Person-AI Bidirectional Fit - A Proof-Of-Concept Case Study Of Augmented Human-Ai Symbiosis In Management Decision-Making Process

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13670v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:22:30 GMT
• Title: Person-AI Bidirectional Fit - A Proof-Of-Concept Case Study Of Augmented Human-Ai Symbiosis In Management Decision-Making Process
• Authors: Agnieszka Bieńkowska, Jacek Małecki, Alexander Mathiesen-Ohman, Katarzyna Tworek,
• Abstract summary: This article develops the concept of Person-AI bidirectional fit, defined as the continuously evolving, context-sensitive alignment-primarily cognitive, but also emotional and behavioral-between a human decision-maker and an artificial intelligence system.<n>The study examines the role of P-AI fit in managerial decision-making through a proof-of-concept case study involving a real hiring process for a Senior AI Lead.
• Score: 39.146761527401424
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This article develops the concept of Person-AI bidirectional fit, defined as the continuously evolving, context-sensitive alignment-primarily cognitive, but also emotional and behavioral-between a human decision-maker and an artificial intelligence system. Grounded in contingency theory and quality theory, the study examines the role of P-AI fit in managerial decision-making through a proof-of-concept case study involving a real hiring process for a Senior AI Lead. Three decision pathways are compared: (1) independent evaluations by a CEO, CTO, and CSO; (2) an evaluation produced by an augmented human-AI symbiotic intelligence system (H3LIX-LAIZA); and (3) an assessment generated by a general-purpose large language model. The results reveal substantial role-based divergence in human judgments, high alignment between H3LIX-LAIZA and the CEOs implicit decision model-including ethical disqualification of a high-risk candidate and a critical false-positive recommendation from the LLMr. The findings demonstrate that higher P-AI fit, exemplified by the CEO H3LIX-LAIZA relationship, functions as a mechanism linking augmented symbiotic intelligence to accurate, trustworthy, and context-sensitive decisions. The study provides an initial verification of the P-AI fit construct and a proof-of-concept for H3LIX-LAIZA as an augmented human-AI symbiotic intelligence system.

Related papers

• Epistemology gives a Future to Complementarity in Human-AI Interactions [42.371764229953165]
  complementarity is the claim that a human supported by an AI system can outperform either alone in a decision-making process.<n>We argue that historical instances of complementarity function as evidence that a given human-AI interaction is a reliable process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T21:04:28Z)
• Academics and Generative AI: Empirical and Epistemic Indicators of Policy-Practice Voids [0.0]
  This study prototypes a ten-item, indirect-elicitation instrument embedded in a structured interpretive framework to surface voids between institutional rules and practitioner AI use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T06:24:47Z)
• Cascaded Language Models for Cost-effective Human-AI Decision-Making [52.81324217423194]
  We present a cascaded LLM decision framework that adaptively delegates tasks across multiple tiers of expertise.<n>First, a deferral policy determines whether to accept the base model's answer or regenerate it with a large model.<n>Second, an abstention policy decides whether the cascade model response is sufficiently certain or requires human intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:36:22Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• A Multi-Layered Research Framework for Human-Centered AI: Defining the Path to Explainability and Trust [2.4578723416255754]
  Human-Centered AI (HCAI) emphasizes alignment with human values, while Explainable AI (XAI) enhances transparency by making AI decisions more understandable.<n>This paper presents a novel three-layered framework that bridges HCAI and XAI to establish a structured explainability paradigm.<n>Our findings advance Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), fostering AI systems that are transparent, adaptable, and ethically aligned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T01:29:30Z)
• Developmental Support Approach to AI's Autonomous Growth: Toward the Realization of a Mutually Beneficial Stage Through Experiential Learning [0.0]
  This study proposes an "AI Development Support" approach that supports the ethical development of AI itself.<n>We have constructed a learning framework based on a cycle of experience, introspection, analysis, and hypothesis formation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T06:12:20Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Explainable and Human-Grounded AI for Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Epistemic Quasi-Partnerships [0.0]
  We argue that meeting the demands of ethical and explainable AI (XAI) is about developing AI-DSS to provide human decision-makers with three types of human-grounded explanations. We demonstrate how current theories about what constitutes good human-grounded reasons either do not adequately explain this evidence or do not offer sound ethical advice for development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T09:14:25Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.