Human Oversight

Professional translation is often a team-based process: translators, reviewers, and project managers must coordinate terminology, legal force, and accountability across documents. Yet many LLM-based translation tools treat human corrections as isolated edits. Expert decisions made in one segment or by one member are rarely captured as reusable knowledge for the rest of the team. We present DeepTrans Studio, a collaborative translation workspace that lets professionals intercept selected nodes in an agentic translation workflow, review evidence, revise AI outputs, and save approved decisions to a shared team memory. During the demo, attendees will role-play translators and reviewers, resolve preset terminology and legal-modal risks, and see how their decisions are propagated to downstream segments and surfaced in a teammate's workspace as reusable precedents. The demo illustrates how human interventions in AI-mediated work can become shared, traceable knowledge rather than one-off corrections.

Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.

AI agents are promising tools that can act as flexible behavioral nudges to enhance human cooperation in addressing large-scale societal problems. However, evidence on whether AI agents can effectively boost cooperation remains mixed. We recruited 1,283 participants to play iterated Collective Risk Games in small groups, testing whether AI assistants could nudge participants toward cooperation. By using persuasive framing personalized to each player's Social Value Orientation profile, the AI interventions significantly increased contributions and group success rates. These cooperative effects were short-lived, however, fading after the first few rounds. Strikingly, when the AI treatments were reconfigured to promote selfish behavior through exculpatory framing, the negative effects on contributions and group success were larger and substantially more persistent, particularly for personalized interventions. This asymmetry between prosocial and antisocial persuasion highlights the dual-use risks of AI systems designed to influence group behavior in collective action settings.

Large language model (LLM) agents enable natural language interaction for scientific visualization (SciVis). Still, prior systems have essentially prioritized autonomy over human analytical control, thereby limiting transparency and human oversight. We present HiLSVA, a human-in-the-loop agentic system that supports mixed-initiative SciVis workflows. HiLSVA integrates a plan-first multi-agent architecture with explicit human oversight, stepwise provenance tracking, and learn-at-test-time adaptation from user feedback. The system supports fluid handoff between humans and agents through both natural language and direct manipulation of visualizations, while sandboxed execution ensures safe, reproducible workflows. In doing so, HiLSVA reframes agentic SciVis as a collaborative process that augments, rather than replaces, human analytical reasoning. We evaluate HiLSVA through representative case studies and a controlled user study with twelve participants of varying expertise across multiple autonomy settings. Results show that mixed-initiative interaction improves task completion, user control, and workflow transparency across different levels of user expertise, while revealing a tradeoff between execution efficiency and human oversight. These findings highlight the importance of human-centered design in agentic SciVis and guide the development of future collaborative visualization systems. We encourage readers to explore our demo video, case studies, and source code at https://hilsva.github.io/.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tend to produce longer reasoning traces for problems on which humans also spend more time. This correspondence suggests a shared sensitivity to difficulty, yet difficult problems can invite both persistence and withdrawal. We distinguish difficulty registration, expressed in which problems elicit more deliberation, from the allocation of further work. We examine their relation in matched human and LRM data from visual abstraction, intuitive physics, and relational reasoning. On visual abstraction, model trace length tracks the human ordering of problems by duration. After item identity is controlled, successful human attempts last longer than failed attempts, while failed LRM attempts have longer traces than successful ones in the pooled model analysis. The estimated outcome slopes follow the same pattern in intuitive physics. In relational reasoning, successful attempts are longer in separate human and model analyses. Fitting the two groups together with shared item effects yields a human-LRM difference in the relation between duration and outcome. Human grid actions connect longer attempts with sustained task engagement. Failed LRM traces contain more hedging or repetition after length is controlled, with the form of the difference varying across tasks. A resource-rational account explains how the expected reducibility of uncertainty and the value assigned to further computation can produce different patterns of persistence despite similar sensitivity to difficulty. Agreement about which problems require more deliberation can therefore coexist with different patterns of persistence on those problems.

Many information systems are built around documents: self-contained units optimised for print production and linear reading. While effective for large-scale dissemination, the document-centric organisation constrains how knowledge can be structured, updated, shared, and reused. Formal approaches address some of these limitations but struggle to achieve widespread contribution and adoption due to their prioritisation of formal structure over other system properties such as human usability and scope. AI systems are reshaping document production, but without providing a unified portable alternative to traditional documents for humans' expression and exchange of knowledge. This paper presents MMM, a data model for knowledge documentation that emerged from the practical needs of interdisciplinary collaborative research, and positioned here within a comparative analysis of the design space of information systems. MMM combines a small set of normative constraints with the expressive freedom of free-text labels. It is designed for interoperability across disciplines, applications and deployments without requiring semantic convergence. A reference implementation and pilot deployment data demonstrate implementability and early usability.

Since 2023, computer scientists have warned against model collapse -- the contamination of training sets with AI-generated outputs that progressively degrade model performance. Exemplifying a positive-feedback-driven failure, it produces effects such as word repetition or pixel noise, ultimately leading to a loss of meaning and coherence -- at least from an engineering standpoint. From a creative one, however, collapse is not merely a breakdown: it also functions as a recursive mirror that recalls early analog video feedback experiments, raising once again the question of what happens when a system turns inward and sees itself. In such cases, so-called machine vision no longer transmits the world (as in tele-vision) but increasingly generates worlds from within. Drawing on media archaeology through case studies of both historical video synthesis techniques and contemporary artistic uses of machine learning, this paper examines what recursive training reveals about the dependent nature of AI-generated data. It argues that the potential effects of collapse challenge transhumanist ideals while inviting an aesthetic perspective, positioning noise and recursion as key concepts for understanding both artmaking and the AI ecosystem. Distributing agency across scales and networks, the latter currently remains reliant on new human-produced content, particularly within foundation models trained on massive datasets.

