Individualized Mutual Adaptation in Human-Agent Teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to collaborate with previously unseen human teammates is crucial for artificial agents to be effective in human-agent teams (HATs). Due to individual differences and complex team dynamics, it is hard to develop a single agent policy to match all potential teammates. In this article, we study both human-human and HAT in a dyadic cooperative task, Team Space Fortress. Results show that the team performance is influenced by both players’ individual skill level and their ability to collaborate with different teammates by adopting complementary policies. Based on human-human team results, we propose an adaptive agent that identifies different human policies and assigns a complementary partner policy to optimize team performance. The adaptation method relies on a novel similarity metric to infer human policy and then selects the most complementary policy from a pretrained library of exemplar policies. We conducted human-agent experiments to evaluate the adaptive agent and examine mutual adaptation in HAT. Results show that both human adaptation and agent adaptation contribute to team performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it