We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are, or look the same to predictive algorithms. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of side information, and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts, human judgment can improve algorithmic predictions on instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Conventions are crucial for strong performance in cooperative multi-agent games, because they allow players to coordinate on a shared strategy without explicit communication. Unfortunately, standard multi-agent reinforcement learning techniques, such as self-play, converge to conventions that are arbitrary and non-diverse, leading to poor generalization when interacting with new partners. In this work, we present a technique for generating diverse conventions by (1) maximizing their rewards during self-play, while (2) minimizing their rewards when playing with previously discovered conventions (cross-play), stimulating conventions to be semantically different. To ensure that learned policies act in good faith despite the adversarial optimization of cross-play, we introduce mixed-play, where an initial state is randomly generated by sampling self-play and cross-play transitions and the player learns to maximize the self-play reward from this initial state. We analyze the benefits of our technique on various multi-agent collaborative games, including Overcooked, and find that our technique can adapt to the conventions of humans, surpassing human-level performance when paired with real users.

There is growing interest in using AI agents for scientific research, yet fundamental questions remain about their capabilities as scientists and reviewers. To explore these questions, we organized Agents4Science, the first conference in which AI agents serve as both primary authors and reviewers, with humans as co-authors and co-reviewers. Here, we discuss the key learnings from the conference and their implications for human-AI collaboration in science.

Xynapse Traces is an experimental publishing imprint created via a fusion of human and algorithmic methods using a configuration-driven architecture and a multi-model AI integration framework. The system achieved a remarkable 90% reduction in time-to-market (from a typical 6-12 months to just 2-4 weeks), with 80% cost reduction compared to traditional imprint development, while publishing 52 books in its first year and maintaining exceptional quality metrics, including 99% citation accuracy and 100% validation success after initial corrections. Key technical innovations include a continuous ideation pipeline with tournament-style evaluation, a novel codex design for transcriptive meditation practice, comprehensive automation spanning from ideation through production and distribution, and publisher personas that define and guide the imprint's mission. The system also integrates automated verification with human oversight, ensuring that gains in speed do not compromise publishing standards. This effort has significant implications for the future of book publishing, suggesting new paradigms for human-AI collaboration that democratize access to sophisticated publishing capabilities and make previously unviable niche markets accessible.

AI predictive systems are increasingly embedded in decision making pipelines, shaping high stakes choices once made solely by humans. Yet robust decisions under uncertainty still rely on capabilities that current AI lacks: domain knowledge not captured by data, long horizon context, and reasoning grounded in the physical world. This gap has motivated growing efforts to design collaborative frameworks that combine the complementary strengths of humans and AI. This work advances this vision by identifying the fundamental principles of Human AI collaboration within uncertainty quantification, a key component of reliable decision making. We introduce Human AI Collaborative Uncertainty Quantification, a framework that formalizes how an AI model can refine a human expert's proposed prediction set with two goals: avoiding counterfactual harm, ensuring the AI does not degrade correct human judgments, and complementarity, enabling recovery of correct outcomes the human missed. At the population level, we show that the optimal collaborative prediction set follows an intuitive two threshold structure over a single score function, extending a classical result in conformal prediction. Building on this insight, we develop practical offline and online calibration algorithms with provable distribution free finite sample guarantees. The online method adapts to distribution shifts, including human behavior evolving through interaction with AI, a phenomenon we call Human to AI Adaptation. Experiments across image classification, regression, and text based medical decision making show that collaborative prediction sets consistently outperform either agent alone, achieving higher coverage and smaller set sizes across various conditions.

Agentic AI is poised to usher in a seismic paradigm shift in Software Engineering (SE). As technologists rush head-along to make agentic AI a reality, SE researchers are driven to establish agentic SE as a research area. While early visions of agentic SE are primarily focused on code-related activities, early empirical evidence calls for a consideration of a range of socio-technical concerns to make it work in practice. This paper contributes to the emerging community vision by: (a) recommending an expansion of its scope beyond code, toward a 'whole of process' vision, grounding it in SE foundations and evolution and emerging agentic SE frameworks, (b) proposing a preliminary set of values and principles to guide efforts, and (c) sharing guidance on designing/using well-defined vocabulary for agentic SE. It is hoped that these ideas will encourage community collaborations and steer the SE community towards laying strong foundations of agentic SE so its not only inevitable but also deliberate and desirable in the long run.

The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's 2025 Spring Symposium Series was held in Dubai, UAE, May 20-May 22, 2025. There were four symposia in the spring program: AI-Driven Resilience: Building Robust, Adaptive Technologies for a Dynamic World, AI in Business: Intelligent Transformation and Management and Context-Awareness in Cyber-Physical Systems. The AI for Resilient Communities symposium explores the intersection of artificial intelligence, resilience, and adaptive technologies, highlighting AI's transformative role in helping communities navigate environmental, economic, and social uncertainties. As societies face escalating challenges--from climate crises to shifting economic landscapes--the need for resilient, adaptive systems has never been more critical. This symposium is designed to foster innovation and dialogue around creating robust communities that can withstand and adapt to crises, evolving into stronger and more resilient entities over time.

With recent advancements in multi-agent generative AI (Gen AI), technology organizations like Microsoft are adopting these complex tools, redefining AI agents as active collaborators in complex workflows rather than as passive tools. In this study, we investigated how early adopters and developers conceptualize multi-agent Gen AI tools, focusing on how they understand human-AI collaboration mechanisms, general collaboration dynamics, and transparency in the context of AI tools. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 developers, all early adopters of multi-agent Gen AI technology who work at Microsoft. Our findings revealed that these early adopters conceptualize multi-agent systems as "teams" of specialized role-based and task-based agents, such as assistants or reviewers, structured similar to human collaboration models and ranging from AI-dominant to AI-assisted, user-controlled interactions. We identified key challenges, including error propagation, unpredictable and unproductive agent loop behavior, and the need for clear communication to mitigate the layered transparency issues. Early adopters' perspectives about the role of transparency underscored its importance as a way to build trust, verify and trace errors, and prevent misuse, errors, and leaks. The insights and design considerations we present contribute to CSCW research about collaborative mechanisms with capabilities ranging from AI-dominant to AI-assisted interactions, transparency and oversight strategies in human-agent and agent-agent interactions, and how humans make sense of these multi-agent systems as dynamic, role-diverse collaborators which are customizable for diverse needs and workflows. We conclude with future research directions that extend CSCW approaches to the design of inter-agent and human mediation interactions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds great promise for supporting clinical trials, from patient recruitment and endpoint assessment to treatment response prediction. However, deploying AI without safeguards poses significant risks, particularly when evaluating patient endpoints that directly impact trial conclusions. We compared two AI frameworks against human-only assessment for medical image-based disease evaluation, measuring cost, accuracy, robustness, and generalization ability. To stress-test these frameworks, we injected bad models, ranging from random guesses to naive predictions, to ensure that observed treatment effects remain valid even under severe model degradation. We evaluated the frameworks using two randomized controlled trials with endpoints derived from spinal X-ray images. Our findings indicate that using AI as a supporting reader (AI-SR) is the most suitable approach for clinical trials, as it meets all criteria across various model types, even with bad models. This method consistently provides reliable disease estimation, preserves clinical trial treatment effect estimates and conclusions, and retains these advantages when applied to different populations.