded in instrumented, real-time collaboration sustained over time. We present the Team Research and AI Integration Lab (TRAIL), a web platform that makes the AI teammate a configurable, reproducible design object, pairing a Big Five persona with a selective-participation message pipeline, dual memory, chained longitudinal experiments, and export-ready analytics. In a real six-session classroom deployment (about 51 students), TRAIL sustained longitudinal chaining, held the AI to a stable minority of the conversation, and enabled export-driven AI-human text-similarity analysis. A single blind persona change produced a design-consistent double dissociation: a cognitive-scaffolding agent drew stronger contribution ratings and closer linguistic alignment; a socially-supportive agent, a warmer team climate and lower over-reliance.

This paper proposes a human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) framework for AI-assisted lexicography. While generative AI offers significant opportunities to enhance lexicographic work, it also raises concerns regarding the future role of lexicographers and the preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity. Drawing on HCAI principles and previous applications in other language professions, the paper identifies four interrelated dimensions through which AI integration in lexicography can be understood and critically examined: the augmented lexicographer, the sociotechnical context of AI integration, bias, and the design of AI-powered lexicographic tools. The framework argues that AI should augment rather than replace lexicographers, combining automation with meaningful human control. It further emphasizes the importance of preserving professional agency, mitigating AI-generated biases, and designing tools around the needs of lexicographers. By doing so, the paper provides a foundation for future research and the beneficial integration of AI into lexicographic workflows.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown. Here, in a randomized crossover field experiment, 121 employees across six companies sent work emails under three conditions over three weeks: unaided writing, GPT-5 rewriting in a playful tone, and GPT-5 rewriting in a professional tone. Across 16,880 emails, playful editing increased emotional positivity (B=+0.068, p<0.001), and professional editing decreased it (B=-0.041, p<0.001), yet neither condition directly altered open rates, reply rates, or response times. Instead, within-sender positivity strongly predicted both opening (OR=2.05) and replying (OR=3.32, p<0.001), a significant indirect pathway through which AI editing shaped behavior, in the absence of any direct effect. These findings suggest that AI-assisted communication shapes workplace engagement not through its use, but through the emotional tone of the language it produces.

Human-centered AI (HCAI) refers to guidelines or principles that aim on ethi-cally oriented design of systems. We compare HCAI- guidelines with princi-ples of socio-technical systems that emerged in the context of conventional in-formation technology. The comparison leads to a revision of socio-technical heuristics by including aspects of AI-usage. The comparison reveals that con-tinuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems, and that human oversight or interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI-systems lead to continuous adaptation and re-design of the systems, if autono-my is collaboratively exercised. From a socio-technical point of view, the cru-cial requirement of transparency has not only to be fulfilled with technical fea-tures, but also by contributions of the whole system including human actors. It will be promising for using AI, if not only technical features, but organization-al and social practices are socio-technically designed in a way that compen-sates shortcomings of AI.

Research software collaborations span meetings, informal chats, pull requests, and GitHub issues. A decision surfaced in a Slack thread, refined in a meeting, and implemented in a pull request can lose its original rationale across these artifacts, leaving domain researchers and research software engineers with divergent mental models of project intent, ownership, and scientific assumptions. We argue that alignment in research software engineering is a continuous lifecycle problem, and that agentic AI can support stakeholder alignment and project-state tracking without replacing human decision-making. We present Aleena, an open-source lifecycle alignment agent that uses GitHub as a shared collaboration surface, transforming multi-modal stakeholder interactions into structured project records that surface risks, track open questions, and preserve decision continuity. Grounded in university-based research software engineering center experiences, this paper presents the motivating problem, system design, prototype, and illustrative lifecycle scenarios for Aleena.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Knowledge workers switch between applications thousands of times per day, spending nearly a tenth of the work year transitioning between digital applications in a process called digital fragmentation. Whether this fragmentation reflects who an employee is, where they work, or what kind of day they are having, has remained an open question. We analyzed 103 million application events recorded second-by-second from 1,017 employees across eight organizations that largely employ knowledge workers (e.g., law, financial services). Day-to-day variation in fragmentation within individual employees accounted for 44.6% of the variation in digital fragmentation, slightly exceeding stable individual differences between employees (35.8%), and far exceeding variation between organizations (19.6%). Fragmentation rose over the work week and reset after weekends and holidays. Higher-than-typical use of communication applications coincided with more fragmented work. Generative AI use also occurred on more fragmented days, but the period following AI use was marked by narrower, longer, and more predictable application use. These findings identify the workday as a key level for understanding and intervening on digital fragmentation and suggest that AI may help structure fragmented work rather than merely intensify it.

