The Collaboration Gap in Human-AI Work

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18096v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:14:40 GMT
• Title: The Collaboration Gap in Human-AI Work
• Abstract summary: This poster introduces a conceptual framework for understanding why such collaboration remains fragile.<n>We argue that stable collaboration depends not only on model capability but on the interaction's grounding conditions.
• Score: 11.663456969895462
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are increasingly presented as collaborators in programming, design, writing, and analysis. Yet the practical experience of working with them often falls short of this promise. In many settings, users must diagnose misunderstandings, reconstruct missing assumptions, and repeatedly repair misaligned responses. This poster introduces a conceptual framework for understanding why such collaboration remains fragile. Drawing on a constructivist grounded theory analysis of 16 interviews with designers, developers, and applied AI practitioners working on LLM-enabled systems, and informed by literature on human-AI collaboration, we argue that stable collaboration depends not only on model capability but on the interaction's grounding conditions. We distinguish three recurrent structures of human-AI work: one-shot assistance, weak collaboration with asymmetric repair, and grounded collaboration. We propose that collaboration breaks down when the appearance of partnership outpaces the grounding capacity of the interaction and contribute a framework for discussing grounding, repair, and interaction structure in LLM-enabled work.

Related papers

• Flout at Your Own Risk: LLMs Struggle with Pragmatic Cooperativity Under Epistemic Asymmetry [10.532912977406811]
  We investigate the pragmatic reasoning capabilities of LLMs in a multi-party collaborative task under partial information conditions.<n>We empirically assess various LLMs' abilities to act cooperatively as both speakers and listeners, including both prompting and post-training strategies.<n>Our results show that while LLMs exhibit certain pragmatic capabilities in collaborative settings, and these can be elicited through prompting and post-training, they still face challenges in pragmatic communication with incomplete information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T03:31:56Z)
• CoMind: Understanding Collaborative Human Activity from Multiple Minds and Views [82.15362247351763]
  We introduce a novel egocentric and exocentric video dataset capturing real-world collaboration in cooking scenarios.<n>The dataset integrates multi-perspective video, high-quality audio, gaze tracking, and 3D scene and object scans, with annotations for shared attention to objects.<n>We establish benchmarks for Joint Attention Estimation, Socially Conditioned Object Interaction Anticipation, and Collaborative Handover Prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T18:08:45Z)
• Bridging Talk and Thought: Understanding Dialogue Dynamics Across Collaborative Problem-Solving Contexts [57.79777631004424]
  We present a conceptual framework for analyzing dialogue in collaborative problem-solving contexts.<n>Our framework integrates cognitive and non-cognitive problem solving with metacognitive regulatory mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T16:20:49Z)
• CollabSim: A CSCW-Grounded Methodology for Investigating Collaborative Competence of LLM Agents through Controlled Multi-Agent Experiments [32.043112677406064]
  CollabSim is a simulation framework that combines a theory-grounded definition of collaborative capabilities, controlled manipulation of interaction conditions, and action-level probing of agents' internal states.<n> Experiments show that CollabSim can capture condition effects, separate model performance patterns, and reveal task-dependent effects of agent design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:06:22Z)
• Humans' ALMANAC: A Human Collaboration Dataset of Action-Level Mental Model Annotations for Agent Collaboration [54.18136393879849]
  We present ALMANAC, a dataset of action-level mental model ANnotations for Agent Collaboration.<n>ALMANAC contains 2,987 collaboration actions, each paired with theory-informed mental model annotations.<n>Our results demonstrate ALMANAC's utility in evaluating models' ability to simulate human collaborative behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T16:56:12Z)
• Channelling, Coordinating, Collaborating: A Three-Layer Framework for Disability-Centered Human-Agent Collaboration [9.587600448186839]
  For many people with disabilities, complex tasks are accomplished through collaboration with others who bring complementary abilities, not solitary effort.<n>We propose a three-layer framework, Channelling, Coordinating, and Co-Creating, that rethinks AI's role in ability-diverse collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T10:19:30Z)
• The Collaboration Gap [28.553543260404425]
  We propose a collaborative maze-solving benchmark that (i) isolates collaborative capabilities, (ii) modulates problem complexity, (iii) enables scalable automated grading, and (iv) imposes no output constraintsformat.<n>Using this framework, we evaluate 32 leading open- and closed-source models in solo, homogeneous, and heterogeneous pairings.<n>Our results reveal a "collaboration gap": models that perform well solo often degrade substantially when required to collaborate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T16:10:57Z)
• Let's Roleplay: Examining LLM Alignment in Collaborative Dialogues [11.888786446094057]
  This paper examines how different alignment methods affect Large Language Models' effectiveness as partners in multiturn, multiparty collaborations.<n>Using a roleplay methodology, we evaluate interventions from differently-trained friction agents in collaborative task conversations.<n>Our results show that a friction-aware approach significantly outperforms common alignment baselines in helping both convergence to a common ground, or agreed-upon task-relevant propositions, and correctness of task outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-07T00:58:10Z)
• Human-AI collaboration or obedient and often clueless AI in instruct, serve, repeat dynamics? [0.0]
  This study examines human-AI interactions while solving a complex problem.<n>Findings reveal a dominant Instructive pattern with interactions characterized by iterative ordering rather than collaborative negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-03T11:43:01Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• When LLMs Team Up: The Emergence of Collaborative Affective Computing [17.777196145195866]
  This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Large Language Models (LLMs)-based collaboration systems in Affective Computing (AC)<n>LLMs offer a unified approach to affective understanding and generation tasks, enhancing the potential for dynamic, real-time interactions.<n>This work is the first to systematically explore collaborative intelligence with LLMs in AC, paving the way for more powerful applications that approach human-like social intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T14:00:54Z)
• Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaboration [50.657070334404835]
  Collaborative Gym is a framework enabling asynchronous, tripartite interaction among agents, humans, and task environments.<n>We instantiate Co-Gym with three representative tasks in both simulated and real-world conditions.<n>Our findings reveal that collaborative agents consistently outperform their fully autonomous counterparts in task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T09:21:15Z)
• Mutual Theory of Mind in Human-AI Collaboration: An Empirical Study with LLM-driven AI Agents in a Real-time Shared Workspace Task [56.92961847155029]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) significantly impacts human collaboration and communication as a crucial capability to understand others. Mutual Theory of Mind (MToM) arises when AI agents with ToM capability collaborate with humans. We find that the agent's ToM capability does not significantly impact team performance but enhances human understanding of the agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T13:19:48Z)
• Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View [60.80731090755224]
  This paper probes the collaboration mechanisms among contemporary NLP systems by practical experiments with theoretical insights. We fabricate four unique societies' comprised of LLM agents, where each agent is characterized by a specific trait' (easy-going or overconfident) and engages in collaboration with a distinct thinking pattern' (debate or reflection) Our results further illustrate that LLM agents manifest human-like social behaviors, such as conformity and consensus reaching, mirroring social psychology theories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T15:05:52Z)
• Towards Collaborative Question Answering: A Preliminary Study [63.91687114660126]
  We propose CollabQA, a novel QA task in which several expert agents coordinated by a moderator work together to answer questions that cannot be answered with any single agent alone. We make a synthetic dataset of a large knowledge graph that can be distributed to experts. We show that the problem can be challenging without introducing prior to the collaboration structure, unless experts are perfect and uniform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-24T14:27:00Z)

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.