Human Oversight

Learning predictive models of contact-rich dexterous manipulation requires dense tactile interaction, but such data are costly to scale on real robots and remain tied to embodiment-specific sensors. We introduce DexTouch-WM, an action-conditioned world model that learns from scalable human touch to jointly predict future RGB observations and bilateral tactile dynamics. Our insight is that human and robot manipulation share transferable contact dynamics when their tactile observations and action spaces are made compatible. We deploy flexible piezoresistive arrays with a shared sensing layout on both human and dexterous robot hands, and retarget human motion into the robot action space so that human interaction can supervise the same dynamics model used for real-robot prediction. DexTouch-WM couples a pretrained video expert with a lightweight tactile expert using anatomy-aware tactile tokens and aligned action conditioning. In human-to-robot scaling experiments, we keep five hours of real-robot supervision fixed while increasing human interaction from 0 to 100 hours, and observe substantial improvements in held-out robot-domain visual, geometric, and contact prediction despite disjoint human and robot task sets. Beyond prediction, we evaluate the world models as surrogate environments for policy evaluation and as generators of synthetic trajectories for real-robot policy learning, showing that scalable human interaction provides a complementary data axis for learning dexterous robot world models.

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

AI systems can strengthen democracy by supporting deliberation at scale by addressing cognitive, social, platform-design, and market-driven frictions, while preserving human agency. Unlike proposals such as liquid democracy that restructure representation through vote delegation, in this position paper, we argue that AI-assisted deliberation offers a more promising path by lowering barriers to meaningful engagement without substituting machine judgment for human choice. Drawing on evidence from online deliberation platforms and experimental research, we identify four guiding principles: preserving agency and autonomy, encouraging mutual respect, promoting equality and inclusiveness, and augmenting rather than substituting active citizenship. We also address critical challenges, including alignment, sycophancy, training bias, and over-reliance on AI systems. We call on the machine learning community to develop deliberation-focused AI systems evaluated not on engagement metrics but on their capacity to facilitate informed, representative, and friction-robust discourse.

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

Recent breakthroughs in LLM-based systems and their abilities in problem solving and coding have allowed progress in the AI for Science paradigm, potentially replacing human roles in machine learning (ML) research. However, while several frameworks of fully autonomous end-to-end ML research have been proposed, successful implementations of them are often limited to problems with narrow search spaces, like language modeling or biomedical ML benchmarks. In this paper, we explore how autonomous research can be adapted to solve open-ended, industry-grade ML problems, by considering a case study: telecom ticket retrieval, an open-ended task with degrees of freedom in representation, architecture, and training data generation. We discover that autonomous research for open-ended problems with commercial and open-source agents shows both promise and limitations: while autonomous research can excel in narrow hyperparameter optimization, it lacks human-like intuition and creativity and requires operational overhead. Even with minimal human supervision, autonomous research can reach $90\%$ of state-of-the-art performance (0.34 vs. 0.38 Recall@1) in a much shorter time period (10 weeks vs. 10 months of human work) at a modest cost (up to $200 per Cursor campaign). Our empirical evidence recommends that human researchers and autonomous research frameworks work together for best results in ML research.

Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI. However, such metrics ignore the greater impacts of human--agent collaboration in transforming the nature of work. To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today, and instead focus on how AI can augment entire workflows of the future. To ground this analysis, we establish a precise definition of AI augmentation comprising six conditions, spanning durable net value, meaningful human control, accountability and recovery, and long-term human development through learning, career pathways, and job purpose. We elaborate on these conditions and apply the framework in a case study of AI-mediated social surveys. We conclude by outlining how organisations, researchers, and government leaders can use this framework to make sense of the future of work.

The threat that AI persuasion poses to human control has been acknowledged in the literature, but not yet systematically studied. Now that persuasion attacks are no longer theoretical - with Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 recently making headlines for trying to convince people involved in an open-source project to merge malicious code during an evaluation - there is a pressing need to deeply analyze this threat. We undertake that effort here. In particular, we analyze how AI could persuade humans in key settings (e.g. safety-relevant R&D within frontier labs) toward decisions that compromise the development, containment, oversight, and governance of AI itself. In doing so, we elucidate a framework for characterizing this threat, develop five concrete scenarios using this framework, and provide a blueprint for assessing the associated risks. Using this blueprint, we conduct an initial risk estimation survey with select researchers and find that their opinions on which scenarios are riskiest are highly mixed. Their disagreements stem from differing opinions about the effectiveness of AI persuasion in different contexts, and point to the need for follow-up risk elicitation studies and persuasion evaluations, which we outline. Our hope is that this paper highlights the risks from AI persuasion undermining control, and provides a path forward for future research.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmarks cognitive generalization, the ability to infer and apply abstract rules from limited examples. This paper presents a multi-stage rule-chaining framework that performs compositional reasoning across symbolic, structural, and conceptual levels. The framework integrates three complementary solvers: (1) a deterministic rule discovery module that induces atomic transformations through geometric, color, and object-based analysis; (2) a pattern-composition engine that reconstructs outputs via block merging, repetition, and spatial heuristics; and (3) a structural abstraction layer that infers hierarchical and nested relationships across grids. These solvers operate sequentially within a progressive fallback hierarchy, where each stage reuses prior reasoning traces to enhance interpretability and generalization. Training passed for 995 tasks out of 1000, further evaluated on 105 tasks out of 120 and solved 230 test tasks out of 240 ARC-AGI-2 tasks. The system achieved strong coverage across deterministic, compositional, and abstract categories, demonstrating an overall accuracy exceeding 95 percent. The proposed architecture bridges symbolic reasoning and pattern synthesis, providing interpretable insight into cognitive generalization. The results suggest that rule chaining and hierarchical composition can advance machine reasoning toward transparent, human-aligned abstraction without relying on task-specific tuning.

