Human-AI Decision Making

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address the practical and theoretical points raised by the discussants, we organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks, not only by providing fairly accurate predictions, but also in their ability to generate cogent narrative explanations of those predictions. Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions; however, less is known about the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance. Here we conduct a large-scale human behavioral experiment to evaluate decision-making performance with LLM-generated narrative explanations of varying persuasiveness. We found the degree of persuasiveness, or lack thereof, for LLM-based explanations did not meaningfully impact decision accuracy over a simple AI prediction alone, in agreement with typical results with explainable AI based on feature importance. We found evidence that narratives increased reliance on AI, but both when the AI prediction was correct and incorrect. Exploratory analyses also indicated that the more persuasive narratives may have had a detrimental effect on decision response times and the ability to discriminate between a correct and incorrect AI prediction. Overall, this work indicates that including narrative explanations with AI predictions may involve tradeoffs for decision-making performance, and more work is needed to determine how and when narrative explanations impact human decision-making.

Making high-stakes personal decisions involves cognitive, emotional, and intuitive processes, and individuals differ in how they allocate attention across these modes. Integration of these processes has shown to benefit decision making. Yet, most current decision-support systems focus primarily on supporting cognitive aspects, rather than adapting to the individual's thinking profile to support integration of different types of thoughts. In this study, we investigate an agent designed to encourage integration by adapting to the individual user's thought patterns. We explore its effects on participants' perceptions of the agent and their reflective behavior, in comparison with unaided pre-reflection and a baseline agent. In a between-subjects study (N = 128), our agent, which fostered broad and elaborated thinking, enabled more personalized reflective trajectories, elicited more integrative reflective language, and was perceived as providing stronger support for holistic reflection. In contrast, the baseline agent produced homogenized profiles dominated by cognitive language across participants.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has spurred economists to study how humans and LLMs behave in strategic settings. We organized a series of round-robin tournaments in the Colonel Blotto game. This game attracts game theorists' attention due to high-dimensional action space and the absence of pure strategy Nash equilibria. In the first tournament, more than 200 human participants competed against one another. In the second tournament, several popular LLMs were invited to submit strategies. In the third tournament, we matched the number of LLM strategies to the number submitted by humans. We find that humans more often employ better-calibrated intermediate-level allocation heuristics and outperform the simpler, more stereotyped strategies submitted by LLMs. Strategic sophistication is key to success if and only if the necessary level of reasoning depth is reached, while lower and higher levels of reasoning offer no clear advantage over the primitive strategies. Among humans, field of study weakly predicts success: participants with STEM backgrounds perform better in the first tournament. Surprisingly, humans almost do not adjust their strategies across tournaments with different sets of opponents. This result suggests that humans base their choices primarily on the game's rules rather than on the identity of their opponents, treating LLMs much like human competitors.

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

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

As intelligent systems are increasingly implemented in our society to make autonomous decisions, their commitment to human values raises serious concerns. Their alignment with human values remains a critical challenge because it can jeopardise the integrity and security of citizens. For this reason, an innovative human-centred and values-driven approach to decision making is required. In this work, we introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, where agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions. We also address the normative bias introduced by stakeholders with arbitrary weights by removing prior weights and introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables defined for a score function. This concept allows us to generalise any VBDM problem as the search for feasible solutions when optimising the score in the weight domain. To provide a solution to FUW-VBDM, we present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty. We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders. We show the applicability of our method through an illustrative case study, which we also use as a running example. The evaluation conducted indicates a reduced computational cost in large-scale value-based decision-making problems and a strong rank performance regarding existing approaches when employing the aggregation via Pythagorean means.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as reasoning modules in many applications. While they are efficient in certain tasks, LLMs often struggle to produce human-aligned solutions. Human-aligned decision making requires accounting for both explicitly stated goals and latent user preferences that shape how ambiguous situations should be resolved. Existing approaches to incorporating such preferences either rely on extensive and repeated user interactions or fail to generalize latent preferences across tasks and contexts, limiting their practical applicability. We consider a setting in which an LLM is used for high-level reasoning and is responsible for inferring latent user preferences from limited interactions, which guides downstream decision making. We introduce CLIPR (Conversational Learning for Inferring Preferences and Reasoning), a framework that learns actionable, transferable natural language rules that represent latent user preferences from minimal conversational input. These rules are iteratively refined through adaptive feedback and applied to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution ambiguous tasks across multiple environments. Evaluations on three datasets and a user study show that CLIPR consistently outperforms existing methods in improving alignment and reducing inference costs.

