arXiv:2606. 03103v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Real-world professional desktop workflows in specialized creative and engineering software unfold over long horizons and often require human-in-the-loop coordination, where agents proactively seek necessary information and users provide additional instructions, clarifications, feedback, or corrections as the task progresses.
Conversational agents are increasingly embedded in human collaborative work, yet they remain fundamentally passive and reactive: they respond to explicit user requests rather than proactively recognizing moments when a team would benefit from timely intervention as human collaborators often do. This reactive design substantially limits the use of agents as active participants in multi-user collaboration, where disagreements, ambiguous goals, forgotten constraints, underspecified plans, discussion loops, and imbalanced participation can gradually undermine group progress.
DocuTeam is a mixed‑initiative multi‑agent discussion system that allows both users and agents to start and steer conversations around evolving documents. Agents monitor changes to the document and proactively initiate or redirect discussions, while users can shape the dialogue or adopt agent suggestions. In a within‑subjects study with 20 participants, DocuTeam produced outcomes that were rated as more novel, relevant, and specific compared to a baseline, without increasing cognitive load.
The paper introduces Goal-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Collaboration (GAD), a framework that assigns distinct duties to separate agents with individualized contexts to tackle long-horizon tasks. It employs a growing execution graph to structure subtasks and their dependencies, ensuring each agent retains the original instruction, task goal, and acceptance conditions. GAD dynamically adapts collaboration and information sharing, using verification and recovery checks to monitor subtask results and overall task completion, providing feedback for repair when checks fail.
arXiv:2604.17883v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vibe coding turns natural-language intent into working software, but code generation alone does not give humans and agents a shared account o...
Kolab is a new dataset comprising over 115 hours of screen recordings from 50 professionals across 40 occupations who collaborate with AI agents on realistic, long‑horizon tasks. The dataset includes participants’ judgments of collaboration quality and output, revealing varied coordination patterns and the need for agents to anticipate how experts will use or modify their contributions. Analysis shows current state‑of‑the‑art models overestimate collaboration success and struggle to differentiate high‑ from low‑quality interactions, indicating a gap in understanding long‑horizon human‑agent teamwork.
Co-Design Bench is a new, reference‑free benchmark comprising 273 multimodal coding tasks derived from 26,314 real user sessions. It features two tracks—Multimodal Editing and Repository Editing—that test agents on localized edits with optional image, audio, video, or document inputs and coordinated repository changes across three capability dimensions: Grounded Understanding, UI Transformation, and Functional Implementation. The benchmark uses a judge‑then‑refute protocol with hidden expert‑authored acceptance criteria, and the best of ten model endpoints achieves an average of 69.9% criterion completion but fully satisfies only 26.4% of tasks, especially struggling with repository edits involving multiple change types.
CoWriter is a proactive agentic system that adapts expert human co‑authoring methodologies from cognitive science to guide the entire writing workflow and actively encourage user engagement. In an exploratory user study, authors using CoWriter expressed their perspectives more clearly, felt greater ownership of the document, and engaged with the agent 2.2× more often than a standard LLM baseline. External reader judges also rated CoWriter‑generated texts higher in human‑touch qualities such as storytelling and personal experience integration.
The study investigates how autonomous coding agents interact with technical documentation, analyzing 557 coding sessions and 33,097 pull requests. Findings reveal that agents primarily engage with agent-facing artefacts, show weak links between documentation consultation and code editing, lack explicit validation sequences, and tend to consult documentation after code changes. The authors propose a two‑lobed cycle model of agent‑documentation interaction and challenge assumptions about actionability and verifiability of agent‑friendly documentation.
arXiv:2609.01588v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promis...
Coding agents can adapt their harnesses, the software, configuration, and instructions used to run them, based on experience from earlier tasks, but whether these adaptations improve their behavior on...
arXiv:2606. 09751v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Foundation models are moving from response generation into operational roles.