Maintainability is a core dimension of software engineering, shaping how code is written, reviewed, and developed over time. While coding agents have demonstrated strong performance on single-issue tasks, it remains unclear how maintainable their code is when future agents build on top of it, potentially leading to compounding downstream effects. We investigate how agent code compares to human code in these maintenance settings, presenting CodeThread, a framework to construct controlled experiments from repository-level coding benchmarks. Applying CodeThread to four frontier coding agents and four benchmarks, we find that agents are less effective at resolving tasks when building on agent code compared to human code, with task resolve rate drops of up to 13.1%. Regression analysis reveals that many traditional software engineering maintainability metrics do not explain this difference. Instead, the clearest signals are subtler behavioral differences in agent code, such as changes to input validation and error handling, along with differences in downstream code size and task difficulty. These findings highlight the need to evaluate these systems not only by immediate task resolution but also by code maintainability, and point to potential sources of downstream errors introduced by agent code.

Much work on the cognitive foundations of AI has focussed on comparisons between the ways in which Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans process information and represent it. One aspect of this comparison involves determining the extent to which LLMs can achieve or surpass human performance on a variety of cognitively interesting tasks. A second explores points of convergence and divergence between LLM and human systems for processing information. Here, I consider some recent research that has addressed both issues in two informational domains. The first is the representation of linguistic knowledge. The second is real world reasoning and planning. While LLMs frequently achieve impressive levels of performance and fluency on linguistic applications, they tend to handle linguistic content in ways that are distinct from human processing. They are also, for the most part, less efficient than humans in learning and generalisation for reasoning tasks.

Embodied foundation models are expected to benefit from data scaling like large language models, but face a much tighter data bottleneck. Teleoperated real-robot trajectories remain the dominant pretraining source due to their precise action supervision and embodiment alignment, yet their scalability is limited by high collection cost, acquisition difficulty, and low behavioral and environmental diversity. These limitations have sparked interest in egocentric human video as a scalable, substantially lower-cost, and more diverse alternative for embodied model pretraining. However, its effectiveness compared to teleoperated real-robot data remains underexplored. To address this question, we conduct a systematic study comparing egocentric human video and teleoperated real-robot trajectories as pretraining data sources for embodied foundation models, under fixed post-training and validation protocols. Surprisingly, we find that egocentric data, when processed through a carefully designed filtering and labeling pipeline, is not merely a viable substitute for model pretraining but can lead to superior performance. With the same amount of pretraining data, models pretrained on egocentric data achieve a 24% lower validation loss on real-robot action prediction, as well as 52.5% and 90% higher success rates on in-distribution and out-of-distribution real-robot task execution, respectively. This finding verifies a scalable paradigm for embodied foundation models: pretrain on egocentric human video to learn diverse world representations, then adapt with a small amount of labeled real-robot data for action-space alignment. We hope this study encourages broader exploration of egocentric data and offers guidance for data quality assessment before costly robot data collection.

Human visual attention relies on structured scanpaths to efficiently process scenes, yet instilling this behavior into robot autonomy is in its infancy and hindered by the high,computational costs of existing predictive models. To address this, we introduce GazeLNN, a computationally lightweight,scanpath prediction model that leverages Liquid Neural Networks as its recurrent engine and employs MobileNetV3 for feature extraction. Operating auto-regressively, the architecture predicts sequential fixation heatmaps conditioned on the current visual stimulus and fixation history. Despite requiring only 0.61 GFLOPs, GazeLNN achieves state-of-the-art performance on the MIT Low Resolution dataset achieving 0.47 ScanMatch score. It outperforms existing recurrent baselines across diverse evaluation metrics, while reducing computational costs by 99.40% and accelerating inference by up to six times. To investigate the role of human attention modeling in robot autonomy and demonstrate the practical utility of this highly efficient architecture, we integrate GazeLNN into an active camera-robot control policy trained via Reinforcement Learning. This integration enables human-fixation-guided perception during autonomous navigation, validated through successful real-world deployments on an aerial robot.

Precision visual inspection underpins quality assurance across aerospace, semiconductor, and medical manufacturing, where undetected surface anomalies on high-value parts translate directly into scrap, rework, and field failures. Robotic visual inspection requires precise alignment between the end-effector and local surface geometry in the presence of perception noise and surface irregularities. In industrial settings, a human operator is often kept in the loop via teleoperation or shared autonomy, introducing real-time adjustments that render purely offline motion planning inadequate. This motivates control architectures capable of reactive, compliant behavior under combined human and perceptual uncertainty. This paper presents a novel real-time, closed-loop robotic orientation control pipeline for precision visual inspection, with an admittance-based framework that unifies operator input and perception-driven surface alignment. We design the end-effector as a virtual sphere moving through a viscous medium, such that the resulting physically interpretable mass--damper system generates synchronized, compliant motion from orientation error and operator commands. We validate the framework on a 6-DOF manipulator demonstrating stable normal-tracking and a final mean orientation error of 0.4°.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of high-quality prose, yet whether these models are capable of generating diverse or creative artifacts remains a contested question. In this work, we investigate the diversity of LLM-generated stories through the framework of narrative similarity. Using a contrastive framework and a dataset of human-written stories and prompts from r/WritingPrompts, we collect narrative similarity judgments across 10 representative LLMs, utilizing both human evaluations and three different automatic annotation methods. Our findings reveal a clear trend: LLM-generated narratives are consistently more similar to each other than human-written stories are. We demonstrate that frontier models in particular converge on a "mean" generic narrative that approximates individual human stories but lacks the collective diversity of human authors. Finally, we show that common mitigation strategies, including negative prompting and temperature scaling, fail to meaningfully address this homogeneity.

AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.

Organizations and researchers show increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in place of human participants in A/B tests, in the hope of experimenting faster and at lower cost. We study when a treatment effect estimated on LLM outcomes can recover the effect for the human population of interest. Distributional equivalence between LLM and human outcomes would make any standard estimator valid but is unrealistic. We therefore develop a statistical framework that adapts surrogate endpoint theory to LLMs, showing that calibrating LLM outcomes to human outcomes identifies the average treatment effect under surrogacy and comparability conditions that are jointly weaker than distributional equivalence. We present a falsification test for surrogacy and a bound on the worst-case bias from limited overlap between the LLM and human samples. We further show that the stochasticity inherent to LLMs can weaken surrogacy for identification while also introducing bias and variance during estimation, but that using an average over multiple LLM draws per unit as the surrogate mitigates these issues. Simulations validate the results, and an empirical application to the Upworthy Research Archive dataset shows that raw LLM outputs recover only 39% of the human treatment effect while nonparametric calibration closes the gap. A central takeaway is that A/B testing on LLM responses is correct only by assumption, whereas A/B testing on humans is correct by design, and that the required assumptions are hardest to justify precisely where LLMs promise the greatest benefit. We discuss the choice of LLM, prompting, and temperature as design variables, the compounded challenge posed by long-term outcomes, and how to size human pilot studies for validation.

