Human-AI Collaboration

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

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being deployed as productive resources in organizational workflows, yet existing evaluation methods primarily measure isolated technical performance rather than economic contribution. This paper introduces Agentomics, a workflow-based framework for valuing, attributing, and pricing human and artificial agents. The framework models a workflow as a configuration of heterogeneous agents whose collective performance determines gross value, deployment cost, reliability, and expected failure loss. Workflow value is treated as a team-level quantity that may include complementarities, substitution effects, bottlenecks, and nonlinear production; additive stage-level value is only a special case. Building on this workflow model, the paper formulates AI deployment as a coalition-formation problem and defines coalition value as the incremental net surplus generated relative to a benchmark human workflow. The Shapley value is then used to attribute economic surplus among participating AI agents, yielding a principled connection among valuation, accountability, and market pricing. The resulting Shapley pricing equilibrium provides a normative benchmark for assessing whether agent prices reflect expected marginal contribution. A security-operations case study illustrates how the framework accounts for productivity gains, deployment costs, reliability losses, and coalition-level complementarities in hybrid human--AI workflows.

This paper develops a theory of exploratory adaptation under AI-assisted optimization. The central argument is that the long-run adaptive effects of AI systems depend critically on how predictive assistance interacts with exploratory responsiveness itself. We formalize this mechanism using a dynamical framework in which cognitive, institutional, and technological systems evolve over rugged epistemic landscapes characterized by multiple locally reinforced configurations. A central state variable in the model is adaptive responsiveness, which measures the capacity of a system to traverse unfamiliar conceptual and institutional trajectories under changing conditions. Under convergent predictive regimes, AI systems substitute for exploratory engagement, reducing adaptive responsiveness and generating metastable trapping, hysteresis, premature convergence, and exploration-collapse dynamics in which systems become locally efficient but globally rigid. The framework also identifies contrasting exploration-enhancing regimes in which AI systems amplify exploratory search, conceptual traversal, and adaptive mobility. The effective substitution parameter is therefore responsiveness-dependent: systems possessing weak exploratory routines are more vulnerable to exploratory substitution, whereas systems already possessing high adaptive responsiveness may use AI assistance to expand exploratory mobility across rugged landscapes. The long-run adaptive effects of AI consequently depend not only on AI capability itself, but also on institutional structure, developmental context, and the architecture of human-machine interaction.

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

This report summarizes the CHIIR 2026 Workshop on Generative AI and Academic Search (GAI&AS), which examined how GenAI is reshaping academic search systems and research practices. The workshop brought together researchers in human information interaction and information retrieval to explore key challenges and opportunities in designing and evaluating future academic search systems that integrate GenAI, moving beyond traditional document retrieval to support summarization, recommendation, synthesis, and conversational interaction. Participants' interests and discussions focused on three thematic clusters: foundations and principles, applications and opportunities, and search-as-learning. Across these themes, the workshop highlighted the importance of academic search systems in supporting transparency, credibility, research integrity, and long-term scholarly needs, as well as in fostering higher-order cognitive processes. Participants discussed guiding theories, design principles, methodological approaches, partnerships, and community-building efforts aimed at advancing human-centered GenAI-enhanced academic search systems. Overall, the workshop demonstrated strong community interest and a diverse range of ongoing and emerging research initiatives at the intersection of GenAI and academic search.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf

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

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

Frontier AI systems are bridging the gap between intelligence and utility by shifting from conversational assistants to autonomous agents that execute tasks end to end. Using production data from Perplexity's Search and Computer products, we study this transition by examining how AI agents accelerate and reshape knowledge work. Three key empirical findings emerge. First, using sessions with near-identical initial query pairs as natural experiments for the same underlying task attempted with both products, Computer performs 26 minutes of autonomous work per user session, versus 33 seconds for Search. Computer automates task decomposition and execution that Search users might otherwise manually orchestrate and implement. As a result, Computer shifts follow-up query distribution toward higher-order work such as verification and extension. Autonomy also increases execution quality, with per-query dissatisfaction rates 55% lower on Computer than on Search. Second, due to its autonomy advantage, Computer reduces completion time from 269 to 36 minutes on matched tasks, lowering estimated time and cost by 87% and 94%, respectively, compared to humans equipped with Search alone. Third, Computer changes the scope of work that users attempt: Computer queries more often cross occupational boundaries, require higher-order cognition, draw on broader expertise, take the form of composite tasks that bundle interdependent subtasks into a single query, and unlock work activities that are essentially absent from Search usage among the same users. Together, the evidence indicates that AI agents accelerate workflows, enhance output quality, reduce costs, and expand the breadth and depth of automated work.