This paper presents an exploratory evaluation of how increasing levels of AI autonomy affect software development productivity, requirement adherence, and developer cognitive workload. A team of four developers reimplemented the same full-stack web application across three sequential phases: partial AI-assisted development using GitHub Copilot, an AI-exclusive workflow using GitHub Copilot, and an AI-exclusive workflow using AWS Kiro. Evaluation metrics included development effort (hours), requirement adherence (RITM score), AI-interaction efficiency, and NASA-TLX workload measures. Across phases, higher levels of AI autonomy were associated with reduced development effort, improved requirement adherence, and lower self-reported mental workload, while developer frustration increased modestly. The AWS Kiro phase achieved the strongest overall performance on most measured dimensions, suggesting that tooling architecture may influence outcomes independently of AI autonomy level.

Large language models increasingly operate in settings where humans are active collaborators rather than passive task providers. We introduce HAS-Framework, a graph-based framework that represents humans and LLM-powered agents as first-class participants with explicit roles, permissions, communication paths, and action authority. Building on this framework, HAS-Bench evaluates Human-Agent Systems under configurable human participation across agency levels, interaction channels, and persona policies. The benchmark measures both task outcomes and process-level collaboration behavior, including clarification quality, feedback utilization, control calibration, safety, initiative, and interaction cost. Experiments across six domains show that human participation can substantially improve task completion and failure recovery, but the gains depend on when, how, and by whom human input is exercised.

We argue that generative AI can degrade research by eroding the very practices through which scholarly judgement is formed. As constitutive conditions for the production and validation of knowledge, these practices cannot be reduced to the outputs of research, which is what AI tools so effectively simulate. When scholars delegate central tasks of inquiry to Large Language Models (LLMs), they may stop engaging in these practices and lose the formation they provide: the output may improve while the researcher fails to develop. Against this risk, merely keeping humans "in the loop" as prompters or quality checkers of AI outputs is insufficient to preserve research as a site of intellectual formation. What is needed instead is a renewed commitment to research as a lived practice in which judgement is formed gradually, often through friction, and participation in a scholarly community. We defend it because it rests on four sources and warrants of research that cannot be automated: tacit knowledge, personal commitment, socialisation, and deep reading. These enact what we call second scholarship, i.e., the reappropriation of scholarly craft, chosen out of a critical experience of what AI tools can and cannot do. Researchers who practise it may delegate tasks to these tools, provided that their own judgement in the delegated competence is already formed, that they can answer for the output, and that they keep exercising the competence themselves. What cannot and should not be delegated becomes what research communities must value and answer for. This is what is left for us.

Conversational agents are increasingly embedded in human collaborative work, yet they remain fundamentally passive and reactive: they respond to explicit user requests rather than proactively recognizing moments when a team would benefit from timely intervention as human collaborators often do. This reactive design substantially limits the use of agents as active participants in multi-user collaboration, where disagreements, ambiguous goals, forgotten constraints, underspecified plans, discussion loops, and imbalanced participation can gradually undermine group progress. To move agents from passive assistants toward active participants in multi-user collaboration, we introduce ProACT, a breakdown-aware agent framework grounded in theories of common ground, collaborative planning, and coordination work. ProACT observes the speaker-attributed conversation history, determines whether the current turn contains a collaboration breakdown requiring intervention, decides whether the agent should stay silent or speak, and, when speaking is needed, routes the case to a targeted collaboration skill. We further introduce the first multi-user collaboration benchmark for evaluating proactive agents across project planning, product design, research collaboration, logistics, education, and resource-constrained decision making. Across 3,244 turn-level examples and five LLM backbones, ProACT consistently improves collaborative appropriateness, non-interruptiveness, conciseness, and judged intervention quality over direct chat.

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

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

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

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

Generative AI is shifting software engineering from a practice organized around scarce implementation effort toward one organized around abundant, low-cost code production. This shift changes the central engineering problem: not whether AI can generate useful code, but how engineers organize architectures, tools, evidence, and feedback loops so that AI-mediated development remains inspectable, correctable, and maintainable. We study this problem through a first-person case study: a 12-week development effort in which a single expert software engineer used frontier AI coding agents to build a document accessibility remediation system. The empirical record comprises 88 contemporaneous field notes, 420 KLOC of production code, and 1.16 MLOC of tests, lints, supporting documentation, and agent tooling. From this record, we develop a candidate middle-range theory of governance conversion, expressed as a process model explaining how high-velocity agentic implementation becomes governable. The model explains how agentic implementation velocity surfaces recurring structural failure classes, and how engineering judgment sustains velocity by converting those failures into durable governance mechanisms. In contrast to existing governance models that derive controls from known obligations, governance conversion explains how controls are discovered from failures that become visible only during agentic work. We use our model to make testable predictions and to describe implications for software engineering research and practice.