It is widely agreed that when AI models assist decision-makers in high-stakes domains by predicting an outcome of interest, they should communicate the confidence of their predictions. However, empirical evidence suggests that decision-makers often struggle to determine when to trust a prediction based solely on this communicated confidence. In this context, recent theoretical and empirical work suggests a positive correlation between the utility of AI-assisted decision-making and the degree of alignment between the AI confidence and the decision-makers' confidence in their own predictions. Crucially, these findings do not yet elucidate the extent to which this alignment influences the complexity of learning to make optimal decisions through repeated interactions. In this paper, we address this question in the canonical case of binary predictions and binary decisions. We first show that this problem is equivalent to a two-armed online contextual learning problem with full feedback, and establish a lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{|H| \cdot |B| \cdot T} )$ on the expected regret any learner can attain, where $H$ and $B$ denote the sets of human and AI confidence values. We then demonstrate that, under perfect alignment between AI and human confidence, a learner can attain an expected regret of $O(\sqrt{|H| \cdot T\log T})$ and, when $\sqrt{|H|} = O(\log T)$ and $B$ is countable, a non-trivial generalization of the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality improves the regret bound to $O(\sqrt{T\log T})$. Taken together, these results reveal that alignment can reduce the complexity of learning to make decisions with AI assistance. Experiments on real data from two different human-subject studies where participants solve simple decision-making tasks assisted by AI models show that our theoretical results are robust to violations of perfect alignment.

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

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

High-precision CNC machining of free-form aerospace components requires bounded compensations informed by inspection, simulation, and process knowledge. Off-the-shelf large language model (LLM) assistants can generate text, but they do not reliably execute risk-constrained multi-step numerical workflows or provide auditable provenance for high-stakes decisions. We present multi-agent knowledge analysis (MAKA), a human-in-the-loop decision-support architecture that separates intent routing, tools-only quantitative analysis, knowledge graph retrieval, and critic-based verification that enforces physical plausibility, safety bounds, and provenance completeness before recommendations are surfaced for human approval. MAKA is instantiated on a Ti-6Al-4V rotor blade machining testbed by fusing virtual-machining path-tracking error fields, cutting-force and deflection simulations, and scan-based 3D inspection deviation maps from 16 blades. The analysis decomposes deviation into an evidence-linked pathing component, a drift-based wear proxy capturing systematic evolution across parts, a residual systematic compliance term, and a variability proxy for instability-aware escalation. In a three-level tool-orchestration benchmark (single-step through $\geq$3-step stateful sequences), MAKA improves successful tool execution by up to 87.5 percentage points relative to an unstructured single-model interaction pattern with identical tool access. Digital twin what-if studies show MAKA can coordinate traceable compensation candidates that reduce predicted surface deviation from order $10^{-2}$in to approximately $\pm 10^{-3}$in over most of the blade within the simulation environment, providing a pre-deployment verification signal for risk-aware human decision-making.

As AI systems gain agency in workplaces, workers increasingly interact with systems that do more than support tasks: they make decisions, allocate work, and shape how workers communicate with others. We interviewed 16 workers in healthcare, finance, and management about their daily interactions with workplace AI systems. Across these domains, AI occupied three agentic roles: \emph{assistant}, supporting worker decision-making; \emph{arbiter}, making consequential decisions that workers had to explain to downstream stakeholders; and \emph{manager}, directing work and displacing social structures through which work had been negotiated and learned. We find that worker needs depended on how decision authority and accountability were configured around the AI system. Explanation, control, accountability, and communication each took different meanings depending on whether AI supported, decided, or directed work. We contribute a role-based account of workplace human-agent interaction and identify accountability-authority asymmetry as a mechanism through which AI deployments can place responsibility on workers for outcomes whose authority has shifted to AI. We discuss implications for designing workplace AI around both the agent and its surrounding agency configuration.

