--We introduce CollabT oolBuilder, a flexible multi-agent LLM framework with expert-in-the-loop (HITL) guidance that iteratively learns to create tools for a target goal, aligning with human intent and process, while minimizing time for task/domain adaptation effort and human feedback capture. The architecture generates and validates tools via four specialized agents (Coach, Coder, Critic, Capitalizer) using a reinforced dynamic prompt and systematic human feedback integration to reinforce each agent's role toward goals and constraints. This work is best viewed as a system-level integration and methodology combining multi-agent in-context learning, HITL controls, and reusable tool capitalization for complex iterative problems such as scientific document generation. We illustrate it with preliminary experiments (e.g., generating state-of-the-art research papers or patents given an abstract) and discuss its applicability to other iterative problem-solving. Self-learning multi-agent LLMs and tool-making frameworks [1] have demonstrated promising capabilities in structured domains such as 3D sandbox games [2], [3], sequential skill acquisition [4], and mathematical discovery [5]. However, tackling ambiguous or non-factual problems requires additional multistep cognitive processes [6], [7]. These include collaborative agents' reasoning [6], [7], Chain-of-Thought problem solving [8], compositional question handling [9], action planning [10], and multi-agent coordination [11].

One major challenge for the adoption and acceptance of automated vehicles (AVs) is ensuring that they can make sound decisions in everyday situations that involve ethical tension. Much attention has focused on rare, high-stakes dilemmas such as trolley problems. Yet similar conflicts arise in routine driving when human considerations, such as legality, efficiency, and comfort, come into conflict. Current AV planning systems typically rely on rigid rules, which struggle to balance these competing considerations and often lead to behaviour that misaligns with human expectations. This paper introduces a reasons-based trajectory evaluation framework that operationalises the tracking condition of Meaningful Human Control (MHC). The framework represents human agents reasons (e.g., regulatory compliance) as quantifiable functions and evaluates how well candidate trajectories align with them. It assigns adjustable weights to agent priorities and includes a balance function to discourage excluding any agent. To demonstrate the approach, we use a real-world-inspired overtaking scenario, which highlights tensions between compliance, efficiency, and comfort. Our results show that different trajectories emerge as preferable depending on how agents reasons are weighted, and small shifts in priorities can lead to discrete changes in the selected action. This demonstrates that everyday ethical decisions in AV driving are highly sensitive to the weights assigned to the reasons of different human agents.

We propose a practical approach by integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with a framework designed to navigate the complexities of Airbnb customer support operations. In this paper, our methodology employs a novel reformatting technique, the Intent, Context, and Action (ICA) format, which transforms policies and workflows into a structure more comprehensible to LLMs. Additionally, we develop a synthetic data generation strategy to create training data with minimal human intervention, enabling cost-effective fine-tuning of our model. Our internal experiments (not applied to Airbnb products) demonstrate that our approach of restructuring workflows and fine-tuning LLMs with synthetic data significantly enhances their performance, setting a new benchmark for their application in customer support. Our solution is not only cost-effective but also improves customer support, as evidenced by both accuracy and manual processing time evaluation metrics.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in customer-facing applications, a critical yet underexplored question is how users communicate differently with LLM chatbots compared to human agent. In this study, we present empirical evidence that users adopt distinct communication styles when users interact with chatbots versus human agents. Our analysis reveals significant differences in grammatical fluency, politeness, and lexical diversity in user language between the two settings. These findings suggest that models trained exclusively on human-human interaction data may not adequately accommodate the communication style shift that occurs once an LLM chatbot is deployed. To enhance LLM robustness to post-launch communication style changes, we experimented with two strategies: (1) data augmentation during the post-training phase and (2) inference-time user message reformulation. Our results indicate that models trained on stylistically diverse datasets significantly outperform those trained exclusively on original or stylistically uniform datasets, while inference-time reformulation proved less effective. These insights help us to better adapt our models for improved LLM-user interaction experiences.

In a time of rapidly evolving military threats and increasingly complex operational environments, the integration of AI into military operations proves significant advantages. At the same time, this implies various challenges and risks regarding building and deploying human-AI teaming systems in an effective and ethical manner. Currently, understanding and coping with them are often tackled from an external perspective considering the human-AI teaming system as a collective agent. Nevertheless, zooming into the dynamics involved inside the system assures dealing with a broader palette of relevant multidimensional responsibility, safety, and robustness aspects. To this end, this research proposes the design of a trustworthy co-learning model for human-AI teaming in military operations that encompasses a continuous and bidirectional exchange of insights between the human and AI agents as they jointly adapt to evolving battlefield conditions. It does that by integrating four dimensions. First, adjustable autonomy for dynamically calibrating the autonomy levels of agents depending on aspects like mission state, system confidence, and environmental uncertainty. Second, multi-layered control which accounts continuous oversight, monitoring of activities, and accountability. Third, bidirectional feedback with explicit and implicit feedback loops between the agents to assure a proper communication of reasoning, uncertainties, and learned adaptations that each of the agents has. And fourth, collaborative decision-making which implies the generation, evaluation, and proposal of decisions associated with confidence levels and rationale behind them. The model proposed is accompanied by concrete exemplifications and recommendations that contribute to further developing responsible and trustworthy human-AI teaming systems in military operations.