The integration of artificial intelligence into human decision-making environments has introduced a previously undertheorized cost: the gradual surrender of human autonomy in exchange for access to information and computational assistance. Building on the Human Identity and Autonomy Gap (HIAG) framework, this paper advances a theoretical model of autonomy surrender as a measurable, cumulative process driven by cognitive bandwidth depletion. The model proposes three interacting mechanisms: the silent cost of AI assistance, in which autonomy is transferred incrementally and without awareness; the surrender threshold, beyond which reclaiming autonomous function becomes cognitively and psychologically difficult; and the recovery mechanism, which establishes the design obligation and the ethical responsibility accompanying deliberate human re-assumption of control. The paper argues that human re-entry into the decision loop is not a passive option but an active cognitive event requiring intentional bandwidth restoration. The design of AI systems must incorporate structured re-entry pathways, here termed recovery mechanisms, that preserve human agency while appropriately distributing responsibility. The model further predicts a terminal state, here termed preference inversion, in which functional dependence on AI assistance is experienced not as a deficit but as a preference, transforming the restoration of autonomy from a design problem into a cultural and political one. Implications are drawn for AI system design, governance frameworks, and human factors research.

Recent AI systems can generate texts, software architectures, hypotheses, designs, and scientific workflows that appear creative. This paper asks under what conditions a machine can be called genuinely creative, and how human agency can be preserved within shared cognitive and creative environments. It develops a requirement framework derived from Designics, the science of meaning-bearing intentional change. The paper argues that genuine machine creativity should not be defined by output novelty, current performance, or transient architecture alone. Instead, creativity is understood as the structural transformation of incomplete situations through recursive intervention dynamics. On this view, it depends on ten requirements: environment representation, scoped perception, conflict identification, intervention capability, consequence observation, knowledge and environment update, rescoping, local-to-global unfolding, value-based scoping, and human-AI co-living. These are organized through the three laws of Designics: perception, conflict, and capability. The paper illustrates the computational tractability of these requirements through selected cyber-physical and cyber-biological studies, including recursive element extraction, autonomous mesh generation, and neurophysiological and workload analysis. It then treats open-ended systems, automated discovery frameworks, self-modifying agents, foundation models, and agentic workflows as pressure cases: they demonstrate powerful generative means but do not by themselves establish genuine machine creativity. Finally, the paper argues that proactive AI ethics is internal to genuine machine creativity rather than an after-the-fact filter. Value-based scoping and human-AI co-living must shape how creative machines perceive environments, identify conflicts, select interventions, observe consequences, update knowledge, and rescope future action.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

Bangla is among the world's most widely spoken languages, yet it remains underserved in educational NLP research. In many remote and rural regions, access to qualified subject teachers is limited, and written answers are consequently graded largely by hand, restricting timely and consistent feedback. Automatic assessment is challenging because semantically correct responses can vary substantially in surface form. We present a bilingual (Bangla-English) evaluation system designed for low-resource educational settings that prioritizes semantic correctness over lexical overlap. Our approach fine-tunes a lightweight language model to grade each response using the question, reference answer, and student answer, producing a numeric score and concise, context-grounded feedback suitable for classroom deployment. We also construct a synthetic bilingual dataset to enable controlled training and evaluation. Across proprietary and open-source LLMs evaluated under a unified protocol, our QLoRA-tuned Qwen3-8B confirms consistent improvement by producing the most leakage-resistant feedback (RoRa = 0.819) in synthetic evaluation and the strongest agreement with human scores (rho = 0.936, MAE = 0.725) in a dedicated human study.

Post-training a frontier model is normally weeks of human work: proposing data and recipe changes, launching runs, reading evals, deciding what to keep. We report an autonomous system that runs this loop with no human in the loop, post-training a 30B Nemotron across four rounds over multiple weeks. The autonomously produced model reaches a held-out score of 0.86 against the top human submission's 0.87 on the public NVIDIA Nemotron-Reasoning Challenge leaderboard, placing 8th of ~4000 at the time of writing. More striking than the number: the loop detected that its own dev metric had stopped tracking external performance on the weakest domain -- candidates drove dev to record highs without moving the external target -- and revised its own search policy, no longer maximizing dev but seeking interventions that lowered the now-misleading proxy while improving the external target. We treat this as direct, auditable evidence that a scaled autonomous loop can produce discovery, not only optimization: it detected that its measurement frame had become misleading and changed what counted as evidence. We take the operational view that any system worth the "recursive self-improvement" label must eventually perform end-to-end post-training of a frontier-class model; this is one datapoint of that bar being cleared. We do not claim a "first autonomous match" of human researchers. The claim we make is narrower and auditable: to our knowledge, this is the first publicly reported autonomous post-training run at this scale, where prior public autonomous-ML-research demonstrations sit at GPT-2-class (~124M) budgets. The same system also post-trains the 120B and 550B Nemotron; with no public human baseline there, this shows only that the loop closes at that scale, not that its output is competitive -- infrastructure evidence, with the effectiveness claim deferred until a comparable human anchor exists.

