arXiv:2606. 18413v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated AI agents are increasingly capable, yet many scientific and professional tasks require human judgment and contextual expertise.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
The paper compares human group discussions with large language model (LLM) deliberation traces on various reasoning tasks, finding that both humans and LLMs exhibit an assembly bonus asymmetry where discussion benefits the average member more than the best initial member. While LLM groups mirror some outcome-level patterns of human deliberation, they differ in process-level behaviors: they tend to follow majorities, surface less unique information, and converge earlier. Interventions inspired by human group‑decision research yield modest outcome improvements but do not eliminate coordination bottlenecks.
arXiv:2511. 02687v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The trajectory of AI development suggests that we will increasingly rely on agent-based systems powered by language models, composed of independently developed agents with different information, privileges, and tools.
arXiv:2607. 04329v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly operate in settings where humans are active collaborators rather than passive task providers.
arXiv:2608. 06381v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) has shown promise for human-agent collaboration, yet results rely on hand-crafted policies in custom environments, limiting generalizability to state-of-the-art teaming research.
arXiv:2606. 31966v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have strong potential as embodied agents, but their ability to collaborate in visually grounded environments remains underexplored.
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.