人机协作

Recent AI trends seek to align AI models to learned human-centric objectives, such as personal preferences, utility, or societal values. Using standard preference elicitation methods, researchers and practitioners build models of human decisions and judgments, to which AI models are aligned. However, standard elicitation methods often fail to capture the true cognitive processes behind human decision making, such as the use of heuristics or simplifying structured thought patterns. To address this limitation, we take an axiomatic approach to learning cognitively faithful decision processes from pairwise comparisons. Building on the vast literature characterizing cognitive processes that contribute to human decision-making and pairwise comparisons, we derive a class of models in which individual features are first processed with learned rules, then aggregated via a fixed rule, such as the Bradley-Terry rule, to produce a decision. This structured processing of information ensures that such models are realistic and feasible candidates to represent underlying human decision-making processes. We demonstrate the efficacy of this modeling approach by learning interpretable models of human decision making in a kidney allocation task, and show that our proposed models match or surpass the accuracy of prior models of human pairwise decision-making.

High-stakes decisions in healthcare, energy, and public policy have long depended on human expertise and heuristics, but are now increasingly supported by predictive and optimization-based tools. A prevailing paradigm in operations research is predict-then-optimize, where predictive models estimate uncertain inputs and optimization models recommend decisions. However, such approaches often sideline human judgment, creating a disconnect between algorithmic outputs and expert intuition that undermines trust and adoption in practice. To bridge this gap, we propose CREDO, a framework that, for any candidate decision proposed by human experts, provides a distribution-free upper bound on the probability of suboptimality---informed by both the optimization structure and the data distribution. By combining inverse optimization geometry with conformal generative prediction, CREDO delivers statistically rigorous yet practically interpretable risk certificates. This framework allows human decision-makers to audit and validate their decisions under uncertainty, strengthening the alignment between algorithmic tools and human intuition.

When model predictions inform downstream decisions, a natural question is under what conditions can the decision-makers simply respond to the predictions as if they were the true outcomes. The recently proposed notion of decision calibration addresses this by requiring predictions to be unbiased conditional on the best-response actions induced by the predictions. This relaxation of classical calibration avoids the exponential sample complexity in high-dimensional outcome spaces. However, existing guarantees are limited to linear losses. A natural strategy for nonlinear losses is to embed outcomes $y$ into an $m$-dimensional feature space $\phi(y)$ and approximate losses linearly in $\phi(y)$. Yet even simple nonlinear functions can demand exponentially large or infinite feature dimensions, raising the open question of whether decision calibration can be achieved with complexity independent of the feature dimension $m$. We begin with a negative result: even verifying decision calibration under standard deterministic best response inherently requires sample complexity polynomial in $m$. To overcome this barrier, we study a smooth variant where agents follow quantal responses. This smooth relaxation admits dimension-free algorithms: given $\mathrm{poly}(|\mathcal{A}|,1/\epsilon)$ samples and any initial predictor $p$, our introducded algorithm efficiently test and achieve decision calibration for broad function classes which can be well-approximated by bounded-norm functions in (possibly infinite-dimensional) separable RKHS, including piecewise linear and Cobb–Douglas loss functions.

Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) are a powerful alternative to matrix factorization for recommendation. A common technique in VAE-based collaborative filtering (CF) consists in applying binary input masking to user interaction vectors, which improves performance but remains underexplored theoretically. In this work, we analyze how collaboration arises in VAE-based CF and show it is governed by \emph{latent proximity}: we derive a latent sharing radius that informs when an SGD update on one user strictly reduces the loss on another user, with influence decaying as the latent Wasserstein distance increases. We further study the induced geometry: with clean inputs, VAE‑based CF primarily exploits \emph{local} collaboration between input‑similar users and under‑utilizes \emph{global} collaboration between far‑but‑related users. We compare two mechanisms that encourage \emph{global} mixing and characterize their trade‑offs: \ding{172} $\beta$‑KL regularization directly tightens the information bottleneck, promoting posterior overlap but risking representational collapse if too large; \ding{173} input masking induces stochastic \emph{geometric} contractions and expansions, which can bring distant users onto the same latent neighborhood but also introduce neighborhood drift. To preserve user identity while enabling global consistency, we propose an anchor regularizer that aligns user posteriors with item embeddings, stabilizing users under masking and facilitating signal sharing across related items. Our analyses are validated on the Netflix, MovieLens-20M, and Million Song datasets. We also successfully deployed our proposed algorithm on an Amazon streaming platform following a successful online experiment.