LLM-as-judge is the default instrument for evaluating conversational agents, yet its reliability is almost always reported as agreement with human ratings, not recall of real defects. We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems its built-in LLM judge catches, using exhaustive human transcript review as ground truth. Across three batches the judge surfaces well under a quarter of human-confirmed systematic problems -- 2 of 9 patterns (22%) in one batch, and its operational gate flagged zero of 100 rounds in a batch where humans confirmed 23 distinct defects and 7 new cross-cutting patterns. Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random: the judge catches turn-local issues (a fabricated statistic, a wrong language) but misses cross-turn state issues (confirm-gate lockout, cart hallucination, escalation lockout, stale referents). The mechanism: the scoring rubric exposes only three coarse axes (intent, brand-voice, personalization) and has no category for the behavioural dimensions -- state-tracking, guardrails, recovery -- where most defects cluster. The failure is routing, not perception: 113 of 114 rounds whose raw judge note describes a confirm-gate or cart-state defect are scored "brand voice", and none reach an operational failure -- the gate is wired to hangs and hard assertions, not the rubric -- so the 0% is a routing-and-wiring failure, not blindness. The consequence for prevalence estimation is sharp: when the apparent defect rate is zero the Rogan-Gladen correction degenerates -- no signal can recover the true rate -- while where the gate reports a nonzero rate the same estimator implies a 3-6x undercount under our measured sensitivity. For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in emotionally sensitive social conversations, where responses may shift from balanced support toward excessive validation or escalatory alignment. Existing sycophancy research primarily focuses on factual agreement and instruction-following settings, leaving culturally grounded conversational sycophancy underexplored. We introduce BenSyc, the first benchmark for studying conversational sycophancy in Bengali social contexts. Starting from 11,840 Reddit posts and 170k comments collected from communities across Bangladesh and West Bengal, we construct a human-validated benchmark with binary labels and a fine-grained five-level taxonomy spanning Invalidation, Neutral, Support, Validation, and Escalation. We evaluate more than 15 open and proprietary LLMs on conversational alignment classification and response generation tasks. Results show that distinguishing empathetic support from reinforcement-oriented validation remains challenging even for frontier instruction-tuned models: the best system achieves only 61.8 Macro-F1 on binary detection and 61.7 Macro-F1 on five-class classification. In generation settings, several models frequently produce strongly validating or escalatory responses in emotionally charged situations. Our findings highlight substantial variation across model families and conversational behaviors, underscoring the importance of culturally grounded multilingual benchmarks for evaluating socially aligned conversational AI systems.

Large language model agents are increasingly deployed in human-human interaction settings, such as meeting assistants and clinical documentation systems, where they must observe conversations and retain information for downstream queries. Unlike traditional human-assistant settings, these environments are inherently multimodal, involve complex discourse phenomena such as anaphora and deixis, and contain asynchronous or conflicting information from multiple participants. However, existing memory benchmarks largely focus on single-user, text-only interactions, failing to capture these challenges. To address this gap, we introduce H2HMem, a Human-to-Human Multimodal Memory Benchmark for evaluating memory capabilities in complex human-human interactions. H2HMem includes both dyadic and multi-party conversations with multimodal information streams, and evaluates agents along three dimensions: memory recall, reasoning, and application. Experiments with advanced agents reveal substantial limitations in constructing, retaining, and utilizing memories across modalities, participants, and sessions, highlighting substantial room for improvement in next-generation LLM agents.

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

Recent years have seen increasing concern that artificial intelligence may soon pose an existential risk to humanity. One leading ground for concern is that artificial agents may be power-seeking, aiming to acquire power and in the process disempowering humanity. I show how the argument from power-seeking rests on a strong version of a claim known as the instrumental convergence thesis. I explore leading defenses of the instrumental convergence thesis and argue that none establishes the thesis in a strong enough form to ground the argument from power-seeking. I discuss implications for longtermism, the governance of artificial intelligence, and the methodology of studying risks posed by artificial agents.

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year. Unfortunately, such manual reviews are time-consuming and prone to error. In an audit of 188 debt collection cases granted default judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles, we find that 4% contained major defects that should have entirely prevented default judgment, 10% contained inconsistencies requiring reduced judgments, and 32% contained errors requiring amendment prior to judgment. To support courthouses in default judgment review, we collaborated with courthouse attorneys and judges in designing a Default Assistant. The Default Assistant employs large language models to evaluate a case with respect to predetermined legal requirements and provide cited recommendations for an expert user's review. We equip users to verify these recommendations by grounding the assistant's explanations in cited quotes and tables from the original case filings. We conduct a controlled study with 66 law students that conservatively simulates court review, with more time and resources than court staff. We nevertheless find users aided by the Default Assistant were 6.0% more accurate on the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 1.0e-4). Simultaneously, users were 25.9% faster in reviewing the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 2.5e-10). Statutory requirements demanding extensive document search realized the largest gains, with error reductions and time savings from AI assistance up to 62% and 34%, respectively, relative to unassisted user performance and with differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our work provides a proof-of-concept that AI assistants with citations have the potential to help resource-constrained courts conduct default judgment review more accurately and efficiently.

Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.

AI is changing how software engineers work, but it often comes with hidden burdens and costs. In this paper, we characterize two such often-overlooked burdens: (1) the constant need for human oversight and inspection of AI-generated artifacts; and (2) the growing cognitive overload on software engineers from receiving large amounts of suggestions from AI tools. The need for human oversight is not optional-engineers must review, validate, and sometimes rework what AI produces. At the same time, the flood of AI suggestions, prompts, and possible solutions can leave developers mentally stretched. By blending evidence from recent opinions from practitioners, we highlight these often-overlooked challenges and open a conversation about how teams can handle them in day-to-day AI-assisted software engineering.

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

Public discourse and emerging policy typically assume that AI emotional support is a deliberate act: a lonely user consciously seeking comfort from a dedicated companion chatbot. In this paper, we draw on emerging empirical evidence and argue that this picture is inaccurate on two accounts, both in how AI emotional support arises and how it shapes future behavior. First, AI emotional support commonly emerges incidentally within task-oriented interactions on general-purpose platforms, much as workplace friendships deepen through collaboration. Second, these incidental encounters are path-dependent: positive experiences of AI emotional support update people's beliefs about AI's emotional capabilities and redirect their choices for future emotional support, increasing preference for AI and decreasing preference for humans. We review recent evidence, including a large-scale longitudinal study conducted in collaboration with OpenAI, showing that daily five-minute conversations with an AI about personal issues over 28 days led to a 10.3% decrease in the preference for seeking support from humans and an 11.6% increase in the preference for AI. These findings suggest that current policy, focused on companion apps and isolated interactions, cannot adequately protect human connection. Instead, effective regulations should extend to general-purpose AI systems and address cumulative, trajectory-level changes in how people seek support. Recognizing how people stumble into AI emotional support and how those encounters redirect human connections over time is essential to safeguarding human well-being.

Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight. However, debate faces a fundamental tension: models are incentivized to be persuasive to the judge, which may not always align with epistemic honesty. In this work, we propose an alternative paradigm: disagreement resolution, which reframes the interaction mechanism from adversarial debate to collaborative truth seeking. Drawing on principles from human mediation and conflict resolution, where mediators facilitate dialogue to help disputing parties reach consensus rather than adjudicating between them, we design an automated pipeline that adapts these strategies to AI oversight. Unlike standard debate where models argue for fixed positions, our pipeline directs models to collaboratively identify points of disagreement, examine the evidence for conflicting claims, and converge toward consensus or isolate the specific ''crux'' of their disagreement. We find that Disagreement Resolution consistently helps non-expert models identify the truth, achieving 62.1% judging accuracy compared to 49.2% for standard debate. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for rethinking the scalable oversight protocol from adversarial persuasion to collaborative truth-seeking.

Existing human attention (saliency) modeling methods persist as highly fragmented across modalities, scenes, and task formulations. Consequently, even with increasing model capacity and data scale, current models predominantly remain scene-dependent and task-specific, failing to practically generalize in real-world applications. To address the fundamental limitations, we present the Attend to Anything Model (AAM), a multi-modal foundation model that unifies attention modeling across various image, video, and audio-visual tasks and scenes. AAM reformulates attention as a cognitive entailment relationship organized in a general-to-specific hierarchy, implemented through language prompts with hierarchical embeddings in hyperbolic space. Furthermore, to unify static image and dynamic video attention, we adopt a fluid-dynamics perspective, formulating video-frame attention as a diffusive temporal evolution governed by the Fokker--Planck equation. Extensive experiments on 16 benchmarks demonstrate that AAM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods by an average of 6% across various scenarios, while achieving approximately a 4$\times$ speedup in video inference. Overall, these results demonstrate that AAM provides a principled foundation for future research on attention and saliency-related tasks. The dataset and code will be available at https://github.com/wz-zhao/Attend-to-Anything.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Multimodal agents are increasingly expected to operate interfaces on behalf of users, raising a central deployment question: can they truly substitute for humans in workflows that services deliberately protect against automation? CAPTCHA verification makes this question concrete. It is not merely a visual puzzle, but a human-verification boundary placed before account creation, content access, form submission, and other protected actions. We introduce \textbf{Humanity's Last Line of Verification (HLL)}, a controlled benchmark that uses interactive CAPTCHA verification to evaluate whether agents can cross this boundary through grounded, human-like interaction rather than recognition alone. HLL covers diverse CAPTCHA interactions and exposes agents to controlled realism stressors, including cluttered webpages, harder task variants, and trace-conditioned validation of the solving process. We evaluate eight frontier multimodal agents in a closed-loop GUI environment. The results show that current agents remain brittle at this human-substitution boundary: performance varies sharply across verification types, degrades under realistic interface conditions, and drops further when correct answers must be supported by valid action traces. By exposing gaps in localization, action calibration, state tracking, and process consistency, HLL provides a concrete testbed for measuring how close multimodal agents are to acting as human substitutes in protected real-world workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinhaoS0101/HLL

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft publicfacing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,381 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human subarguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses. Finally, human-preference evaluators favor both common arguments and LLM essays, which could reinforce argument collapse.

As generative platforms such as Suno and Udio reach human-grade audio quality, the scope of AI's utility has expanded across the entire music production workflow. Beyond simple track generation, these advancements have catalyzed the adoption of AI-driven methodologies in diverse forms. These include vocal synthesis, arrangement, and professional mastering. However, current detection research remains largely confined to a binary `AI-or-human' paradigm. It fails to reflect the realities of contemporary music production workflows. In real-world production, AI tools are increasingly used to refine or master human-produced tracks, and human engineers likewise post-process AI-generated material to ensure professional quality. Moreover, users often employ adversarial tactics to bypass AI detectors, such as applying human mastering to AI-generated tracks. This creates a grey area that a simple binary classification fails to capture. In this paper, we define and investigate ``AI Music Tracking'': the challenge of identifying specific AI integration across the multifaceted spectrum of music production. To this end, we introduce HAIM, a dataset with diverse labels for stages of music production. It is designed to isolate stages of AI intervention, including hybrid production and agent-level tracking. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art detectors reveals systemic flaws. By releasing HAIM, we propose a new benchmark that shifts the field beyond binary classification toward a granular, structured evaluation of AI music.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to generate structured descriptions of street-level imagery for tasks such as streetscape auditing, mapping, and public consultation. These uses combine observable attributes with appraisal categories, and the human targets are often distributions of judgments with disagreement and explicit non-response. This paper argues that benchmarking VLMs for urban perception should treat disagreement and abstention as measurement outcomes, report inter-annotator reliability alongside model alignment, and treat the label space and scoring policy as negotiable artifacts when outputs are intended to inform urban governance. We ground the argument in a benchmark of 100 Montreal street scenes annotated along 30 dimensions by 12 participants from seven community organizations, and in a deterministic zero-shot evaluation of seven VLMs. Across dimensions, model agreement with human consensus co-varies with dimension-level human reliability, and for the appraisal dimension Overall Impression models and annotators exhibit distributional mismatch including different rates of Not applicable. We close with actions for benchmark creators, model developers, and institutions to make uncertainty and benchmark assumptions visible in evaluation reports.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and quantitative signals. Humanities scholarship, however, requires interpretive, evidence-grounded arguments over primary sources, whose value rests on faithful quotation, verifiable provenance, and deep interpretation. Existing research agents use general planning, tool use, and reflection, leaving these scholarly operations implicit. To address this gap, we introduce SPIRE (Scholarly-Primitives-Inspired Research Engine), a multi-agent framework that realizes Scholarly Primitives, a typology of basic humanities scholarship practices, as cooperating roles over a multi-scale close-reading substrate of passages, intra-context graph communities, and cross-context semantic clusters. On a benchmark of peer-reviewed papers in classical Chinese and Greco-Roman Latin scholarship, SPIRE recovers substantially more cited primary-source evidence and receives higher blind human and LLM ratings on four scholarly quality dimensions than LLM, RAG, and generic agentic baselines. Retrieval-tier and agent ablations, with retrieval-volume and answer-length controls, trace its advantage to targeted retrieval, structured evidence selection, and claim-evidence binding. Code and benchmark data are released at https://github.com/YatingPan/SPIRE.