We model the interaction between a user and an AI driven recommendation system. The user initiates the process by conveying preference information through a costly and noisy message. The AI assistant, acting as a Bayesian agent, interprets the user's message to form a posterior belief about their true preferences and make product recommendations. In particular, it determines how many recommendations to present so as to maximize the user's expected utility from their final choice, while accounting for the search cost induced by the size of the recommendation set. We use mutual information based cost functions to model the two distinct costs incurred by the user during the interaction: (i) a communication cost, which increases with the precision of their preference message, and (ii) a search cost, which increases with the size of the recommendation set provided by the AI assistant. We study products and preferences which live in d dimensional space, and ask how the user's expected payoff can be maximized. For large d, we characterize how optimal message precision and recommendation set size depend on the cost parameters, under two distinct distributions from which recommendations can be sampled from the product universe: (i) Bayes' posterior belief, and (ii) an optimized tilted distribution. Under the posterior sampling scheme (i), we identify a hybrid regime, in which an efficient interaction policy requires jointly optimizing the amount of information (in bits) conveyed by the user and the number of recommendations provided by the AI assistant. In the tilted sampling scheme (ii), our results show that the optimal interaction policy uses only one of communication and search, favoring whichever of them is less costly.

LLMs excel at predictive tasks and complex reasoning tasks, but many high-value deployments rely on decisions under uncertainty, for example, which tool to call, which expert to consult, or how many resources to invest. While the usefulness and feasibility of Bayesian approaches remain unclear for LLM inference, this position paper argues that the control layer of an agentic AI system (that orchestrates LLMs and tools) is a clear case where Bayesian principles should shine. Bayesian decision theory provides a framework for agentic systems that can help to maintain beliefs over task-relevant latent quantities, to update these beliefs from observed agentic and human-AI interactions, and to choose actions. Making LLMs themselves explicitly Bayesian belief-updating engines remains computationally intensive and conceptually nontrivial as a general modeling target. In contrast, this paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system, not necessarily the LLM agent parameters. This paper articulates practical properties for Bayesian control that fit modern agentic AI systems and human-AI collaboration, and provides concrete examples and design patterns to illustrate how calibrated beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.

What shapes a consequential decision when human and artificial intelligence work on it together? The answer is becoming harder to see. A decision may look human-led after AI has set the frame, or appear automated while human judgment still carries decisive force. This paper offers a leadership-facing spectrum to see those relationships within a bounded mandate: Pure Human, Centaur (human-dominant, with AI in the loop), Co-equal, Minotaur (AI-dominant, with humans in the loop), and Pure AI. The spectrum asks where leadership work occurs: who frames the problem, who redirects the work, and who can answer for what follows. The five positions are landmarks that help leaders recognize configurations as they layer, drift, or change in a single decision. The central risk is misrecognition: leaders may keep a human-centered story in place after decision-shaping authority has shifted elsewhere. They may believe oversight remains meaningful when it has become ceremonial, or keep humans in the loop when their involvement could make the decision worse. The framework introduces co-adaptability, the capacity of a configuration to improve as human and non-human participants adjust together, and places it within heterogeneous teaming, where participants may vary by number, substrate, model architecture, capability, speed, memory, and form of participation. The aim is practical: to help strategic leaders and those designing or deploying AI systems recognize the configuration at work, notice when it shifts, and judge whether it fits the decision before them. These configurations will shape how power, responsibility, and trust are distributed in organizational life. Whether the futures they help create remain governable and worth inhabiting will depend on leaders who can see, early enough, where and how consequential decisions are actually being shaped.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.

