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).

The future of software engineering--SE 3.0--is unfolding with the rise of AI teammates: autonomous, goal-driven systems collaborating with human developers. Among these, autonomous coding agents are especially transformative, now actively initiating, reviewing, and evolving code at scale. This paper introduces AIDev, the first large-scale dataset capturing how such agents operate in the wild. Spanning over 456,000 pull requests by five leading agents--OpenAI Codex, Devin, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Code--across 61,000 repositories and 47,000 developers, AIDev provides an unprecedented empirical foundation for studying autonomous teammates in software development. Unlike prior work that has largely theorized the rise of AI-native software engineering, AIDev offers structured, open data to support research in benchmarking, agent readiness, optimization, collaboration modeling, and AI governance. The dataset includes rich metadata on PRs, authorship, review timelines, code changes, and integration outcomes--enabling exploration beyond synthetic benchmarks like SWE-bench. For instance, although agents often outperform humans in speed, their PRs are accepted less frequently, revealing a trust and utility gap. Furthermore, while agents accelerate code submission--one developer submitted as many PRs in three days as they had in three years--these are structurally simpler (via code complexity metrics). We envision AIDev as a living resource: extensible, analyzable, and ready for the SE and AI communities. Grounding SE 3.0 in real-world evidence, AIDev enables a new generation of research into AI-native workflows and supports building the next wave of symbiotic human-AI collaboration. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/SAILResearch/AI_Teammates_in_SE3. > AI Agent, Agentic AI, Coding Agent, Agentic Coding, Software Engineering Agent

-- 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.