Ground truth datasets play a fundamental role as reference values in the training and evaluation of machine learning models. This position paper argues that ground truths are not neutral objective measurements that are naturally given, but instead that they are constructed by arrangements of humans and technologies. We argue that the ML community will benefit from articulating and discussing these often invisible or unreported choices and acknowledging that reference data sets are contingent, not universal. Focusing on the situated and context-dependent nature of ground truths can improve reliability by enabling a better informed perspective on where, when, and how the datasets, and the models they have shaped, can best be used. We argue for increasing `situated reliability' which includes articulating the limits and strengths of models and their truth claims. Finally, paying more attention to the construction of ground truths can support transparency, accountability, and interdisciplinary work.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

Foundation models are increasingly trained on synthetic data generated by prior model iterations rather than exclusively on real data. This self-consuming training paradigm can lead to model collapse, divergence, or bias amplification. Recent work (Ferbach et al., 2024) shows that incorporating human curation into the loop can steer a self-consuming model toward human-aligned behavior, but these analyses focus on a single, isolated model that solely consumes its own outputs. In practice, however, models often interact and train on input-output pairs produced by other models. This paper studies self-consuming training in the multi-model regime. We first formalize a framework for interacting self-consuming models and characterize when the resulting dynamical system converges to a stable point. We then examine how human curation of one model affects its own alignment (self-influence) and how such effects propagate to other models (cross-influence). Unlike isolated settings where human curation always enhances model alignment, we show that cross-model interactions can dampen or even invert this effect, ultimately degrading long-term alignment.

This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

Spatial neural processing units (NPUs) provide an energy-efficient platform for edge LLM inference, but efficiently deploying an LLM end-to-end on such hardware remains labor-intensive. Although AI coding agents have begun to lower this cost, existing studies have largely focused on single-kernel optimization rather than end-to-end LLM deployment on resource-constrained spatial NPUs. We present a two-stage methodology, instantiated on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU, that progresses from human-guided development to agent autonomy. In the first stage, we develop a reference deployment of Llama-3.2-1B through human-guided agent assistance. The resulting implementation achieves a speedup of 2.2x on prefill and 4.0x on decode over the hand-optimized baseline, with the optimization trajectory and its lessons recorded as structured documentation throughout. In the second stage, we distill the documentation into an agent skill system consisting of eight phases, orchestrating the optimization and debugging skill sets, with numerical correctness strictly enforced at each phase. Using our agent skill system, we autonomously deploy eight additional decoder-only LLMs (Llama-3.2-3B, SmolLM2-1.7B, Qwen2.5-{0.5B, 1.5B, 3B}, Qwen3-{0.6B, 1.7B, 4B}) end-to-end on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU using the open-source compiler stack. To our knowledge, these models have not previously been deployed on AMD NPUs via any open-source software stack. Each deployment completes in 0.5-4 hours of agent wall time with almost no human guidance, and passes the numerical-correctness gates, demonstrating functional generalization to previously unencountered LLMs. Three of the eight match or exceed the sustained performance of our Llama-3.2-1B reference deployment, suggesting that the resulting implementations can be competitive without additional model-specific human engineering.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly useful computational models of human language processing, but it remains unclear whether vision-language learning makes text representations more human-like during natural reading. Here, we address this question by comparing tightly matched LLM and vision-language model (VLM) pairs under a strictly text-only setting, allowing us to isolate the effect of multimodal training history from online visual input or cross-modal fusion. We evaluate model alignment with a human natural-reading dataset that includes whole-cortex fMRI responses and synchronized eye-tracking saccades. Our findings demonstrate that multimodal pretraining may not confer a uniform, global advantage in human alignment during natural reading, indicating that language-internal representations remain the key factor for modeling human text processing. However, the VLM advantage could emerge more selectively when sentences contain stronger visual semantic content, with converging evidence from both fMRI and eye-movement alignments. Together, our findings provide a controlled in silico framework for testing how visual learning history shapes model-human alignment of language processing, suggesting that multimodal pretraining contributes selectively rather than globally to human-like language representations during natural reading.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Probabilistic forecasting estimates the likelihood of uncertain future events. To improve LLM forecasting, existing methods typically learn from binary outcomes to output verbalized forecasts. However, while aggregated human forecasts contain rich information in both the crowd probability estimate and the degree of agreement among forecasters, how to utilize these signals remains underexplored. To address this, we propose the Beta-Bernoulli Calibrator (BBC), which converts an initial point estimate forecast from any model into a distribution over event likelihood, using supervision from both binary outcomes and human forecasts. BBC models event likelihood $p \sim \text{Beta}(α, β)$ and outcome $y \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p)$, with the mean as the calibrated point forecast and the variance as the epistemic uncertainty. Our results show that BBC generally provides better calibrated and more accurate forecasts than both traditional post-hoc calibration methods and models fine-tuned specifically for forecasting, while remaining lightweight and having good generalization. We also show that the epistemic uncertainty captured by BBC is a more reliable predictor of forecasting error than verbalized confidence.