Recent advances in language and speech modelling have made it possible to build autonomous voice assistants that understand and generate human dialogue in real time. These systems are increasingly being deployed in domains such as customer service and healthcare care, where they can automate repetitive tasks, reduce operational costs, and provide constant support around the clock. In this paper, we present a general methodology for cloning a conversational voice AI agent from a corpus of call recordings. Although the case study described in this paper uses telesales data to illustrate the approach, the underlying process generalizes to any domain where call transcripts are available. Our system listens to customers over the telephone, responds with a synthetic voice, and follows a structured playbook learned from top performing human agents. We describe the domain selection, knowledge extraction, and prompt engineering used to construct the agent, integrating automatic speech recognition, a large language model based dialogue manager, and text to speech synthesis into a streaming inference pipeline. The cloned agent is evaluated against human agents on a rubric of 22 criteria covering introduction, product communication, sales drive, objection handling, and closing. Blind tests show that the AI agent approaches human performance in routine aspects of the call while underperforming in persuasion and objection handling. We analyze these shortcomings and refine the prompt accordingly. The paper concludes with design lessons and avenues for future research, including large scale simulation and automated evaluation.

This work presents a new iteration of the Human Navigation Simulator (HuNavSim), a novel open-source tool for the simulation of different human-agent navigation behaviors in scenarios with mobile robots. The tool, programmed under the ROS 2 framework, can be used together with different well-known robotics simulators such as Gazebo or NVidia Isaac Sim. The main goal is to facilitate the development and evaluation of human-aware robot navigation systems in simulation. In this new version, several features have been improved and new ones added, such as the extended set of actions and conditions that can be combined in Behavior Trees to compound complex and realistic human behaviors.

Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier investigates concerns that artificial intelligence is becoming too advanced on'Special Report.' Every day, customers reach out to companies. They want to buy something, ask about an order, return a product or fix a payment issue. In the past, that usually meant talking to a real person on the phone or through a website. More often, the first reply comes from a chatbot.

Machine Learning ML agents have been increasingly used in decision-making across a wide range of tasks and environments. These ML agents are typically designed to balance multiple objectives when making choices. Understanding how their decision-making processes align with or diverge from human reasoning is essential. Human agents often encounter hard choices, that is, situations where options are incommensurable; neither option is preferred, yet the agent is not indifferent between them. In such cases, human agents can identify hard choices and resolve them through deliberation. In contrast, current ML agents, due to fundamental limitations in Multi-Objective Optimisation or MOO methods, cannot identify hard choices, let alone resolve them. Neither Scalarised Optimisation nor Pareto Optimisation, the two principal MOO approaches, can capture incommensurability. This limitation generates three distinct alignment problems: the alienness of ML decision-making behaviour from a human perspective; the unreliability of preference-based alignment strategies for hard choices; and the blockage of alignment strategies pursuing multiple objectives. Evaluating two potential technical solutions, I recommend an ensemble solution that appears most promising for enabling ML agents to identify hard choices and mitigate alignment problems. However, no known technique allows ML agents to resolve hard choices through deliberation, as they cannot autonomously change their goals. This underscores the distinctiveness of human agency and urges ML researchers to reconceptualise machine autonomy and develop frameworks and methods that can better address this fundamental gap.

This study examines the understudied role of algorithmic evaluation of human judgment in hybrid decision-making systems, a critical gap in management research. While extant literature focuses on human reluctance to follow algorithmic advice, we reverse the perspective by investigating how AI agents based on large language models (LLMs) assess and integrate human input. Our work addresses a pressing managerial constraint: firms barred from deploying LLMs directly due to privacy concerns can still leverage them as mediating tools (for instance, anonymized outputs or decision pipelines) to guide high-stakes choices like pricing or discounts without exposing proprietary data. Through a controlled prediction task, we analyze how an LLM-based AI agent weights human versus algorithmic predictions. We find that the AI system systematically discounts human advice, penalizing human errors more severely than algorithmic errors--a bias exacerbated when the agent's identity (human vs AI) is disclosed and the human is positioned second. These results reveal a disconnect between AI-generated trust metrics and the actual influence of human judgment, challenging assumptions about equitable human-AI collaboration. Our findings offer three key contributions. First, we identify a reverse algorithm aversion phenomenon, where AI agents undervalue human input despite comparable error rates. Second, we demonstrate how disclosure and positional bias interact to amplify this effect, with implications for system design. Third, we provide a framework for indirect LLM deployment that balances predictive power with data privacy. For practitioners, this research emphasize the need to audit AI weighting mechanisms, calibrate trust dynamics, and strategically design decision sequences in human-AI systems.