Recent advances in LLM agents have enabled complex cognitive capabilities, such as multi-step reasoning, planning, and tool use, that increasingly position these agents as human collaborators. Effective collaboration, however, requires collaborators to continuously maintain and align mental models of their own reasoning,partners' intentions, and shared goals during the collaborative process. Today's agents rarely develop such capabilities since they are primarily optimized for task completion, and the community lacks authentic human collaboration data with action-level mental model annotations that could guide agents toward process-level collaborative competence. To bridge this gap, we present ALMANAC, a dataset of Action-Level Mental model ANnotations for Agent Collaboration built from the Map Task, a classic dyadic routing task from social science. ALMANAC contains 2,987 collaboration actions, each paired with theory-informed mental model annotations that record the participants' self-reasoning, perceived partner intent, and perceived team goal. We benchmark six LLMs on predicting humans' next-turn behavior and mental models. Our results demonstrate ALMANAC's utility in evaluating models' ability to simulate human collaborative behaviors and infer their underlying mental models.

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

Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.

AI assistants in human-AI collaboration often correct suboptimal human actions through behavioral feedback (e.g., alerts or steering-wheel nudges in assistive driving). Such interventions can mitigate immediate errors, but long-term improvement requires addressing the underlying misconceptions that cause repeated mistakes. We introduce SENSEI, a framework that infers user misconceptions from interaction behavior and provides targeted, minimal yet sufficient suggestions to correct them. Our approach departs from action- or trajectory-level interventions by operating over a structured knowledge representation to localize and correct the sources of erroneous behavior. Across three long-horizon tasks with diverse misconceptions and corresponding behaviors, SENSEI demonstrates zero-shot compositional generalization, disentangling multiple overlapping misconceptions despite training only on single-misconception cases. A user study further shows that our method identifies real human misconceptions and provides effective guidance that improves long-horizon task performance, successfully correcting $90\%$ of student misconceptions. Code and project page are available at https://misoshiruseijin.github.io/SENSEI/.

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

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

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

For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge. Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs. While many works focus on benchmarking the current frontier, we instead study how people use these tools. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization workflows: what people claim they want, what they see as the barriers to those visions, and how they actually use and adapt AI in practice. A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization that preserves high-level human control over the proof discovery process. To assess how people actually engage with AI for formalization under such limitations, we conduct a controlled user study in which participants formalize informal math problems and their proofs, with and without AI, across a range of mathematical problems at varying levels of difficulty and domains. Despite limitations of the tools at the time for autoformalization, participants tend to attain higher formalization accuracy when allowed access to AI tools than when formalizing on their own, with most participants flexibly choosing to use multiple different AI tools. Taken together, our work sheds light on the early stages of AI integration into formalization workflows, involving an intimate interplay of human and AI engagement.

Real-world professional desktop workflows in specialized creative and engineering software unfold over long horizons and often require human-in-the-loop coordination, where agents proactively seek necessary information and users provide additional instructions, clarifications, feedback, or corrections as the task progresses. Yet existing desktop GUI benchmarks mostly reduce this setting to short, simplified tasks with all user instructions provided upfront. To address this issue, we introduce DeskCraft, a desktop GUI benchmark targeting long horizon creative and engineering workflows and proactive human-agent collaboration. DeskCraft organizes tasks into a multilevel difficulty taxonomy, with long horizon tasks requiring over 50 execution steps, and covers professional creative software across design, video, audio, and 3D creation. Furthermore, DeskCraft formalizes human-agent collaboration into an interaction protocol covering mid-turn and post-turn exchanges. Mid-turn interaction captures both agent-initiated clarification under uncertainty and user-initiated interruption during execution, while post-turn interaction accommodates user-driven feedback after the agent signals completion, together spanning the full space of realistic collaboration patterns. We evaluate 18 proprietary and open source agents on 538 tasks and find that GPT-5.4 reaches 31.6% on standard tasks and 27.6% on interactive tasks. Further analyses reveal persistent failures in long horizon workflow delivery and proactive clarification. We will open-source all evaluation codes, tasks, and data at https://github.com/mrwwk/DeskCraft.

The work of a professional software engineer has begun to consist, increasingly, of directing agents rather than writing code, and the empirical evidence for the shift is now several years deep. Anthropic's Economic Index puts automation at 79 per cent of Claude Code interactions [2]; Handa and colleagues at Anthropic find AI exposure for Computer Programmer tasks at approximately 75 per cent of the role's distinct activities [3]; Brynjolfsson and colleagues at Stanford's Digital Economy Lab report a 13 per cent relative decline in employment for workers aged 22 to 25 in occupations most exposed to AI [4]. The shift is also unfinished, and the academic literature on agentic software engineering converges on the finding that the missing capability is not better models but structured practitioner discipline. This paper presents ASE-26, a comprehensive undergraduate curriculum for agentic software engineering as a discipline, deposited as a citable reference on Zenodo under CC BY-ND 4.0 [12]. The paper sets out the discipline framing the curriculum rests on, the conceptual contributions it makes (most importantly, the evolutionary spiral as the operational form of the co-evolution of intent and build), the twenty-one-module structure that organises the discipline for teaching, the pedagogical commitments that follow from grading work co-produced with an agent, what graduates leave with, and how the discipline as taught is designed to outlast the specific capabilities of today's models. The position the paper takes is that the practitioner skills the industry currently lacks are precisely the skills the discipline names, and that structured undergraduate curricula in agentic software engineering are the principal mechanism by which the gap closes.