Reacting to sudden physical hazards (catching a slipping plate, dodging a falling knife) is both a meaningful test of embodied intelligence and a hard requirement for deploying multimodal large language models (MLLMs) as the decision coreof household robots. Existing evaluations, however, probe intuitive physics passively through question answering over videos, or target deliberate, long-horizon tasks such as navigation and rearrangement; none measure whether a model can turn physical understanding into immediate, safety-critical action. We introduce ReactHuman, the first physics-grounded benchmark for human-like reactive decision-making, in which the evaluated MLLM acts as the brain of a simulated humanoid facing sudden household hazards; it spans 17 event families and over 1,000 bit-for-bit reproducible scenes with exact, annotation-free ground truth derived from 240 Hz rigid-body simulation, including adversarial objects whose appearance contradicts their physics (a foam anvil, a steel apple). We further design a five-metric suite that scores each reaction along three axes: reasonable, safe, and physically grounded. We physically execute every committed plan so that decisions have observable consequences. With this harness we evaluate seven representative MLLMs. Results show that reactive safety is far from solved: models mishandle roughly one hazard in three, act from fixed dispositions rather than the observed scene, trust appearance over motion, and miss interception points at meter scale even when the chosen action is correct; none of these failures shrink with model scale. ReactHuman thus offers both a fine-grained diagnosis and a scalable training signal toward physically grounded, safety-aware embodied agents. The benchmark can be found here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Alan123/reacthuman-benchmark-scaled

Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal. This assumes the two evaluations measure the same thing. We test that assumption in a setting where both can be measured at once: a corpus of securities class actions (2002-2025) linking 70,500 X messages to abnormal stock returns, with a single-annotator human labelled gold sample. Running five instruments (VADER, Loughran-McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter-RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator) through one identical pipeline, we find that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation. Under conventional method-specific sampling, human agreement aligns more closely with graded same-day associations than with one-day leads. On a fixed-n panel, however, agreement has similar graded rank correlations at both horizons, while the coarse ordering remains weak. Benchmark agreement therefore establishes semantic validity but does not by itself determine predictive rankings. In a conversation that is 17.6% spam, message volume predicts neither market damage nor settlement size.

Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.

The evolution of DNA sequences can be viewed as stochastic dynamics on a high-dimensional discrete space, but it is unclear when empirical transition biases reduce to an effective energy landscape versus retain irreducible non-equilibrium circulation. Human context-dependent mutation probabilities offer a direct test: every single-nucleotide substitution in a local context has a reverse substitution, so the logarithm of the forward-to-reverse probability ratio defines an antisymmetric field-the human mutation field. We show this field has a dominant gradient component and a smaller but reproducible curl component. Using seven-base human germline substitution probabilities, we infer an effective mutational landscape with a Siamese neural network constrained to predict only energy differences. This model predicts forward-to-reverse log-ratios for held-out mutations with a correlation of about 0.93, close to both an unconstrained predictive reference (0.948) and the empirical reversible ceiling from Hodge projection (about 0.96). Although trained only on mutation probabilities, the inferred landscape largely recovers short-word genomic composition and Chargaff reverse-complement symmetry for sequences up to length four. Deviations from equilibrium structure reveal a small but detectable nonequilibrium component: a residual irreversible circulation violating the Kolmogorov cycle condition for detailed balance, reproducible across African, Asian, and European populations, and strongest in CpG-linked cycles and CpG-transition edges, consistent with methylcytosine deamination. These results give a thermodynamic decomposition of the human mutation field: most mutation bias is organized by a local equilibrium-like energy landscape aligned with genome composition, while the residual circulation points to specific directional mutational mechanisms.

How robot body configuration shapes human intervention during approach remains underexplored. We conducted a within-participants study with 41 participants, measuring final stopping distance, subjective comfort, and exploratory eye-tracking responses across four humanoid arm configurations and two spatial scales. Full forward arm extension increased stopping distance by approximately 31-36 cm relative to arms-down. Spatial scale primarily affected comfort and pupil responses without a detectable stopping-distance shift. We introduce the Configuration-Aware Limit Model (CALM), which translates stopping-distance distributions into configuration-dependent population-coverage boundaries. Estimated boundaries at 80% coverage ranged from 0.88 to 1.47 m. In an illustrative one-dimensional planning analysis, reconfiguration enabled a 1.10 m approach goal that was unreachable with arms remaining fully extended under the same nominal pointwise 20% intervention-probability constraint. These findings support treating body configuration as a planning variable while distinguishing physical safety, behavioral intervention, and subjective cost.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review. Prior research locates such failures in users' capability to review LLM output or their engagement in doing so. We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight and posit that error detection is more effective when oversight-relevant information is accessible to users at the moment of review. Across two randomized lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer-facing employees, we show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning, while cues that reactivate such reasoning help sustain detection under repeated LLM use. Theoretically, we identify information retrievability as a distinct precondition for effective oversight and specify generative encoding and cue-supported reactivation as mechanisms that build and sustain it. Practically, lightweight onboarding self-explanations and daily retrieval cues can make human oversight more resilient as LLM use becomes routine.