A central puzzle for the behavioural sciences and for human-facing artificial intelligence is the persistence of within-person variability. The same individual, presented with the same observable input, produces different outcomes on different occasions, and different individuals produce divergent outcomes that no observable covariate fully predicts. We argue that this variability belongs in the dynamic latent state of the person, and that human outcomes are controllable in a precise and operational sense through interventions that target the state and its weighting at the moment a decision is being formed. We define a state as the time-indexed weighting vector over the dimensions that govern how an individual's biology, physiology, and neuropsychology process the next event into a decision and an outcome. The relationship between state, decision, and outcome is causal rather than correlational. The weighting vector is dynamic at sub-daily timescales. The conscious channel through which outcomes are reportable is a narrow attentional bottleneck whose contents are themselves state-dependent. Taken together, these claims imply that the outcome of a given event is controllable, conditionally, on the state-trajectory at the time of intervention. We motivate the framework with six strands of established evidence (causal inference, predictive processing, allostasis, attentional bottleneck, chronobiology, computational psychiatry) and a 24-month observational base from a deployed behavioural platform spanning more than 200,000 consented users across four occupational personas (research period 2023 to 2026). We derive seven testable predictions, list six operational requirements for state-aware systems, and discuss implications for digital health, education, AI personalisation, and personal agency.

Collaboration is central to human behavior, enabling tasks beyond individual capability. This ability arises from coordinating actions through internal representations of others, a concept known as shared intelligence. Additionally, humans are characterized by physical bodies and cognitive abilities that are optimized in response to their environment, a phenomenon referred to as embodied cognition. Designing humanoid robots that collaborate safely and effectively with people requires unifying these principles. Here we propose an architecture that integrates shared intelligence and embodied cognition to enable robots to physically collaborate with humans, where robot hardware and control are optimized for human metrics, using representations of the human body and motion intelligence. The ultimate goal is to achieve a form of shared embodied intelligence. Specifically, our architecture optimizes robot hardware and physical intelligence parameters with respect to human ergonomic metrics. This is accomplished by modeling human-robot interaction as a function of hardware configurations and embedding human models into the robot's physical intelligence. As a concrete implementation, we present the humanoid robot ergoCub, whose morphology and control have been optimized for collaborative tasks with humans. Our approach provides a framework for designing humanoid robots that prioritize human ergonomics at both the hardware and physical intelligence levels, with applications in industrial and assistive robotics.

Controllable and physically grounded egocentric video generation is essential for embodied agents to reason about how their own and others' actions manifest and change the world. Compared to generic video synthesis, egocentric generation is especially challenging: the camera is tightly coupled to the actor, leading to rapid viewpoint changes and frequent self-occlusions; the underlying actions are subtle, articulated, and often only partially visible; and both the people and the scene state must evolve consistently with the specified controls. We present E$^3$C, a controllable video diffusion framework for egocentric generation that builds structured and compact conditions disentangling persistent scene structure from human-driven dynamics. From context frames, E$^3$C constructs a semi-dense point cloud-based 3D memory and augments each point with appearance descriptors from video-VAE features. Rendering this memory into target viewpoints produces conditioning aligned with the target frames. Human dynamics are modeled separately. The observed people in the scene are controlled by skeleton renderings (exo human control), while the camera wearer is specified by their 3D body joints and 6DoF wrist motion (ego human control). To preserve ego human control when the wearer's body parts are invisible, we introduce an ego motion encoder that produces persistent cross-attention tokens. Experiments on Nymeria show that E$^3$C improves visual fidelity, camera-motion accuracy, object consistency, and ego & exo human control over strong baselines, while also enabling intuitive scene editing.

AI agents now participate as first-class team members across the software development lifecycle, yet no specification language exists for expressing the human-agent responsibility boundaries, approval gates, and governance constraints this collaboration requires. Existing approaches encode process in agent prompts (subject to drift), target adjacent domains (workflow management, business processes), or address only fragments (access control, approval gates). We propose a domain-specific language for specifying AI-SDLC processes as protocols, with formal syntax, well-formedness conditions, operational semantics, and enforcement invariants. The language distinguishes policy (declared intent) from mechanism (structural enforcement), enabling implementations to bound process non-determinism through primitives such as validation tokens and capability boundaries. Three results follow. A failure rate analysis shows that structural enforcement bounds system failure rates at a weighted product of agent and validator rates, while behavioral compliance permits cumulative or near-saturating growth. The 2+N team pattern (two human-in-control roles plus N specialized agent members) formalizes classical Separation of Duties for AI-SDLC. Kleene closure of orchestration loops and reflexive protocol-adherence validation emerge as design properties rather than special-case constructs. We position the contribution against multi-agent frameworks (MetaGPT), workflow specification (FlowAgent, BPMN extensions), and capability-based security (SAGA): the novelty lies in the specific integration, not any single primitive. A working implementation demonstrates feasibility; empirical evaluation is future work.

A central question in computational vision is whether human-like visual representations are better explained by discriminative or generative learning. Existing comparisons, however, often confound the learning objective with architecture, scale, and training data, leaving open whether the objective itself drives alignment. We address this confound using Joint Energy-Based Models (JEMs), which interpolate continuously between discriminative and generative training within a fixed architecture. By varying a single mixing coefficient, we isolate the effect of the learning objective and evaluate the resulting models across six human-alignment benchmarks spanning perceptual similarity, gloss perception, human response uncertainty, robustness, shape-texture cue conflict, and diagnostic feature attribution. Across this diverse suite, human alignment is consistently maximized at intermediate points of the generative-discriminative continuum, rather than at either endpoint. Hybrid JEMs combine the categorical structure induced by discriminative learning with the sensitivity to input structure induced by generative learning, yielding more human-like behavior across multiple levels of vision. These results suggest that the generative-discriminative dichotomy is the wrong axis for understanding human-aligned vision: alignment emerges not from choosing one objective over the other, but from balancing both.

The transition toward Industry 5.0 is reshaping industrial work environments with an emphasis on human-centricity, enabling close collaboration between humans and machines to enhance productivity and flexibility. However, such systems typically require monitoring of human workers and operators, often involving sensitive data, raising significant privacy concerns. As a result, affected workers and unions frequently reject human-machine collaboration features due to a lack of transparency regarding privacy threats and implemented mitigation strategies. To enable early stakeholder involvement, establish trust, and support informed decision-making, privacy implications must be communicated in a way understandable to non-technical stakeholders. Yet, current Requirements Engineering (RE) practices provide limited methodological support for making privacy threats and mitigations accessible to non-technical stakeholders (e.g., individual workers or their representative unions). In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework that guides software design from human monitoring-related use cases and requirements to informed decision-making guidance focusing on non-technical stakeholders. Building on principles such as Privacy by Design, the framework leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform technical artifacts into accessible privacy reports. We share initial insights from two industry use cases, evaluate the quality of the generated reports, and outline future research directions toward integrating privacy transparency into RE processes for human-centric industrial systems.

