What Types of Human-AI Teams Exist?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02198v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 14:06:48 GMT
• Title: What Types of Human-AI Teams Exist?
• Abstract summary: We analyse 53 papers on human-AI teams and categorise them into five main clusters.<n>Assistant, Ad-hoc Dependency, Ad-hoc Forced Dependency, Paired Equanimity, and Group Equanimity.<n>We conclude with guidance on how to identify the types of human-AI teams studied, a checklist for reporting a human-AI team in research work, and ways in which the field can be further synthesised.
• Score: 1.529756949777637
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human-AI teaming has received increasing attention in the literature. However, the range of studies conducted in multiple domains make it difficult to understand what types of teams are being studied, and in what ways are they similar/different from one another. In this study, we analyse 53 papers on human-AI teams and categorise them into five main clusters based on psychological taxonomies of teaming; AI Assistant, Ad-hoc Dependency, Ad-hoc Forced Dependency, Paired Equanimity, and Group Equanimity. Each cluster represents a unique combination of holistic team-level characteristics, indicating there are multiple disparate team types studied under the same definition. In turn, this raises the question of whether insights are truly transferable between papers. We conclude with guidance on how to identify the types of human-AI teams studied, a checklist for reporting a human-AI team in research work, and ways in which the field can be further synthesised.

Related papers

• Learning Human-Object Interaction as Groups [52.28258599873394]
  GroupHOI is a framework that propagates contextual information in terms of geometric proximity and semantic similarity.<n>It exhibits leading performance on the more challenging Nonverbal Interaction Detection task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T07:25:10Z)
• Classifying Epistemic Relationships in Human-AI Interaction: An Exploratory Approach [0.6906005491572401]
  This study examines how users form relationships with AI-how they assess, trust, and collaborate with it in research and teaching contexts.<n>Based on 31 interviews with academics across disciplines, we developed a five-part codebook and identified five relationship types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:41:28Z)
• Unraveling Human-AI Teaming: A Review and Outlook [2.3396455015352258]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing at an unprecedented pace, with clear potential to enhance decision-making and productivity.<n>Yet, the collaborative decision-making process between humans and AI remains underdeveloped, often falling short of its transformative possibilities.<n>This paper explores the evolution of AI agents from passive tools to active collaborators in human-AI teams, emphasizing their ability to learn, adapt, and operate autonomously in complex environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T07:37:25Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• AI's Social Forcefield: Reshaping Distributed Cognition in Human-AI Teams [6.386909552513031]
  We show that AI actively reshapes the social and cognitive fabric of collaboration.<n>We show that AI participation reorganizes the distributed cognitive architecture of teams.<n>We argue for rethinking AI in teams as a socially influential actor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T13:46:00Z)
• Getting aligned on representational alignment [93.08284685325674]
  We study the study of representational alignment in cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning. Despite their overlapping interests, there is limited knowledge transfer between these fields. We propose a unifying framework that can serve as a common language for research on representational alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T17:47:58Z)
• Capturing Humans' Mental Models of AI: An Item Response Theory Approach [12.129622383429597]
  We show that people expect AI agents' performance to be significantly better on average than the performance of other humans. Our results indicate that people expect AI agents' performance to be significantly better on average than the performance of other humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T23:17:26Z)
• Deep Learning for Human Parsing: A Survey [54.812353922568995]
  We provide an analysis of state-of-the-art human parsing methods, covering a broad spectrum of pioneering works for semantic human parsing. We introduce five insightful categories: (1) structure-driven architectures exploit the relationship of different human parts and the inherent hierarchical structure of a human body, (2) graph-based networks capture the global information to achieve an efficient and complete human body analysis, (3) context-aware networks explore useful contexts across all pixel to characterize a pixel of the corresponding class, and (4) LSTM-based methods can combine short-distance and long-distance spatial dependencies to better exploit abundant local and global contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-29T10:54:56Z)
• On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
  There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Who/What is My Teammate? Team Composition Considerations in Human-AI Teaming [1.3477333339913569]
  This paper investigates essential aspects of human-AI teaming such as team performance, team situation awareness, and perceived team cognition. Perceived team cognition was highest in human-only teams, with mixed composition teams reporting perceived team cognition 58% below the all-human teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-23T19:06:18Z)
• Machine Common Sense [77.34726150561087]
  Machine common sense remains a broad, potentially unbounded problem in artificial intelligence (AI) This article deals with the aspects of modeling commonsense reasoning focusing on such domain as interpersonal interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T13:59:47Z)

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.