Frontier AI systems function as \emph{constitutional institutions}: each deployed model encodes an implicit ranking among safety, helpfulness, honesty, autonomy, and equity. We ask whether the supply of frontier constitutional types covers human demand. Combining a paraphrase-controlled audit of the as-shipped default constitutions of $23$ frontier LLM archetypes with a pairwise-tradeoff study of $1{,}649$ US participants on the same instrument, we report three facts. \emph{Demand is broad}: it spans all five values, with the largest constituency under one-third. \emph{Supply is narrow and drifting}: the $23$-archetype hull occupies ${\sim}2\%$ of the demand hull under conservative noise-matched estimation ($0.10\%$ at full audit precision), no archetype puts helpfulness or autonomy first ($37\%$ of users are constitutionally homeless), and across six model families autonomy decreases in $5/6$, equity increases in $5/6$, and safety increases in $4/6$, with monotone within-family version trends (order-permutation $p = 0.013$) and the autonomy decline concentrated in scenarios where safety is not at stake. The drift's importance is directional: \emph{away} from a value already undercovered, mechanically worsening the welfare floor for the least-served users. \emph{The fix is sparse}: a $2$-vertex menu $\{e_{\mathrm{HON}}, e_{\mathrm{AUT}}\}$ beats the full $23$-archetype frontier by $47\%$ on mean regret (CI $[43\%, 52\%]$); three vertex additions cut mean/worst-group regret by up to $81\%$/$64\%$. We formalize these findings as a budgeted-pluralism trilemma, show the binding regime is empirically realized, and verify the conclusions are robust to distance-based welfare and to degraded routing. The instrument and audit harness are described in full in the appendices.

As LLM-based human simulators are increasingly used for policy, evaluation, and training, they must faithfully reproduce real behavioral patterns. While prior work has examined behavioral fidelity in survey responses and dialogue, longer-horizon real-world activity remains largely unexplored. We introduce a framework for evaluating behavioral fidelity in long-horizon activity simulations across temporal granularities and levels of analysis. As a case study, we collect a 43-hour multi-camera dataset of in-the-wild office activity and compare trace-derived conditioning mechanisms: persona descriptors, few-shot exemplars, and statistical transition and time-of-day priors. We find that behavioral fidelity is not uniform across metrics: statistical priors bring activity and sequence distributions closest to real behavior, yet over-fragment routines and suppress within-person variability. These findings motivate a more holistic evaluation that spans multiple metrics, temporal granularities, and levels of analysis.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does not guarantee alignment with human judgments. In this paper, we compare a single-judge baseline against a consensus-based MAD protocol on subjective evaluation tasks and design three ablations to isolate the impact of role prompting, multi-round interaction, and explicit score sharing. Evaluations across six LLMs show that the single-judge baseline achieves the strongest human alignment on average across six judge models, whereas MAD shows degradation in human alignment on both tasks. Our ablations demonstrate that this performance drop stems primarily from asymmetric role prompting rather than the interaction itself. Specifically, assigning a strict judge role introduces a systematic downward bias that the consensus process fails to correct. The central finding is that this bias reflects strict-stance dominance beyond averaging: the consensus score falls well beyond the arithmetic midpoint of the standalone strict and lenient conditions, rather than averaging them out. Removing role asymmetry (Symmetric MAD) largely recovers baseline performance, while masking peer scores widens inter-agent disagreement on average and worsens average human alignment. These findings demonstrate that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.

We present OLIVE, a framework for adapting a foundation model to provide real-time assistance in temporally demanding, high-stakes, and dynamic tasks. We show that passive EEG, fused online with behavioral evidence, can meaningfully extend the number of targets users detect and engage beyond their unaided action bandwidth. OLIVE learns from both explicit behavioral signals (the targets the user shoots down in an XR first-person shooter game) and implicit physiological signals (fixation-locked EEG) to provide timely guidance, continuously adapting a frozen vision-language model's inference on which items are task-relevant by jointly estimating per-source reliability without manual labels or offline training. Through three user studies, including two live deployments of an assistive agent driven by OLIVE in XR, we show that OLIVE Pareto-dominates prior test-time adaptation frameworks, achieving the highest convergence rate at comparable convergence speed. Combining implicit physiological and explicit behavioral signals, the OLIVE agent produces the largest and most reliable within-session improvement to a user's ability to detect and engage targets, largely independent of the individual's skill. When the target switches silently, the agent that uses both behavioral and physiological signals reconverges significantly faster than the behavior-only agent (1.27 times faster on average, p = .008), restoring trustworthy guidance at the moment the task changes, precisely when reliable assistance matters most.

Evaluating conversational voice agents at scale re- quires reliable assessment methods that capture both observ- able interaction quality and the contextual judgment typically provided by human evaluators. We investigate LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation by comparing human judgments with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 on telecom and retail voice-agent conversations, across conversational quality and safety dimensions. The same interac- tions are scored under three evaluation configurations, p0, p1, and p2, to test whether automated judgments are sensitive to the evaluation setup and whether observed patterns generalize across configurations and judge models. Beyond aggregate agreement, we examine metric-level correlations, evaluator consistency, and systematic human-LLM disagreement to identify which conver- sational attributes can be judged reliably by automation and which remain sensitive to interpretation and context. Effective voice-agent evaluation is also shaped by pipeline-level factors such as speech generation, streaming, and error propagation across ASR, reasoning, and tool-calling stages, motivating our focus on comparing how human and LLM judges score the same interactions end to end. Our results show that LLM- based evaluation can serve as an effective component of large- scale voice-agent assessment, but that its reliability is metric- and configuration-dependent rather than uniform. This pro- vides an empirical framework for identifying which metrics suit automated evaluation and supports hybrid pipelines in which LLM judges handle scalable assessment while human evaluators remain engaged for metrics that demand contextual interpretation and higher-confidence judgment.