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

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

User Experience Research (UXR) Points of View (POVs) distil complex and often fragmented research evidence into actionable perspectives that guide how teams interpret user needs, frame design decisions, and align stakeholders. Although POVs are widely used in industry practice, there are few published examples that explicitly document how POVs are constructed, particularly in culturally sensitive and low-resource contexts. This paper presents an exemplar case study demonstrating how a culturally grounded, AI-augmented UXR POV was developed to inform TeleDeCa, a telemedicine dementia care framework for family caregivers in Nigeria. Building on the UXR POV Playbook and pyramid framework, we illustrate how mixed-methods research, hypothesis generation, and ontology-based modelling can be combined to form a defensible POV without requiring a fully finalised system or validated outcomes. Generative AI (GenAI) is integrated across the UXR POV framework as a bounded research collaborator, supporting synthesis, hypothesis exploration, and narrative construction while preserving human judgment, ethical accountability, and cultural sensitivity. The contribution of this paper lies in the extraction of reusable Play Cards and a Play that extend the UXR POV Playbook and serve as exemplar material for the CHI 2026 workshop on developing AI-powered UXR POVs.

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

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

In this paper, we present the results of an ethnographic study into the impact of AI and automated tools on music production workflow. Focusing specifically on professional participants who identified as recording engineers, mixers, and producers, we discuss their usage of common AI and automated software, as well as their sentiments on the proliferation of these tools. We discuss tensions that may be created between users and automated tools in key areas such as the need for speed and efficiency, controllability, and maintaining creative agency, and how these tensions may be alleviated through tool design.

The impressive performance of generalist large language models (LLMs) such as GPT and Claude in healthcare raises a critical question: will domain-specific medical specialist models become obsolete? We argue that the future of medical artificial intelligence (AI) lies not in building monolithic medical foundation models, nor in replacing human expertise, but in orchestrating collaboration among generalist LLMs, domain-specific specialist models, and clinicians. We propose HetMedAgent, a heterogeneous medical multi-agent framework that enables conflict-aware evidence fusion, uncertainty-based clinician intervention triggering, and adaptive threshold calibration. Experiments on three real-world clinical decision-making tasks demonstrate that the synergy between generalist LLMs and domain-specific specialist models significantly outperforms using either type of model alone, validating the irreplaceable value of specialist models in modality-specific analysis. HetMedAgent represents a shift from building medical LLMs or foundation models to multi-agent collaboration, achieving a balance between general reasoning capabilities and domain-specific precision.

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

Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable potential in scientific hypothesis discovery. However, existing approaches face two critical limitations: they treat divergent exploratory search and convergent fine-grained refinement as isolated tasks, and they operate autonomously with little to no human guidance. We present MOOSE-Copilot, the first unified framework to bridge this abstraction gap through a formalized human-AI interaction (HAII) protocol. Our system empowers scientists to steer the generative process via three explicit signals: initial blueprints, inter-stage routing, and intra-stage feedback. Using an oracle-simulated evaluation in which an LLM provides idealized expert signals, we show that injecting these structured signals significantly outperforms purely autonomous baselines, characterizing the gains achievable under high-quality guidance. Furthermore, we build a web-based interface that turns the framework into a no-code workflow: researchers pose a question, watch the hypothesis search unfold as an interactive tree, and steer it by selecting hypotheses, routing between stages, and injecting feedback-no command-line agents required. This makes end-to-end hypothesis discovery directly accessible to interdisciplinary researchers.

AI tools are increasingly integrated into real-world workflows. However, existing measures of reliance on these tools focus on AI output adoption or on self-reported indicators, rather than how task effort is distributed between users and tools. Here, we introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool. Offloading Score is simulation-based -- we construct a counterfactual workflow by estimating how the user would have completed the task without the tool, and then computing the fraction of steps saved by using the tool. We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study ($n=40$) with developers performing programming tasks using AI tools. We vary time pressure to test whether reliance measures capture the known increase in reliance under time pressure. We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings ($+43\%$, $p=0.018$), while usage-based and self-reported baseline measures of reliance do not distinguish the conditions. We complement this with descriptive insights showing that higher reliance manifests as greater delegation of subtasks to the tool and more direct reuse of AI outputs. Finally, we demonstrate an approach of using offloading score in combination with target outcomes of a task (e.g., code understanding) to identify when reliance may be (in)appropriate. Our framework offers two contributions: an instrument users can apply to measure and reflect on their own reliance, and a quantitative signal that agent designers can utilize to mitigate overreliance.

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in workplaces is transforming how we work. While existing research on human-AI collaboration at work often prioritizes performance, less is known about their experiential outcomes. Through interviews with 24 employees across Information Technology (IT), service-based, and healthcare sectors, this paper examines AI's impact on job satisfaction via perceptions of job decency and meaningfulness, now and in the future. Our results reveal that the anticipated impact of AI on overall job satisfaction varies with the occupational domain, with differing perceptions of its underlying decency and meaningfulness. For instance, IT and healthcare anticipate increased satisfaction with decency aspects like working hours but decreased satisfaction with meaningfulness aspects like social image due to misconceptions about AI handling most of their tasks. Conversely, service workers foresee no improvement in their working hours but a higher social standing due to the perceived status boost associated with working with AI.