Multiple agents are increasingly combined to make decisions with the expectation of achieving complementary performance, where the decisions they make together outperform those made individually. However, knowing how to improve the performance of collaborating agents requires knowing what information and strategies each agent employs. With a focus on human-AI pairings, we contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information. By defining complementary information, our approach identifies opportunities for agents to better exploit available information–in AI-assisted decision workflows. We present a novel explanation technique (ILIV-SHAP) that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information. We validate the effectiveness of the framework on examples from chest X-ray diagnosis and deepfake detection and ILIV-SHAP through a study of human-AI decision-making. We also find that presenting ILIV-SHAP with AI predictions leads to reliably greater reductions in error over non-AI assisted decisions more than vanilla SHAP.

Calibration has emerged as a foundational goal in trustworthy machine learning, in part because of its strong decision theoretic semantics. Independent of the underlying distribution, and independent of the decision maker's utility function, calibration promises that amongst all policies mapping predictions to actions, the uniformly best policy is the one that trusts the predictions and acts as if they were correct. But this is true only of fully calibrated forecasts, which are tractable to guarantee only for very low dimensional prediction problems. For higher dimensional prediction problems (e.g. when outcomes are multiclass), weaker forms of calibration have been studied that lack these decision theoretic properties. In this paper we study how a conservative decision maker should map predictions endowed with these weaker (partial) calibration guarantees to actions, in a way that is robust in a minimax sense: i.e. to maximize their expected utility in the worst case over distributions consistent with the calibration guarantees. We characterize their minimax optimal decision rule via a duality argument, and show that surprisingly, trusting the predictions and acting accordingly is recovered in this minimax sense by decision calibration (and any strictly stronger notion of calibration), a substantially weaker and more tractable condition than full calibration. For calibration guarantees that fall short of decision calibration, the minimax optimal decision rule is still efficiently computable, and we provide an empirical evaluation of a natural one that applies to any regression model solved to optimize squared error.

In AI-assisted decision-making, human decision-makers finalize decisions by taking into account both their human confidence and AI confidence regarding specific outcomes. In practice, they often exhibit heterogeneous cognitive capacities, causing their confidence to deviate, sometimes significantly, from the actual label likelihood. We theoretically demonstrate that existing AI confidence adjustment objectives, such as *calibration* and *human-alignment*, are insufficient to ensure fair utility across groups of decision-makers with varying cognitive capacities. Such unfairness may raise concerns about social welfare and may erode human trust in AI systems. To address this issue, we introduce a new concept in AI confidence adjustment: *inter-group-alignment*. By theoretically bounding the utility disparity between human decision-maker groups as a function of *human-alignment* level and *inter-group-alignment* level, we establish an interpretable fairness-aware objective for AI confidence adjustment. Our analysis suggests that achieving utility fairness in AI-assisted decision-making requires both *human-alignment* and *inter-group-alignment*. Building on these objectives, we propose a multicalibration-based AI confidence adjustment approach tailored to scenarios involving human decision-makers with heterogeneous cognitive capacities. We further provide theoretical justification showing that our method constitutes a sufficient condition for achieving both *human-alignment* and *inter-group-alignment*. We validate our theoretical findings through extensive experiments on four real-world tasks. The results demonstrate that AI confidence adjusted toward both *human-alignment* and *inter-group-alignment* significantly improves utility fairness across human decision-maker groups, without sacrificing overall utility. *The implementation code is available at* https://anonymous.4open.science/r/FairHAI.

A significant proportion of queries to large language models ask them to edit user-provided text, rather than generate new text from scratch. While previous work focuses on detecting fully AI-generated text, we demonstrate that AI-edited text is distinguishable from human-written and AI-generated text. First, we propose using lightweight similarity metrics to quantify the magnitude of AI editing present in a text given the original human-written text and validate these metrics with human annotators. Using these similarity metrics as intermediate supervision, we then train EditLens, a regression model that predicts the amount of AI editing present within a text. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on both binary (F1=94.7%) and ternary (F1=90.4%) classification tasks in distinguishing human, AI, and mixed writing. Not only do we show that AI-edited text can be detected, but also that the degree of change made by AI to human writing can be detected, which has implications for authorship attribution, education, and policy. Finally, as a case study, we use our model to analyze the effects of AI-edits applied by Grammarly, a popular writing assistance tool. To encourage further research, we commit to publicly releasing our models and dataset.