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

Search rankings are valuable because human attention is scarce and sequential. Higher-placed alternatives are easier to find, so they are examined and bought more often. Consumers are now delegating search to AI agents that can ingest an entire results page at once. Randomizing the order of one hundred hotel listings across 5,000 AI agent sessions, we compare four large language models against human field data. AI agents search more deeply than humans and never decline to buy. Position still predicts which listings are inspected, but weakly and non-monotonically: the middle of a results page has the lowest probability of inspection, not the bottom. Position reaches the choice stage for some models and not others, a heterogeneity that tracks neither provider nor capability. All models nonetheless converge on the same undominated listing. For agentic search, the attributes displayed on a results page matter more than placement within it.

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with five contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find no strong evidence that informal phrasing degrades output quality; it may, however, still be helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Finally, we extend the framework to 38 adversarial questions that are ambiguous, invalid, out-of-scope or ethically sensitive, and show that the agent's refusal behavior is guided by the stated intent of a request. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.

Shani et al. (2026) show that LLM representations broadly recover human category boundaries, while failing to reflect fine-grained typicality structure. Their analysis uses cosine similarity over dense model representations. We revisit their approach using overlap over active sparse autoencoder (SAE) latent sets as a more interpretable similarity measure. We first verify that this set-level measure is meaningful: SAE latent sets can recover union-like compositional structure in controlled toy models and induce semantically coherent neighborhoods in natural text. Extending the human-concepts analysis to SAE set similarities, we find that SAE activation sets do not recover human category boundaries or within-category typicality more faithfully than dense embeddings or residual-stream states, but instead track model-internal similarity structure. To probe this gap further, we study active latent sets under well-controlled semantic modifications, revealing a substantial mismatch between human judgements of conceptual change and change in the SAE active set. We interpret this as evidence that, outside idealised settings, SAE features do not compose via simple bag-of-features semantics.

Purpose: Keyphrases are statistically and semantically important textual units that can also attract readers' attention during comprehension. However, existing keyphrase extraction (KPE) studies mainly focus on improving textual representation while largely overlooking human reading behavior. This study examines whether lightweight webcam-based eye-tracking features can improve KPE from Chinese academic abstracts in Library and Information Science (LIS). Methodology: To address the limited availability of eye-tracking data for Chinese academic reading, we developed a lightweight webcam-based data collection platform using the open-source SearchGazer library and constructed the Chinese LIS Eye-Tracking Corpus (CLIS-ET). Three character-level eye-tracking features, first fixation duration (FFD), fixation number (FN), and total fixation duration (TFD), were incorporated into KPE models to evaluate their effects on extraction performance. Findings: Eye-tracking features consistently improved KPE performance. The combination of FN and TFD achieved the best results on the Att-BiLSTM+CRF model, indicating that readers' fixation behavior provides useful signals for identifying keyphrases in academic abstracts. Originality/value: This study introduces a cost-effective webcam-based eye-tracking approach for KPE and presents CLIS-ET, a Chinese academic eye-tracking corpus containing FFD, FN, and TFD features. The results demonstrate the value of incorporating human reading behavior into keyphrase extraction. Dataset and code: https://github.com/yan-xinyi/ET_AKE and https://github.com/yan-xinyi/Reading_ET_System.

Agentic systems are increasingly expected to improve after deployment, yet single-entity self-evolution is often bounded by a static learning context, such as fixed tasks and feedback. This survey focuses on co-evolution in agentic systems, a multi-component form of self-evolution in which multiple agents and their environment impose adaptive pressure on one another. To organize existing papers, we propose a progressive three-stage taxonomy that traces how the system gradually sheds human-engineered constraints. Agent--Agent Co-Evolution studies how agents adapt through dynamic peers, including adversarial, collaborative, and organizational adaptation. Agent--Environment Co-Evolution extends this loop to adaptive tasks, feedback, and interaction spaces that change with the agents. Meta Co-Evolution further explores the possibility of making the evolution mechanism itself evolvable. We also discuss open challenges in evaluating such systems, scaling them across multiple components, and keeping increasingly autonomous evolutionary processes safe and controllable. This survey provides a unified foundation for building robust and open-ended agentic systems that can improve beyond fixed human-designed paths.

This paper explores the idea of promoting well-being and safety in human-AI interactions by forcing AI agents explicitly to empower humans and to manage the power balance between humans and AI agents in a desirable way. Using a principled, partially axiomatic approach based on desirable properties, we design a parametrizable and decomposable objective function for AI systems that represents an inequality- and risk-averse long-term aggregate of human power. It can take into account models of human bounded rationality and social norms, and crucially, considers a wide variety of possible human goals. We prove how certain desiderata enforce particular functional forms and restrict parameter ranges. We exemplify the consequences of softly maximizing this metric in several paradigmatic situations and describe what instrumental sub-goals it will likely imply.

