arXiv preprint ·
Who Takes the Lead? Model Ability and Task-Conditioned Collaboration with Humans
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
As language-model agents grow more capable, they can carry more of a task without asking anyone for help. Falling reliance on a human partner is easy to read as a failure of collaboration when it may instead be a correct division of labor, and the rate of human involvement alone cannot tell the two apart. We study this systematically by placing an agent and a person under a shared objective while varying who holds the advantage: the human has a clear advantage, neither does, or the agent does. To obtain this control, we introduce a shared-control maze, in which an agent-controlled and a human-controlled avatar share the objective of reaching a common target in as few team turns as possible. The agent allocates each team turn between acting itself and handing the move to the person, and initial placement sets the human's shortest-path advantage while the task is otherwise unchanged. We evaluate GPT~5.6~Sol, Command~A+, Qwen~3.8~27B, and Command~R, first measuring solo capability with a single avatar and full-map observability, then running co-play with human participants across the three advantage conditions. Across the four models, stronger solo performance is associated with selective, route-conditioned human involvement: the models that solve the maze reliably on their own act for themselves almost without exception when the human holds no advantage, and involve the human on roughly $80\%$ of initial decisions when the human route is shorter. Command R, the model with substantially weaker solo performance, shows no such selectivity.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
When Better Opportunities Backfire: Service Worker Responses to Parallel AI Deployment in Customer Acquisition
Relational Complexity: Making Sense of Social Companion AI Use
When Care Expands and Control Declines: Understanding Digital Privacy in End-of-Life Care
Bias and Reliability in Learning-Style Inference from Student--AI Dialogues: An Evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash
Cling: Supporting Cross-Page Coordination with Human-Directed, In-Situ, and Small-Step Automation
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.