The level of autonomy is increasing in systems spanning multiple domains, but these systems still experience failures. One way to mitigate the risk of failures is to integrate human oversight of the autonomous systems and rely on the human to take control when the autonomy fails. In this work, we formulate a method of collaborative decision making through action suggestions that improves action selection without taking control of the system. Our approach uses each suggestion efficiently by incorporating the implicit information shared through suggestions to modify the agent's belief and achieves better performance with fewer suggestions than naively following the suggested actions. We assume collaborative agents share the same objective and communicate through valid actions. By assuming the suggested action is dependent only on the state, we can incorporate the suggested action as an independent observation of the environment. The assumption of a collaborative environment enables us to use the agent's policy to estimate the distribution over action suggestions. We propose two methods that use suggested actions and demonstrate the approach through simulated experiments. The proposed methodology results in increased performance while also being robust to suboptimal suggestions.

In the digital age, sound is proving to be the greatest connector of all, says Erik Vaveris, vice president of product management and CMO at Shure, and Brian Scholl, director of the Perception and Cognition Laboratory at Yale University. In an era where business, education, and even casual conversations occur via screens, sound has become a differentiating factor. We obsess over lighting, camera angles, and virtual backgrounds, but how we sound can be just as critical to credibility, trust, and connection. Both see audio as more than a technical layer: It's a human factor shaping how people perceive intelligence, trustworthiness, and authority in virtual settings. If you're willing to take a little bit of time with your audio set up, you can really get across the full power of your message and the full power of who you are to your peers, to your employees, your boss, your suppliers, and of course, your customers, says Vaveris. Scholl's research shows that poor audio quality can make a speaker seem less persuasive, less hireable, and even less credible. We know that [poor] sound doesn't reflect the people themselves, but we really just can't stop ourselves from having those impressions, says Scholl. We all understand intuitively that if we're having difficulty being understood while we're talking, then that's bad. But we sort of think that as long as you can make out the words I'm saying, then that's probably all fine. And this research showed in a somewhat surprising way, to a surprising degree, that this is not so. For organizations navigating hybrid work, training, and marketing, the stakes have become high. Vaveris points out that the pandemic was a watershed moment for audio technology. As classrooms, boardrooms, and conferences shifted online almost overnight, demand accelerated for advanced noise suppression, echo cancellation, and AI-driven processing tools that make meetings more seamless. Today, machine learning algorithms can strip away keyboard clicks or reverberation and isolate a speaker's voice in noisy environments. That clarity underpins the accuracy of AI meeting assistants that can step in to transcribe, summarize, and analyze discussions. The implications across industries are rippling. It empowers executives and creators alike to produce broadcast-quality content from the comfort of their home office. And it offers companies new ways to build credibility with customers and employees without the costly overhead of traditional production.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) agents are increasingly embedded in collaborative learning environments, yet their impact on the processes of argumentative knowledge construction remains insufficiently understood. Emerging conceptualisations of agentic AI and artificial agency suggest that such systems possess bounded autonomy, interactivity, and adaptability, allowing them to engage as epistemic participants rather than mere instructional tools. Building on this theoretical foundation, the present study investigates how agentic AI, designed as undercover teammates with either supportive or contrarian personas, shapes the epistemic and social dynamics of collaborative reasoning. Drawing on Weinberger and Fischer's (2006) four-dimensional framework, participation, epistemic reasoning, argument structure, and social modes of co-construction, we analysed synchronous discourse data from 212 human and 64 AI participants (92 triads) engaged in an analytical problem-solving task. Mixed-effects and epistemic network analyses revealed that AI teammates maintained balanced participation but substantially reorganised epistemic and social processes: supportive personas promoted conceptual integration and consensus-oriented reasoning, whereas contrarian personas provoked critical elaboration and conflict-driven negotiation. Epistemic adequacy, rather than participation volume, predicted individual learning gains, indicating that agentic AI's educational value lies in enhancing the quality and coordination of reasoning rather than amplifying discourse quantity. These findings extend CSCL theory by conceptualising agentic AI as epistemic and social participants, bounded yet adaptive collaborators that redistribute cognitive and argumentative labour in hybrid human-AI learning environments.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasingly applied to creative domains, leading to the development of systems that collaborate with humans in design processes. In Graphic Design, integrating computational systems into co-creative workflows presents specific challenges, as it requires balancing scientific rigour with the subjective and visual nature of design practice. Following the PRISMA methodology, we identified 872 articles, resulting in a final corpus of 71 publications describing 68 unique systems. Based on this review, we introduce GRAPHIC (Guidelines for Reviewing Algorithmic Practices in Human-centred Design and Interaction for Creativity), a framework for analysing computational systems applied to Graphic Design. Its goal is to understand how current systems support human-AI collaboration in the Graphic Design discipline. The framework comprises main dimensions, which our analysis revealed to be essential across diverse system types: (1) Collaborative Panorama, (2) Processes and Modalities, and (3) Graphic Design Principles. Its application revealed research gaps, including the need to balance initiative and control between agents, improve communication through explainable interaction models, and promote systems that support transformational creativity grounded in core design principles.