Soft wearable robots have evolved rapidly from proof-of-concept devices into promising platforms for rehabilitation, occupational assistance, and human augmentation. As the field matures, its central challenge extends beyond the development of softer materials and more capable actuators to the integration of sensing, intelligence, and human adaptation into systems that users can wear comfortably, trust, and benefit from over extended periods. This transition motivates the concept of Human-Centric Embodied Intelligence (HCEI), in which intelligence emerges from the coupled human-robot system through the interaction of morphology, multimodal sensing, adaptive cognition, compliant actuation, and the wearer's own physiological and behavioral adaptation. To organize this perspective, this review introduces the Perception-Cognition-Actuation-Augmentation (PCAA) framework, which positions perception and cognition as the primary drivers of design, shifting development beyond the conventional actuator-first paradigm. Using this framework, the review synthesizes advances in soft materials, wearable sensing, artificial intelligence, actuation, human-robot interaction, digital twins, clinical translation, manufacturing, regulation, and ethics, highlighting how these interdependent components collectively shape long-term personalization and real-world deployment. By providing a unified conceptual framework and design perspective, this review aims to guide future research, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and accelerate the translation of next-generation soft wearable robots toward personalized, predictive, and human-centric wearable intelligence.

Human pairwise comparison provides a direct basis for perceptual infrared-visible image fusion assessment, but dense annotation becomes costly as method pools grow. We present the Learned Perceptual Image Fusion Measure (LPIFM), among the earliest learned fusion assessors trained directly on dense human A/B/Tie comparisons. LPIFM jointly examines both source images and both fused candidates, combining a shared hierarchical encoder, triadic interaction, and a tie-aware objective to predict comparative preference and perceptual indifference. We construct and publicly release all 6,300 unordered comparisons among 25 methods on 21 VIFB scenes, collected through blinded, randomized annotation and expert adjudication. Across four VIFB evaluation settings, LPIFM achieves 79.2-84.0% agreement with human pairwise judgments and Spearman correlations of 0.941-0.977 with human-derived method rankings. On full method pools, accuracy exceeds the strongest of 19 conventional metrics by 16.3-21.1 pp. Consistency diagnostics show 99.98-100% candidate-swap agreement and no observed decisive preference cycles. External experiments on EVAFusion further demonstrate rapid adaptation to a different fusion-evaluation preference protocol. After only three epochs of fine-tuning, LPIFM surpasses all 19 conventional metrics in accuracy, macro-F1, and ranking correlation. LPIFM provides a scalable instrument for human-aligned fusion assessment, with the preference corpus, model weights, and code publicly available.

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

Dexterous object rotation is a sequential contact problem: each support, release, and re-contact decision must both produce the desired object motion, and prepare the hand configuration for continued rotation. Existing reinforcement learning methods discover such movement patterns through trial and error on specific robotic hand embodiments, without explicitly accounting for how each contact transition affects the hand's ability to sustain object rotation in subsequent steps. We introduce DexMani, a framework that transfers human demonstrations as contact-conditioned manipulability evolution. This prior captures how successful human contact transitions reshape the object-rotation directions available to the hand. DexMani then learns this manipulability evolution and uses it to guide downstream reinforcement learning, enabling rotation skills to be acquired across robot embodiments with distinct kinematics and active-contact configurations. Across the Shadow Hand, Allegro Hand, and XHand, DexMani achieves the highest success rates in every evaluated setting for both seen and unseen objects. DexMani reaches an average success rate of 57.5% on LEAP Hand, outperforming other baselines and producing smoother rotatory motions. Project site: https://dexmani.github.io

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is widely used to evaluate frontier language models. HLE organizes its questions into eight subject-domain categories, whose subscores are often interpreted as evidence of distinct capabilities. However, no study has assessed whether these labels correspond to empirically separable latent constructs, nor whether the benchmark effectively differentiates between models of similar ability. We evaluate 29 LLMs on the text-only multiple-choice subset of HLE ($J = 428$ items) and apply psychometric methods to assess both the dimensionality of the benchmark and the distribution of its measurement precision. Fitting a two-parameter logistic IRT model, we find convergent evidence that HLE measures a single general reasoning factor: McDonald's $ω_h = 0.998$, domain labels explain only 3.5% of item response variance, within- and between-domain residual correlations are nearly identical (Cohen's $d = 0.016$), and domain-specific ability estimates are near-redundant with the total score ($r \geq 0.81$). A separate analysis of the test information function reveals that measurement precision concentrates at moderate ability levels and drops sharply above $θ= 0$, where frontier models sit. These findings suggest that HLE's domain subscores do not warrant distinct capability interpretations and that the benchmark's ability to discriminate among the strongest models is limited.

High-quality, diverse data are vital for large language models (LLMs) but remain scarce and costly. Data synthesis is a viable alternative and succeeds on closed tasks, yet the humanities and social sciences (HSS) are overlooked, and their open-ended nature makes synthesis challenging. Moving beyond prior capability-centric, fragmented attempts, we adopt a subject-centric paradigm, define the first HSS domain system covering 14 mainstream fields, and introduce HSS-Synth, the first data synthesis pipeline for HSS. HSS-Synth comprises: (1) constructing seed documents from web corpora via multi-step filtering and text refinement evaluated by a judge; (2) specifying "requirements + persona" to backtranslate seed documents into diverse yet faithful instructions with a strict Q&A alignment check; and (3) breaking LLM response limits via teacher-forced Answering that feeds seed documents during response generation to anchor semantics, reduce hallucinations, and preserve tone and integrity. HSS-Synth yields 237k high-quality, diverse instruction-tuning samples that outperform 14 leading baselines on 16 benchmarks. The fine-tuned Qwen3-8B-Base sets a new SOTA and approaches the official Qwen3-8B, improving both human preference and knowledge capabilities without performance seesaws. Extensive experiments demonstrate HSS-Synth's robustness and transferability. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/pengr/HSS-Synth.

