Language models excel at following instructions but often struggle with the collaborative aspects of conversation that humans naturally employ. This limitation in grounding -- the process by which conversation participants establish mutual understanding -- can lead to outcomes ranging from frustrated users to serious consequences in high-stakes scenarios. To systematically study grounding challenges in human-LLM interactions, we analyze logs from three human-assistant datasets: WildChat, MultiWOZ, and Bing Chat. We develop a taxonomy of grounding acts and build models to annotate and forecast grounding behavior. Our findings reveal significant differences in human-human and human-LLM grounding: LLMs were three times less likely to initiate clarification and sixteen times less likely to provide follow-up requests than humans. Additionally, early grounding failures predicted later interaction breakdowns. Building on these insights, we introduce RIFTS: a benchmark derived from publicly available LLM interaction data containing situations where LLMs fail to initiate grounding. We note that current frontier models perform poorly on RIFTS, highlighting the need to reconsider how we train and prompt LLMs for human interaction. To this end, we develop a preliminary intervention that mitigates grounding failures.

Remarkable advancements in modern generative foundation models have enabled the development of sophisticated and highly capable autonomous agents that can observe their environment, invoke tools, and communicate with other agents to solve problems. Although such agents can communicate with users through natural language, their complexity and wide-ranging failure modes present novel challenges for human-AI interaction. Building on prior research and informed by a communication grounding perspective, we contribute to the study of \emph{human-agent communication} by identifying and analyzing twelve key communication challenges that these systems pose. These include challenges in conveying information from the agent to the user, challenges in enabling the user to convey information to the agent, and overarching challenges that need to be considered across all human-agent communication. We illustrate each challenge through concrete examples and identify open directions of research. Our findings provide insights into critical gaps in human-agent communication research and serve as an urgent call for new design patterns, principles, and guidelines to support transparency and control in these systems.

Modern AI agents, driven by advances in large foundation models, promise to enhance our productivity and transform our lives by augmenting our knowledge and capabilities. To achieve this vision, AI agents must effectively plan, perform multi-step reasoning and actions, respond to novel observations, and recover from errors, to successfully complete complex tasks across a wide range of scenarios. In this work, we introduce Magentic-One, a high-performing open-source agentic system for solving such tasks. Magentic-One uses a multi-agent architecture where a lead agent, the Orchestrator, plans, tracks progress, and re-plans to recover from errors. Throughout task execution, the Orchestrator directs other specialized agents to perform tasks as needed, such as operating a web browser, navigating local files, or writing and executing Python code. We show that Magentic-One achieves statistically competitive performance to the state-of-the-art on three diverse and challenging agentic benchmarks: GAIA, AssistantBench, and WebArena. Magentic-One achieves these results without modification to core agent capabilities or to how they collaborate, demonstrating progress towards generalist agentic systems. Moreover, Magentic-One's modular design allows agents to be added or removed from the team without additional prompt tuning or training, easing development and making it extensible to future scenarios. We provide an open-source implementation of Magentic-One, and we include AutoGenBench, a standalone tool for agentic evaluation. AutoGenBench provides built-in controls for repetition and isolation to run agentic benchmarks in a rigorous and contained manner -- which is important when agents' actions have side-effects. Magentic-One, AutoGenBench and detailed empirical performance evaluations of Magentic-One, including ablations and error analysis are available at https://aka.ms/magentic-one

The rapid development in the field of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a surge in applications that facilitate collaboration among multiple agents to assist humans in their daily tasks. However, a significant gap remains in assessing whether LLM-powered applications genuinely enhance user experience and task execution efficiency. This highlights the pressing need for methods to verify utility of LLM-powered applications, particularly by ensuring alignment between the application's functionality and end-user needs. We introduce AgentEval provides an implementation for the math problems, a novel framework designed to simplify the utility verification process by automatically proposing a set of criteria tailored to the unique purpose of any given application. This allows for a comprehensive assessment, quantifying the utility of an application against the suggested criteria. We present a comprehensive analysis of the robustness of quantifier's work.