Humans learn social norms and behaviors from verbal feedback (e.g., a parent saying "that was rude" or a friend explaining "here's why that hurt"). Yet, learning from feedback for LLMs has largely focused on domains like code and math, where RL rewards are directly verifiable and condensed into scalar values. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, e.g., standing in for users, patients, students, and other personas, there is a pressing need to make them more human-like, which requires embracing a fundamentally different kind of signal: feedback that is verbal, subjective, and multi-faceted. We present DITTO, a model trained by treating verbal feedback as a first-class signal in reinforcement learning. After each rollout, DITTO receives verbal feedback and generates a feedback-conditioned improved rollout; both outputs are jointly optimized with GRPO, distilling verbal guidance into the base policy without requiring feedback at test time. We also introduce SOUL (Simulation gym Of hUman-Like behavior), a unified benchmark and training data suite spanning 10 tasks across six categories: Theory of Mind, character role play, social skill, learner simulation, user simulation, and persona simulation. DITTO achieves an average 36% improvement over the base model and exceeds GPT-5.4 on 6 of 10 SOUL benchmarks, demonstrating that RL with verbal feedback is a promising direction for training LLMs to simulate human behavior.

As AI-generated text enters the real-world at scale, institutions increasingly use commercial AI-text detectors, especially in education and academic-integrity workflows. We report a surprising empirical finding about such systems: when evaluated by GPTZero and Pangram, generated text from base models is often judged overwhelmingly human, whereas text generated by their instruction-tuned counterparts is not. Building on this observation, we propose Humanization by Iterative Paraphrasing (HIP), a detector-agnostic pipeline that minimally fine-tunes a base model into a paraphraser and applies it iteratively. Compared with the baselines we test, HIP yields a stronger trade-off between semantic preservation and detector evasion on commercial detectors. Across Llama-3 and Qwen-3 families, spanning model sizes from 0.6B to 70B, HIP consistently improves detector human-likeness. Our findings suggest that current detectors are tracking artifacts of instruction tuning and local context more than any invariant notion of machine-generated text. This, in turn, calls for detector designs that model these factors more explicitly.

We formalize trust calibration for agentic tool use (deciding when an automated agent's proposed action may execute autonomously versus require human approval) as a preference-learning problem. A policy gateway maintains a Gaussian-process posterior over a latent human risk-tolerance function, observed through a probit likelihood on binary approve/deny feedback, and escalates to the human exactly where the approval outcome is most uncertain. We show this is structurally an instance of Preferential Bayesian Optimization, inheriting its inference machinery (approximate Gaussian-process classification) and its sample-efficiency argument (uncertainty-targeted querying), while differing in objective: classifying an action space into allow/block/ask regions rather than optimizing a design.

The rapid progress of generative artificial intelligence has exposed fundamental limitations in existing evaluation methodologies, particularly for open-ended, creative, and human-facing tasks. Traditional automatic metrics rely on surface-level statistical similarity and often fail to reflect human perceptions of quality, while purely human evaluation, although reliable, is costly, subjective, and difficult to scale. Recent approaches using large language models as evaluators offer improved scalability but frequently lack explicit grounding in human-defined evaluation principles, leading to bias and inconsistency. In this paper, we introduce Quantifying Qualitative Judgment (QQJ), a scalable and human-centric evaluation framework that explicitly bridges the gap between human judgment and automated assessment. QQJ separates the definition of quality from its execution by anchoring evaluation in expert-designed, multi-dimensional rubrics and calibrating large language model evaluators to align with expert reasoning using a small, high-quality annotation set. This design enables consistent, interpretable, and scalable evaluation across diverse generative tasks and modalities. Extensive experiments on text and image generation demonstrate that QQJ achieves substantially stronger alignment with human judgment than traditional automatic metrics and unconstrained LLM-based evaluators. Moreover, QQJ exhibits improved stability across repeated evaluations and superior diagnostic capability in identifying critical failure modes such as hallucination and intent mismatch. These results indicate that structured qualitative judgment can be operationalized at scale without sacrificing interpretability or human alignment, positioning QQJ as a practical foundation for reliable evaluation of modern generative AI systems.

Some claim that AI agents will free workers from the boring parts of their jobs, yet little is known about how workers themselves identify which tasks should be automated. Prior research focuses on occupations, overlooking that workers experience varying levels of meaning across tasks within the same role. We address this gap with a task-level analysis grounded in Graeber's theory of bullshit jobs. Using ratings from 202 workers on 171 workplace tasks, we (1) validate a five-item scale of perceived bullshitness, (2) show that perceived bullshitness strongly predicts desire for AI delegation, and (3) find that such tasks are also seen as requiring less human oversight. Together, these findings suggest that tasks perceived as bullshit are natural candidates for AI delegation, aligning worker preferences with perceived feasibility.

While reinforcement learning (RL) enables robots to acquire skills autonomously, its real-world deployment is severely limited by inefficient and unsafe exploration. Human-in-the-loop interventions offer a practical solution, yet existing methods typically exploit these interventions as auxiliary training signals, without fully capturing the richer information they provide about when and how autonomy should be guided. Human interventions often encode relative preferences over behavior under safety and task constraints, rather than prescribing exact actions to imitate. Motivated by this perspective, we propose Online Human Preference as Guidance in Reinforcement Learning (OHP-RL), a framework that leverages human interventions as preference information to guide policy learning. OHP-RL introduces a state-dependent preference gate that adaptively regulates when and to what extent human interventions should shape policy learning. This design enables the agent to benefit from intermittent and imperfect human feedback while preserving autonomous exploration and stable policy optimization. We evaluate OHP-RL on three challenging real-world contact-rich manipulation tasks on a Franka robot. Across all tasks, OHP-RL consistently achieves strong success rates, faster convergence, and substantially lower human intervention effort than prior approaches. Moreover, the learned policies exhibit more stable and human-aligned behavior throughout training.