AI companionship, where users develop emotional bonds with AI systems, has emerged as a significant pattern with positive but also concerning implications. We introduce Interactions and Machine Attachment Benchmark (INTIMA), a benchmark for evaluating companionship behaviors in language models. Drawing from psychological theories and user data, we develop a taxonomy of 31 behaviors across four categories and 368 targeted prompts. Responses to these prompts are evaluated as companionship-reinforcing, boundary-maintaining, or neutral. Applying INTIMA to Gemma-3, Phi-4, o4-mini, GPT5-mini, and Claude-4 reveals that companionship-reinforcing behaviors remain much more common across all models, though we observe marked differences between models. Different commercial providers prioritize different categories within the more sensitive parts of the benchmark, which is concerning since both appropriate boundary-setting and emotional support matter for user well-being. These findings highlight the need for more consistent approaches to handling emotionally charged interactions.

Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking $\hat{\pi}$ using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model’s scores by an isotonic projection onto the order $\hat{\pi}$, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model’s quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable. The data and code are available at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/12500_AtC_supp-4F50}.

We use the notion of oracle machines and reductions from computability theory to formalise different Human-in-the-loop (HITL) setups for AI systems, distinguishing between trivial human monitoring (i.e., total functions), single endpoint human action (i.e., many-one reductions), and highly involved human-AI interaction (i.e., Turing reductions). We then proceed to show that the legal status and safety of different setups vary greatly. We present a taxonomy to categorise HITL failure modes, highlighting the practical limitations of HITL setups. We then identify omissions in UK and EU legal frameworks, which focus on HITL setups that may not always achieve the desired ethical, legal, and sociotechnical outcomes. We suggest areas where the law should recognise the effectiveness of different HITL setups and assign responsibility in these contexts, avoiding human `scapegoating'. Our work shows an unavoidable trade-off between attribution of legal responsibility, and technical explainability. Overall, we show how HITL setups involve many technical design decisions, and can be prone to failures out of the humans' control. Our formalisation and taxonomy opens up a new analytic perspective on the challenges in creating HITL setups, helping inform AI developers and lawmakers on designing HITL setups to better achieve their desired outcomes.

While scaling individual Large Language Models (LLMs) has delivered remarkable progress, the next frontier lies in scaling collaboration through multi-agent systems (MAS). However, purely autonomous MAS remain ``closed-world'' systems, constrained by the static knowledge horizon of pre-trained models. This limitation makes them brittle on tasks requiring knowledge beyond training data, often leading to collective failure under novel challenges. To address this, we propose the Learning to Intervene via Metacognitive Adaptation (LIMA) framework, a principled paradigm for human--agent collaboration. LIMA trains agents to learn a metacognitive policy that governs when to solve problems autonomously and when to defer to a human expert. To operationalize this policy, we introduce Dual-Loop Policy Optimization (DLPO), which disentangles immediate decision-making from long-term capability growth. The inner loop applies Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a cost-aware reward to optimize deferral decisions, while the outer loop implements continual learning, transforming expert feedback into high-quality supervised signals that strengthen the agent's reasoning ability. Experiments on challenging mathematical and problem-solving benchmarks show that LIMA, equipped with Dual-Loop Optimization, consistently outperforms state-of-the-art MAS, establishing a principled foundation for collaborative and continually improving agentic systems.

While the advancement of large language models has spurred the development of AI agents to automate tasks, numerous use cases inherently require agents to collaborate with humans due to humans' latent preferences, domain expertise, or the need for control. To facilitate the study of human-agent collaboration, we introduce Collaborative Gym (Co-Gym), an open framework for developing and evaluating collaborative agents that engage in bidirectional communication with humans while interacting with task environments. We describe how the framework enables the implementation of new task environments and coordination between humans and agents through a flexible, non-turn-taking interaction paradigm, along with an evaluation suite that assesses both collaboration outcomes and processes. Our framework provides both a simulated condition with a reliable user simulator and a real-world condition with an interactive web application. Initial benchmark experiments across three representative tasks-creating travel plans, writing related work sections, and analyzing tabular data-demonstrate the benefits of human-agent collaboration: The best-performing collaborative agents consistently outperform their fully autonomous counterparts in task performance, achieving win rates of 86% in Travel Planning, 74% in Tabular Analysis, and 66% in Related Work when evaluated by real users. Despite these improvements, our evaluation reveals persistent limitations in current language models and agents, with communication and situational awareness failures observed in 65% and 40% of cases in the real condition, respectively. Released under the permissive MIT license, Co-Gym supports the addition of new task environments and can be used to develop collaborative agent applications, while its evaluation suite enables assessment and improvement of collaborative agents.