While data synthesis for large language models (LLMs) is prevalent, it primarily targets domains with verifiable answers, overlooking open-ended humanities and social sciences (HSS), where nuanced quality judgments matter more than objective correctness. This makes preference alignment a natural paradigm for broad HSS tasks. Yet existing methods are either costly or not tailored to broad HSS disciplines. We thus propose BridgeAlign, among the first preference-alignment pipelines for broad HSS disciplines, with three phases: i) Seed Curation: curating HSS seed documents from web corpora via heuristic/LLM-based filtering and text refinement; ii) Preference Data Synthesis: generating preference triplets via persona-based instruction inversion with Q&A consistency checks; iii) Preference Optimization: moving beyond naive human-vs-model heuristics by first grounding preferences in HSS quality rubric, then generating transitional responses via controlled quality degradation to form near-boundary preference pairs for finer-grained quality discrimination. Aligning over 210k synthetic preference samples, BridgeAlign enables Qwen3-8B to achieve the best average across 17 benchmarks against 11 strong baselines; importantly, leading on both human-preference and knowledge-based capabilities at once, with no trade-off between them, as supported by extensive experiments and contextualized by existing theories.

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

Psychometric calibration for educational tests typically requires costly human response data. Large language models (LLMs) simulated examinees offer a promising route to early calibration, but their responses are too accurate and too uniform. We propose Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling (CDP), a zero-shot framework that prompts LLMs to simulate plausible examinees with diverse cognitive profiles: binary attribute-mastery patterns are rendered as natural-language profiles and sampled under an uninformative or an informative distribution. Using the Tatsuoka fraction-subtraction dataset (536 examinees, 15 items, five attributes), we evaluated eight LLM configurations under no-profile, uninformative-CDP, and informative-CDP conditions, assessing alignment with human examinees at the ability-distribution, mastery-profile, and item-difficulty levels. CDP improved all three levels: distributional overlap rose across configurations; weighted correlations between profile-level scores and human profile expectations reached 0.92 to 0.98; and item-difficulty recovery improved in rank order and absolute alignment, most for reasoning-enabled models; in the strongest case, Gemini 3.0 Flash (Thinking), one-parameter logistic (1PL) difficulty Spearman correlations rose from 0.24 to 0.86 and 0.90 and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) fell from 6.31 to 1.30 and 0.90; the informative condition helped most where profile-level alignment was strong. CDP brings LLM-simulated examinees into closer psychometric alignment with human examinees, making them practical for operational test development.

Extended Reality (XR) is increasingly used in human-robot interaction to communicate robot intent, planned motion, reachability, and state. We argue that XR should also be understood as a mediation layer for situated human control in human-robot teaming. Situated human control denotes the human collaborator's ability to understand, shape, authorize, and interrupt robot action within the concrete physical, social, and temporal context in which that action unfolds. We ground this perspective in scenarios from robot-assisted bedside nursing, multi-arm supervisory control, and collaborative assembly under divided attention. Across these scenarios, robot autonomy must remain inspectable and adjustable as people move, goals change, sensing is incomplete, control roles shift, and plans become invalid. We identify four mediation functions connecting human intent and robot autonomy, robot plans and human judgment, levels of shared control, and team roles, handover, and recovery. Building on these functions, we derive six design dimensions: joint action possibilities, socio-physical constraints, uncertainty and plan validity, multimodal control and correction, roles, handover, and accountability, and anticipatory recovery. The paper outlines a research agenda for XR systems that make robot autonomy more actionable and accountable in dynamic shared environments.

We introduce a novel learning problem: decoding gaze into natural language descriptions of human goals across diverse visual tasks. Unlike prior work, which frames gaze decoding as a discriminative task over predefined categories, we formulate it as a generative learning problem: training a model to produce free-form descriptions that capture the rich nuances and open-ended nature of human intentions beyond fixed labels. To this end, we introduce Gazette, the first gaze-to-text decoding framework. Based on multimodal large language models (MLLMs), Gazette learns to decode gaze scanpaths into natural language for goals that may extend beyond categorical labels and require articulation in natural language. To help Gazette filter out individual differences in gaze behavior and learn the goal-specific spatiotemporal dynamics crucial for generating accurate natural language goal descriptions, we propose a novel strategy that leverages the encyclopedic knowledge and reasoning abilities of a large language model to synthesize natural language explanations of goal-directed attentional behavior called think-aloud transcripts. Instruction tuning on these synthetic narratives allows Gazette to achieve state-of-the-art performance in gaze decoding across multiple tasks, demonstrating its generalizability and versatility, thereby enabling gaze to serve as a powerful, non-intrusive cue for inferring human goals and intentions in diverse scenarios.

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

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.

In many social-science research tasks, such as economics, LLM-based agents must produce outputs for which no cheap, task-complete, machine-readable correctness signal exists. This creates a distinctive reliability problem for multi-agent systems: how should generation, critique, coordination, and human judgment be organized when no component can certify the final result? We address this problem through pAI-Econ-claude, a gated, human-in-the-loop multi-agent architecture for AI-assisted economic theory development. Agents coordinate through a shared workspace of inspectable intermediate records; specialized gates diagnose targeted failure modes and recommend loopbacks without certifying correctness; and human checkpoints retain authority over decisions that are costly to reverse. We evaluate the architecture on five matched economic-theory tasks against an ungated baseline. Two evaluators blinded to configuration agreed on all five pairwise rankings, preferring the gated architecture in four tasks and the baseline in one. Mean failure severity fell from 1.58 to 1.16, while overall usefulness rose from 2.60 to 3.10. The largest observed gain occurred when a reality check rejected a false market-structure premise and a proof review prompted revision of a false welfare claim. The negative case shows that scaffolding can also compress an economically important mechanism too aggressively. The results support a bounded claim: gated oversight improves the auditability of AI-assisted economic theory without substituting for formal verification, and the allocation of irreversible human judgment is a more informative design variable than pure agent autonomy. The workflow is publicly available at https://github.com/maxwell2732/pAI-Econ-claude.