When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions. Our findings highlight a pressing conflict: while recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, genAI has become an invisible architect that shapes the foundational building blocks of information used for evaluation, from defining a job to determining good interview performances. The decision of whether or not to adopt was also often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt genAI due to calls to integrate AI from higher-ups in their business, to combat applicant use of AI, and the individual need to boost productivity. Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains. Such gains came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes the meaningful oversight of decision-making. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts.

The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical medicine creates a fundamental tension between algorithmic probabilistic reasoning and the experiential intuition of expert physicians; applying Lawrence Lessig's \enquote{Code is Law} framework, I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation, reshaping liability and the standard of care. Reframing AI \enquote{hallucination} as structurally analogous to well-documented human cognitive failures such as confirmation bias and premature diagnostic closure, I show that both failure modes demand a unified governance response. I therefore propose a dialectical standard of care that treats the integrated AI-physician dyad as the singular responsible diagnostic entity, mandating the synthesis of algorithmic precision with human interpretive authority within robust data governance and patient privacy frameworks.

Political parties strive to understand their electorates, and focus groups are a vital tool in these efforts. AI-enhanced simulation technologies (AESTs) enable synthetic focus groups in a fraction of the time (and cost), raising the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research. This paper develops a decision matrix to help party strategists match research needs to appropriate simulation technologies and to identify when to escalate to hybrid or fully human focus groups. The matrix combines three dimensions: strategic purpose, deployment risk, and empirical grounding of the simulation tool. Strategic purpose is the decisive dimension, as it determines what kind of evidence the focus group is meant to produce: observing how political meanings and identities emerge through interaction (Mode 1) or testing and refining campaign messages (Mode 2). The matrix shows that, given documented failure modes such as sycophancy, persona drift, and the suppression of minority viewpoints, AESTs cannot replace human interaction in Mode 1 at any risk level. Within Mode 2, suitability depends instead on deployment risk and on the empirical grounding. Yet even here, we caution that routine reliance on AESTs may erode the qualitative craft on which sound judgment depends.

Scientific Deep Research (DR) agents answer user queries by synthesizing research papers into multi-section reports. User feedback can improve their utility, but existing protocols only score the final report, making it hard to study and learn which intermediate actions DR agents should take to improve reports. We collect DRACULA, the first dataset with user feedback on intermediate actions for DR. Over five weeks, nineteen expert CS researchers ask queries to a DR system that proposes actions (e.g., "Add a section on datasets"). Our users select actions they prefer, then judge whether an output report applied their selections successfully, yielding 8,103 action preferences and 5,230 execution judgments. After confirming a DR agent can execute DRACULA's actions, we study the predictability of user-preferred actions via simulation-how well LLMs predict the actions users select-a step toward learning to generate useful actions. We discover: (1) LLM judges initially struggle to predict action selections, but improve most when using a user's full selection history, rather than self-reported or extrapolated user context signals; (2) Users' selections for the same query differ based on unstated goals, bottlenecking simulation and motivating affordances that let users steer reports; and (3) Our simulation results inform an online intervention that generates new actions based on the user's past interactions, which users pick most often in follow-up studies. Overall, while work extensively studies execution, DRACULA reveals a key challenge is deciding which actions to execute in the first place. We open-source DRACULA's study design, user feedback, and simulation tasks to spur future work on action feedback for long-horizon agents.

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Human decision-makers often face choices about complex cases with many potentially relevant features, but limited bandwidth to inspect and integrate all available information. In such settings, we study algorithms that highlight a small subset of case-specific features for human consideration, rather than producing a single prediction or recommendation. We model highlighting as a constrained information policy that selects a small number of features to reveal. A central issue is how humans interpret the algorithm's choice of features: a sophisticated agent correctly conditions on the selection rule, while a naive agent updates only on revealed feature values and treats the selection event as exogenous. We show that optimizing highlighting for sophisticated agents can be computationally intractable, even in simple discrete and binary settings, whereas optimizing for naive agents is tractable as long as the maximal bandwidth is fixed. We also show that a highlighting policy that is optimal for sophisticated agents can perform arbitrarily poorly when deployed to naive agents, motivating robust, implementable alternatives. We illustrate our framework in a calibrated empirical exercise based on the American Housing Survey. Overall, our results establish the value of highlighting a context-specific set of features rather than a fixed one as a practically appealing and computationally feasible tool for achieving human-algorithm complementarity.