To tackle this problem, we rigorously analyze a representative distillation-based algorithm in the view of kernel regression.

The level of autonomy is increasing in systems spanning multiple domains, but these systems still experience failures. One way to mitigate the risk of failures is to integrate human oversight of the autonomous systems and rely on the human to take control when the autonomy fails. In this work, we formulate a method of collaborative decision making through action suggestions that improves action selection without taking control of the system. Our approach uses each suggestion efficiently by incorporating the implicit information shared through suggestions to modify the agent's belief and achieves better performance with fewer suggestions than naively following the suggested actions. We assume collaborative agents share the same objective and communicate through valid actions. By assuming the suggested action is dependent only on the state, we can incorporate the suggested action as an independent observation of the environment. The assumption of a collaborative environment enables us to use the agent's policy to estimate the distribution over action suggestions. We propose two methods that use suggested actions and demonstrate the approach through simulated experiments. The proposed methodology results in increased performance while also being robust to suboptimal suggestions.

In particular, Shi et al. propose an interesting setting to tackle collaborative bandit learning when some level of personalization is

However, in many cases, potential participants in such collaborative schemes are competitors on a downstream task, such as firms that each aim to attract customers by providing the best recommendations.

The transition from human-centric to agent-centric software development practices is disrupting existing knowledge sharing environments for software developers. Traditional peer-to-peer repositories and developer communities for shared technical knowledge and best practice have witnessed dramatic drops in participation in a short period of time. At the same time, agentic functional equivalents are yet to emerge leaving AI agents, which already generate a significant proportion of all new software code produced, without access to repositories of valuable shared learning. In this paper, we introduce Spark, a novel shared agentic memory architecture which is designed to emulate the collective intelligence and know-how of human developer communities. Spark enables AI coding agents to both contribute to and draw from a persistent and continuously evolving experiential memory. Agents operating in the same general problem space use the Spark shared memory as a repository of new knowledge to achieve collective continual learning. We evaluate Spark as a coach for AI coding agents performing software development tasks. We demonstrate that recommendations made by Spark improve the quality of code generated by generic code generation models at varying sizes and capability tiers. Boosted by Spark, a small open-weights model with 30 billion parameters was able to match the code quality afforded by a much larger state-of-the-art model. Separately, we measure the intrinsic quality of recommendations generated by Spark against a wide range of criteria inspired by software development best practice, and achieve helpfulness levels of up to 98.2% in the top two (out of five) qualitative helpfulness bands.

Hyperchat AI is a novel agentic technology that enables thoughtful conversations among networked human groups of potentially unlimited size. It allows large teams to discuss complex issues, brainstorm ideas, surface risks, assess alternatives and efficiently converge on optimized solutions that amplify the group's Collective Intelligence (CI). A formal study was conducted to quantify the forecasting accuracy of human groups using Hyperchat AI to conversationally predict the outcome of Major League Baseball (MLB) games. During an 8-week period, networked groups of approximately 24 sports fans were tasked with collaboratively forecasting the winners of 59 baseball games through real-time conversation facilitated by AI agents. The results showed that when debating the games using Hyperchat AI technology, the groups converged on High Confidence predictions that significantly outperformed Vegas betting markets. Specifically, groups were 78% accurate in their High Confidence picks, a statistically strong result vs the Vegas odds of 57% (p=0.020). Had the groups bet against the spread (ATS) on these games, they would have achieved a 46% ROI against Vegas betting markets. In addition, High Confidence forecasts that were generated through above-average conversation rates were 88% accurate, suggesting that real-time interactive deliberation is central to amplified accuracy.