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

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.

Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance. PHP-AIO (Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations) is a five-gate sequential decision protocol with a final composite check that quantifies these unpriced systemic risks at the role level and produces auditable automation decisions. A closed-form automation-debt measure ($ρ(P)$) formalises how role-level decisions accumulate across multi-step processes; its warning is neutralised only by a regulator-mandated human-in-the-loop anchor. Applied to stylised profiles of representative internal roles, PHP-AIO produces distinct outcomes -- automate, augment, hybrid, and preserve -- for candidates that standard cost-benefit analysis would uniformly automate. Threshold sensitivity analysis confirms the gate decisions are robust to upward perturbations of at least 14% in three of four representative cases. Keywords: AI governance, automation decision, human oversight, tacit knowledge, organizational resilience, financial services

This paper suggests the adoption of a novel inversion in AI ethics: instead of asking how humans should treat artificial superintelligence (ASI), it examines how future sentient ASI may morally consider and evaluate humanity. We are not only designing intelligent systems but also shaping the initial conditions under which those systems form judgments about us. The paper proposes a preliminary set of post-human moral principles that may govern sentient ASI actions. The implication is that technical design choices (some are suggested), humanity's moral behaviour, and the essence of what it means to be human, may influence humanity's long-term standing in a post-ASI world.

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.

LLM agents act on real-world environments through tool calls, and a single misjudged action can cause irreversible harm. The standard safeguard is a guard model that labels each proposed action as safe or unsafe, but this binary view conflates two distinct decisions: whether the action is harmful in itself, and whether it is appropriate given the user's context. It also operates at the granularity of action categories rather than individual instances, producing routine interruptions that erode autonomy and train users to wave through the most consequential alerts. We reframe the problem as a per-instance three-way routing decision over {EXECUTE, ASK, REFUSE} and instantiate it with Safety Sentry, a lightweight guard model whose inference reduces to a single decoding call. A single decoding-time threshold lets one fixed checkpoint be re-positioned across deployments of differing risk tolerance without retraining. Safety Sentry outperforms a broad set of open-weight and frontier closed-source baselines on overall accuracy and safety-related recall, while controlling both directional error rates simultaneously.

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latter. AI-enabled systems are also being used to augment autonomy in systems, and autonomy coupled with opacity raises numerous concerns surrounding, e.g., the reliability of systems, their regularity in functioning, human ability to control them, or whether deploying opaque and potentially autonomous systems is in compliance with ethical and legal norms. In this article, we argue that many of these worries can be mitigated by leveraging practical judgment, virtue, and intuition in the deployment and use of opaque AI-enabled systems. We show that focusing on these distinctly human capabilities provides a means for bridging between the practical challenges created by opacity and the ethical, legal, and social norms underpinning particular domains. We argue that a core element in doing this is a recognition that many positive human traits are not quantifiable and we therefore must develop training regimen and guidelines on AI deployment anchored in humanistic but non-quantifiable values. Throughout the article, we focus on the military domain as an exemplar of the importance of practical judgment, virtue, and intuition as drivers for ethical and effective human decision-making surrounding AI deployments, but the underlying arguments apply to all domains where opaque and potentially autonomous systems are being deployed (subject to domain-specific alterations).

Creating realistic 3D human-human interactions in virtual environments is challenging due to the high degrees of freedom in the human body and the need for physically accurate poses that do not collide with each other. Traditional methods for human-human interaction are based on motion tracking or 3D body reconstruction, but lack generative capabilities. Recent generative methods enable the synthesis of individual or interacting motions via text or image input, but generally fall short in modeling close interactions. This paper introduces a novel generative model for close 3D human-human interactions using a conditional variational autoencoder (cVAE), which generates poses for one human conditioned on the pose of another, allowing for controlled and diverse interaction synthesis. To train our model, we address two underlying long-standing challenges in the field of human-human interaction: data scarcity, for which we propose an automated supervised data augmentation strategy that generates synthetic yet realistic interaction poses; and collision awareness in generative approaches, for which we propose a self-supervised loss based on a collision resolution technique using volumetric proxies to ensure physically correct interactions. We extensively evaluate the capabilities of our model, and demonstrate a wide variety of plausible and physically correct interactions, not possible to generate with current state-of-the-art methods.

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.

Testing is a major effort for the gaming industry, requiring a significant part of development budget and people power. We present a case study on a development version of the ice hockey game EA SPORTS NHL 26, for which human playtesters test the goalie AI for behavioral exploits. To reduce the effort of re-testing the goalie AI after every game or behavior modification in the development phase, we propose Reward-Adaptive Iterative Discovery (RAID), a novel approach to automatically find exploits using an iterative Reinforcement Learning (RL) approach that trains a population of goal scoring agents. While previous approaches can already successfully find exploits, RL algorithms tend to overfit to a single solution. We introduce a simple extension on top of existing RL algorithms, such that they find multiple diverse high-quality solutions. For our first deployment of this approach, within a single experiment we were able to find six hockey scoring exploit strategies that were qualitatively similar to those that playtesters had found in hours-long manual testing sessions.