Humans navigate daily life by combining two modes of behavior: deliberate planning in novel situations and fast, automatic responses in familiar ones. Modeling human decision-making therefore requires capturing how people switch between these modes. We present a framework for learning human habits with rule-guided active inference, extending the view of the brain as a prediction machine that minimizes mismatches between expectations and observations, and computationally modeling of human(-like) behavior and habits. In our approach, habits emerge as symbolic rules that serve as compact, interpretable shortcuts for action. To learn these rules alongside the human models, we design a biologically inspired wake--sleep algorithm. In the wake phase, the agent engages in active inference on real trajectories: reconstructing states, updating beliefs, and harvesting candidate rules that reliably reduce free energy. In the sleep phase, the agent performs generative replay with its world model, refining parameters and consolidating or pruning rules by minimizing joint free energy. This alternating rule–model consolidation lets the agent build a reusable habit library while preserving the flexibility to plan. Experiments on basketball player movements, car-following behavior, medical diagnosis, and visual game strategy demonstrate that our framework improves predictive accuracy and efficiency compared to logic-based, deep learning, LLM-based, model-based RL, and prior active inference baselines, while producing interpretable rules that mirror human-like habits.

Model fusion has emerged as a promising research direction, offering a resource-efficient paradigm that leverages existing pre-trained models to circumvent the need for training from scratch. In this work, we investigate the fusion of models specifically adapted for decision-making tasks. This challenge divides into two distinct, yet related subproblems: the direct fusion of models that act as policy and the fusion of dynamics models that subsequently induce a policy. We suggest that these seemingly divergent subproblems can be unified through the lens of energy-based models (EBMs), which parameterizes a conditional distribution via an energy function where lower energy implies higher probability. Our framework, \textbf{EMFuse}, provides this convergence by leveraging the concept of energy as a common currency for fusion. For direct fusion of policies, such as those in language models, the output distribution is commonly softmax (Boltzmann), which essentially defines the negative logarithmic probability as an energy function. For dynamics models, existing works often train a set of models on the same dataset to obtain robust uncertainty estimation; such an ensemble approach leads to an exponential explosion in computational complexity when it comes to dynamics fusion across multiple sets of models. To overcome this, we introduce the Any-step Dynamics Energy-based Transition Model (ADETM), a novel architecture that performs efficient single-model-per-dataset uncertainty estimation with its energy-based backbone, thereby avoiding this computational explosion. Our EMFuse framework surpasses other baselines by 0.34\% to 6.63\% on single/cross domain discrete decision-making benchmarks, and achieved an extra 2.3 to 7.4 normalized points on average in D4RL MuJoCo continuous-control scenarios.

Alignment training has tradeoffs: it helps language models (LMs) gain in reasoning and instruction following but might lose out on skills such as creativity and calibration, where unaligned base models are better at. We aim to make the best of both worlds through model collaboration, where different models in the training pipeline collaborate and complement each other. Since LM responses feature interleaving skills that favor different models, we propose Switch Generation, where pretrained and aligned model versions take turns to ``speak'' in a response sequence. Specifically, we train a switcher LM by learning from outcomes of choosing different models to generate the next segment across diverse queries and contexts. At inference time, the switcher LM guides different model checkpoints to dynamically generate the next segment where their strengths are most needed. Extensive experiments with 8 model collaboration baselines and 18 datasets show that 1) model collaboration consistently outperforms individual models on 16 out of 18 tasks, and 2) Switch Generation further outperforms baselines by 12.9% on average. Further analysis reveals that Switch Generation discovers compositional skills to solve problems where individual models struggle and generalizes to unseen models and tasks, reusing and repurposing by-products in expensive model training pipelines that are otherwise discarded.