Collaborative robots and machine learning-based virtual agents are increasingly entering the human workspace with the aim of increasing productivity and enhancing safety.

Deep reinforcement learning has generated superhuman AI in competitive games such as Go and StarCraft. Can similar learning techniques create a superior AI teammate for human-machine collaborative games? Will humans prefer AI teammates that improve objective team performance or those that improve subjective metrics of trust? In this study, we perform a single-blind evaluation of teams of humans and AI agents in the cooperative card game Hanabi, with both rule-based and learning-based agents. In addition to the game score, used as an objective metric of the human-AI team performance, we also quantify subjective measures of the human's perceived performance, teamwork, interpretability, trust, and overall preference of AI teammate. We find that humans have a clear preference toward a rule-based AI teammate (SmartBot) over a state-of-the-art learning-based AI teammate (Other-Play) across nearly all subjective metrics, and generally view the learning-based agent negatively, despite no statistical difference in the game score. This result has implications for future AI design and reinforcement learning benchmarking, highlighting the need to incorporate subjective metrics of human-AI teaming rather than a singular focus on objective task performance.

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.

Collaborative robots and machine learning-based virtual agents are increasingly entering the human workspace with the aim of increasing productivity and enhancing safety.

Human-AI collaboration is typically offered in one of two of user control levels: guidance, where the AI provides suggestions and the human makes the final decision, and delegation, where the AI acts autonomously within user-defined constraints. Systems that integrate both modes, common in robotic surgery or driving assistance, often overlook shifts in user preferences within a task in response to factors like evolving trust, decision complexity, and perceived control. In this work, we investigate how users dynamically switch between higher and lower levels of control during a sequential decision-making task. Using a hand-and-brain chess setup, participants either selected a piece and the AI decided how it moved (brain mode), or the AI selected a piece and the participant decided how it moved (hand mode). We collected over 400 mode-switching decisions from eight participants, along with gaze, emotional state, and subtask difficulty data. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in gaze patterns and subtask complexity prior to a switch and in the quality of the subsequent move. Based on these results, we engineered behavioral and task-specific features to train a lightweight model that predicted control level switches ($F1 = 0.65$). The model performance suggests that real-time behavioral signals can serve as a complementary input alongside system-driven mode-switching mechanisms currently used. We complement our quantitative results with qualitative factors that influence switching including perceived AI ability, decision complexity, and level of control, identified from post-game interview analysis. The combined behavioral and modeling insights can help inform the design of shared autonomy systems that need dynamic, subtask-level control switches aligned with user intent and evolving task demands.

Hanabi is a cooperative card game in which two to five players attempt to stack twenty-five cards into five different fireworks (piles), one for each suit (color) and by ascending rank (number).

-- We compare three methods of familiarizing a human with an artificial intelligence (AI) teammate ("agent") prior to operation in a collaborative, fast-paced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) environment. In a between-subjects user study (n=60), participants either read documentation about the agent, trained alongside the agent prior to the mission, or were given no familiarization. Results showed that the most valuable information about the agent included details of its decision-making algorithms and its relative strengths and weaknesses compared to the human. This information allowed the familiarization groups to form sophisticated team strategies more quickly than the control group. Documentation-based familiarization led to the fastest adoption of these strategies, but also biased participants towards risk-averse behavior that prevented high scores. Participants familiarized through direct interaction were able to infer much of the same information through observation, and were more willing to take risks and experiment with different control modes, but reported weaker understanding of the agent's internal processes. Significant differences were seen between individual participants' risk tolerance and methods of AI interaction, which should be considered when designing human-AI control interfaces. Based on our findings, we recommend a human-AI team familiarization method that combines AI documentation, structured in-situ training, and exploratory interaction. I. INTRODUCTION Governments have long sought to reduce reliance on human operators in high-stakes domains such as aircraft surveillance, coastal scanning, and mountainous search-and-rescue. Simultaneously, the capabilities of deep learning techniques and accessibility of high-powered compute resources have made autonomous teammates technically viable for many use cases. In recent years governments have begun supporting research to apply embodied artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to reduce the number of humans sent into high-risk scenarios by increasing the level of authority granted to AI systems in human-AI teams.

Deep reinforcement learning has generated superhuman AI in competitive games such as Go and StarCraft. Can similar learning techniques create a superior AI teammate for human-machine collaborative games? Will humans prefer AI teammates that improve objective team performance or those that improve subjective metrics of trust? In this study, we perform a single-blind evaluation of teams of humans and AI agents in the cooperative card game Hanabi, with both rule-based and learning-based agents. In addition to the game score, used as an objective metric of the human-AI team performance, we also quantify subjective measures of the human's perceived performance, teamwork, interpretability, trust, and overall preference of AI teammate.

The rise of AI-assisted software engineering (SE 2.0), powered by Foundation Models (FMs) and FM-powered copilots, has shown promise in improving developer productivity. However, it has also exposed inherent limitations, such as cognitive overload on developers and inefficiencies. We propose a shift towards Software Engineering 3.0 (SE 3.0), an AI-native approach characterized by intent-first, conversation-oriented development between human developers and AI teammates. SE 3.0 envisions AI systems evolving beyond task-driven copilots into intelligent collaborators, capable of deeply understanding and reasoning about software engineering principles and intents. We outline the key components of the SE 3.0 technology stack, which includes Teammate.next for adaptive and personalized AI partnership, IDE.next for intent-first conversation-oriented development, Compiler.next for multi-objective code synthesis, and Runtime.next for SLA-aware execution with edge-computing support. Our vision addresses the inefficiencies and cognitive strain of SE 2.0 by fostering a symbiotic relationship between human developers and AI, maximizing their complementary strengths. We also present a roadmap of challenges that must be overcome to realize our vision of SE 3.0. This paper lays the foundation for future discussions on the role of AI in the next era of software engineering.