When adapting Vision Language Action (VLA) models to downstream tasks, multiple rounds of post-training are often required to progressively address policy weaknesses. In this report, we focus on maximizing human efficiency during this iterative process, measured by policy improvement and task throughput per unit of human labor and time. We propose HELP, a Human-Efficient Large-scale robot Post-training pipeline in which two specialized operators supervise twelve robots concurrently. A trained Teleoperator provides high-value remote interventions and recovery demonstrations, while a Floor Operator monitors the robot fleet, triggers takeovers, and performs physical resets. This role specialization improves human efficiency by reducing task switching, lowering operator training costs, and expanding robot interaction coverage. Beyond increasing rollout volume, concurrent supervision also broadens the range of policy behaviors observed by the human team, making recurring failure modes easier to identify and enabling more targeted takeovers, resets, and recovery demonstrations. To efficiently utilize the large and mixed-quality rollout data, HELP incorporates \vlac, an automatic rollout segmentation critic specifically designed for this setting. It separates autonomous trajectories into progress-making, idle, failure-inducing, and recovery segments. Useful rollout segments are retained and combined with Human-in-the-Loop data for the next post-training round. Across four real-world manipulation tasks, HELP achieves 80%--95% success rates and improves task throughput by 1.7$\times$--4.2$\times$ over the base model. Under matched HITL recovery budgets, VLAC-CUT further amplifies throughput gains by 1.20$\times$--3.43$\times$ and success-rate gains by 1.50$\times$--3.00$\times$ over HITL-only updates.

We introduce EgoPolice, a carefully curated dataset of real, egocentric police-civilian interactions, sourced from publicly available body-worn camera videos. We select police-civilian action labels that are critical for police behavioral research and annotate them at a second-by-second granularity. The videos feature rapid and irregular camera motion, dense human interactions, and rare high-stakes events, making the dataset a challenging benchmark for motion-robust and context-aware egocentric perception. We provide two different tasks, classification and multiple-choice question-answering, and benchmark both open-source and closed-source models. We find that even the best video models like Gemini 2.5 Pro still struggle to accurately predict high-risk actions such as "Weapon Out". Beyond serving as a benchmark, EgoPolice provides a foundation for developing models capable of identifying events of interest in large-scale body-worn camera video repositories, enabling more efficient downstream human review.

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.

Proactive robots are increasingly deployed in public environments where people are encountered not as isolated individuals but as members of cohesive social groups. Yet whether the prevailing design paradigm in proactive human-robot interaction (HRI) accounts for the relational structure that defines a group as a social unit remains largely unexamined. Through a systematic review of 63 proactive HRI studies in group settings from 2000 to 2025, we identify a recurring tendency, the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA), in which robots treat co-present people as independent engagement targets. We find that ITA is present in 60.3% of the corpus, with group-aware approaches emerging almost entirely after the robot is already embedded in an ongoing interaction. Critically, how a robot should detect and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before initiating contact remains unaddressed across the corpus. Three failure modes, engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, and bystander neglect, emerge as recurring patterns when proactive robots interact with human groups. These findings reframe proactive HRI in group settings not as an extension of dyadic interaction but as a qualitatively distinct design problem, and they identify the robot's approach to the group during the entry phase as a critical and understudied open challenge.

Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit. Across four high-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable. To address this, we introduce the m-value (multiverse value), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths. Applied to the human immigration study, 13.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space (m<0.05). Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous, and across domains, increasingly autonomous systems are carrying out tasks which raise significant ethical and legal challenges which demonstrate a need for strong human-machine teams rooted in trust. In this article, I argue that within highly impactful areas (such as medicine or warfighting) there are grounds for us initially treating autonomous and opaque systems as relevantly analogous to dogs (or other animals with which we have close relationships). Under this analogy, humans making use of these systems are not to be viewed as "users" or "deployers" of these systems, but instead take the role of "handlers". This recasting of roles shifts the way we view humans, AI-enabled and autonomous systems, and the relations between them, and moreover clarifies the clear and traceable lines of responsibility humans have for the outcomes brought about when using these systems. In developing this point, I clarify that the machine-animal analogy does admit disanalogous elements, but that its touch-points ground it as a starting point. I then explore how we can divest the humans-as-handlers approach of those aspects of our relationships with animals which are unfitting for how we engage with and make use of autonomous and AI-enabled systems. I conclude by arguing that the trajectory of human-machine teamings for autonomous and AI-enabled systems should be a state where we authentically view these not as artifacts which we simply make use of, but as collaborators with which we pursue complex goals and carry out complex tasks.

Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric. We introduce a framework that formulates therapeutic response generation as a decision-refinement problem driven by multi-dimensional, human-aligned evaluation. In Stage I, we introduce TheraJudge, an open-source therapeutic evaluator trained via preference-based optimization on human-annotated data to produce reliable judgments across 7 psychological dimensions. In Stage II, we introduce TheraAgent, which operationalizes TheraJudge's evaluations through a coordinated refinement process with specialized Critic, Coach, and Therapist roles that translate evaluative signals into targeted response revisions. Empirically, TheraJudge achieves strong agreement with clinician ratings, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.87-0.95), surpassing supervised baselines and strong closed-source judges, particularly on critical dimensions such as Safety, Relevance, and Empathy. Acting on these evaluations, TheraAgent yields a +0.43 improvement in human-rated therapeutic quality (on a 5-point scale) under blind evaluation, with 96% clinician inter-rater reliability. Low-quality responses ($\leq 3$) improve by +2.45 points with a 94% recovery rate, demonstrating targeted correction of unsafe outputs. Overall, our results indicate that effective alignment of mental-health LLMs stems from acting on human-aligned evaluation, rather than relying solely on stronger generation. We release code at https://github.com/vis-nlp/TheraAlign.