Modern AI assistants are trained to follow instructions, implicitly assuming that users can clearly articulate their goals and the kind of assistance they need. Decades of behavioral research, however, show that people often engage with AI systems before their goals are fully formed. When AI systems treat prompts as complete expressions of intent, they can appear to be useful or convenient, but not necessarily aligned with the users' needs. We call these failures Fantasia interactions. We argue that Fantasia interactions demand a rethinking of alignment research: rather than treating users as rational oracles, AI should provide cognitive support by actively helping users form and refine their intent through time. This requires an interdisciplinary approach that bridges machine learning, interface design, and behavioral science. We synthesize insights from these fields to characterize the mechanisms and failures of Fantasia interactions. We then show why existing interventions are insufficient, and propose a research agenda for designing and evaluating AI systems that better help humans navigate uncertainty in their tasks.

High-consequence decision making demands peak performance from individuals in positions of responsibility. Such executive authority bears the obligation to act despite uncertainty, limited resources, time constraints, and accountability risks. Tools and strategies to motivate confidence and foster risk tolerance must confront informational noise and can provide qualified accountability. Machine intelligence augments human cognition and perception to improve situational awareness, decision framing, flexibility, and coherence through agentic stewardship of contextual metadata. We examine systemic and behavioral factors crucial to address in scenarios encumbered by complexity, uncertainty, and urgency.

Decision-making is a cognitively intensive task that requires synthesizing relevant information from multiple unstructured sources, weighing competing factors, and incorporating subjective user preferences. Existing methods, including large language models and traditional decision-support systems, fall short: they often overwhelm users with information or fail to capture nuanced preferences accurately. We present Decisive, an interactive decision-making framework that combines document-grounded reasoning with Bayesian preference inference. Our approach grounds decisions in an objective option-scoring matrix extracted from source documents, while actively learning a user's latent preference vector through targeted elicitation. Users answer pairwise tradeoff questions adaptively selected to maximize information gain over the final decision. This process converges efficiently, minimizing user effort while ensuring recommendations remain transparent and personalized. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms both general-purpose LLMs and existing decision-making frameworks achieving up to 20% improvement in decision accuracy over strong baselines across domains.

When language models answer open-ended problems, they implicitly make hidden decisions that shape their outputs, leaving users with uncontextualized answers rather than a working map of the problem; drawing on multiverse analysis from statistics, we build and evaluate the conceptual multiverse, an interactive system that represents conceptual decisions such as how to frame a question or what to value as a space users can transparently inspect, intervenably change, and check against principled domain reasoning; for this structure to be worth navigating rather than misleading, it must be rigorous and checkable against domain reasoning norms, so we develop a general verification framework that enforces properties of good decision structures like unambiguity and completeness calibrated by expert-level reasoning; across three domains, the conceptual multiverse helped participants develop a working map of the problem, with philosophy students rewriting essays with sharper framings and reversed theses, alignment annotators moving from surface preferences to reasoning about user intent and harm, and poets identifying compositional patterns that clarified their taste.

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

Building on recent advances in AI, hybrid decision making (HDM) holds the promise of improving human decision quality and reducing cognitive load. We work in the context of learning to guide (LtG), a recently proposed HDM framework in which the human is always responsible for the final decision: rather than suggesting decisions, in LtG the AI supplies (textual) guidance useful for facilitating decision making. One limiting factor of existing approaches is that their guidance compounds information about all possible outcomes, and as a result it can be difficult to digest. We address this issue by introducing ConfGuide, a novel LtG approach that generates more succinct and targeted guidance. To this end, it employs conformal risk control to select a set of outcomes, ensuring a cap on the false negative rate. We demonstrate our approach on a real-world multi-label medical diagnosis task. Our empirical evaluation highlights the promise of ConfGuide.