AI powered code-recommendation systems, such as Copilot and CodeWhisperer, provide code suggestions inside a programmer's environment (e.g., an IDE) with the aim to improve their productivity. Since, in these scenarios, programmers accept and reject suggestions, ideally, such a system should use this feedback in furtherance of this goal. In this work, we leverage prior data of programmers interacting with GitHub Copilot, a system used by millions of programmers, to develop interventions that can save programmer time. We propose a utility theory framework, which models this interaction with programmers and decides which suggestions to display. Our framework Conditional suggestion Display from Human Feedback (CDHF), relies on a cascade of models that predict suggestion acceptance to selectively hide suggestions reducing both latency and programmer verification time. Using data from 535 programmers, we perform a retrospective evaluation of CDHF and show that we can avoid displaying a significant fraction of suggestions that would have been rejected doing so without total knowledge of the suggestions themselves. We further demonstrate the importance of incorporating the programmer's latent unobserved state in deciding when to display suggestions through ablations on user study data. Finally, we showcase that using suggestion acceptance as a reward signal to know which suggestions to display leads to reduced quality suggestions indicating an unexpected pitfall.

Large language models have demonstrated great potential to assist programmers in generating code. For such human-AI pair programming scenarios, we empirically demonstrate that while generated code is most often evaluated in terms of their functional correctness (i.e., whether generations pass available unit tests), correctness does not fully capture (e.g., may underestimate) the productivity gains these models may provide. Through a user study with N = 49 experienced programmers, we show that while correctness captures high-value generations, programmers still rate code that fails unit tests as valuable if it reduces the overall effort needed to complete a coding task. Finally, we propose a hybrid metric that combines functional correctness and syntactic similarity and show that it achieves a 14% stronger correlation with value and can therefore better represent real-world gains when evaluating and comparing models.

To design effective vaccine policies, policymakers need detailed data about who has been vaccinated, who is holding out, and why. However, existing data in the US are insufficient: reported vaccination rates are often delayed or missing, and surveys of vaccine hesitancy are limited by high-level questions and self-report biases. Here, we show how large-scale search engine logs and machine learning can be leveraged to fill these gaps and provide novel insights about vaccine intentions and behaviors. First, we develop a vaccine intent classifier that can accurately detect when a user is seeking the COVID-19 vaccine on search. Our classifier demonstrates strong agreement with CDC vaccination rates, with correlations above 0.86, and estimates vaccine intent rates to the level of ZIP codes in real time, allowing us to pinpoint more granular trends in vaccine seeking across regions, demographics, and time. To investigate vaccine hesitancy, we use our classifier to identify two groups, vaccine early adopters and vaccine holdouts. We find that holdouts, compared to early adopters matched on covariates, are 69% more likely to click on untrusted news sites. Furthermore, we organize 25,000 vaccine-related URLs into a hierarchical ontology of vaccine concerns, and we find that holdouts are far more concerned about vaccine requirements, vaccine development and approval, and vaccine myths, and even within holdouts, concerns vary significantly across demographic groups. Finally, we explore the temporal dynamics of vaccine concerns and vaccine seeking, and find that key indicators emerge when individuals convert from holding out to preparing to accept the vaccine.

Code-recommendation systems, such as Copilot and CodeWhisperer, have the potential to improve programmer productivity by suggesting and auto-completing code. However, to fully realize their potential, we must understand how programmers interact with these systems and identify ways to improve that interaction. To make progress, we studied GitHub Copilot, a code-recommendation system used by millions of programmers daily. We developed CUPS, a taxonomy of common programmer activities when interacting with Copilot. Our study of 21 programmers, who completed coding tasks and retrospectively labeled their sessions with CUPS, showed that CUPS can help us understand how programmers interact with code-recommendation systems, revealing inefficiencies and time costs. Our insights reveal how programmers interact with Copilot and motivate new interface designs and metrics.

Large-scale generative models enabled the development of AI-powered code completion tools to assist programmers in writing code. However, much like other AI-powered tools, AI-powered code completions are not always accurate, potentially introducing bugs or even security vulnerabilities into code if not properly detected and corrected by a human programmer. One technique that has been proposed and implemented to help programmers identify potential errors is to highlight uncertain tokens. However, there have been no empirical studies exploring the effectiveness of this technique-- nor investigating the different and not-yet-agreed-upon notions of uncertainty in the context of generative models. We explore the question of whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code when collaborating with an AI-powered code completion tool, and if so, what measure of uncertainty best fits programmers' needs. Through a mixed-methods study with 30 programmers, we compare three conditions: providing the AI system's code completion alone, highlighting tokens with the lowest likelihood of being generated by the underlying generative model, and highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited by a programmer. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits, and is subjectively preferred by study participants. In contrast, highlighting tokens according to their probability of being generated does not provide any benefit over the baseline with no highlighting. We further explore the design space of how to convey uncertainty in AI-powered code completion tools, and find that programmers prefer highlights that are granular, informative, interpretable, and not overwhelming.