Problem Solving Through Human-AI Preference-Based Cooperation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While there is a widespread belief that artificial general intelligence (AGI) -- or even superhuman AI -- is imminent, complex problems in expert domains are far from being solved. We argue that such problems require human-AI cooperation and that the current state of the art in generative AI is unable to play the role of a reliable partner due to a multitude of shortcomings, including difficulty to keep track of a complex solution artifact (e.g., a software program), limited support for versatile human preference expression and lack of adapting to human preference in an interactive setting. To address these challenges, we propose HAICo2, a novel human-AI co-construction framework. We take first steps towards a formalization of HAICo2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 65 of its 129 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2024.
Builds on
65 of 129 references.
References · 65
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
38 more
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,348
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 893
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 890
- 2023Large Language Modelscited by 774
- 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 646
- 2023Cognitive Architectures for Language Agentscited by 422
- 2024TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agentscited by 385
- 2019On the Utility of Learning about Humans for Human-AI Coordinationcited by 345
- 2022CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 342
- 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 298
- 2017Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanationscited by 293
- 2023A Survey of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 259
- 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 256
- 2023Multimodal Foundation Models: From Specialists to General-Purpose Assistantscited by 247
- 2024ArCHer: Training Language Model Agents via Hierarchical Multi-Turn RLcited by 212
- 2024LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworkscited by 178
- 2020Reward-Free Exploration for Reinforcement Learningcited by 177
- 2024Rewards-in-Context: Multi-objective Alignment of Foundation Models with Dynamic Preference Adjustmentcited by 171
- 2024Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Toolscited by 170
- 2024Recursive Introspection: Teaching Language Model Agents How to Self-Improvecited by 162
- 2024GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solverscited by 155
- 2020Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanationscited by 141
- 2024LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugscited by 138
- 2023Supervised Pretraining Can Learn In-Context Reinforcement Learningcited by 137
- 2023RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedbackcited by 110
- 2020Human-centric Dialog Training via Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 92
- 2023Eliciting Human Preferences with Language Modelscited by 90
- 2024Understanding Hallucinations in Diffusion Models through Mode Interpolationcited by 87
- 2024Can large language models explore in-context?cited by 75
- 2019From Language to Goals: Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Based Instruction Followingcited by 67
- 2024Aligning LLM Agents by Learning Latent Preference from User Editscited by 66
- 2023CodeChain: Towards Modular Code Generation Through Chain of Self-revisions with Representative Sub-modulescited by 58
- 2024PAL: Pluralistic Alignment Framework for Learning from Heterogeneous Preferencescited by 53
- 2022Inferring Rewards from Language in Contextcited by 50
- 2023Towards End-to-End Embodied Decision Making via Multi-modal Large Language Model: Explorations with GPT4-Vision and Beyondcited by 50
- 2020Learning Rewards from Linguistic Feedbackcited by 41
- 2023Cost-Effective Hyperparameter Optimization for Large Language Model Generation Inferencecited by 40
50 most cited of 65 All 65 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 5.
11 papers.
- 2025LLM-Based Human-Agent Collaboration and Interaction Systems: A Surveycited by 28
- 2025Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Frameworkcited by 10
- 2025A Call for Collaborative Intelligence: Why Human-Agent Systems Should Precede AI Autonomycited by 9
- 2025Can LLMs Automate Fact-Checking Article Writing?cited by 7
- 2025Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generationcited by 6
- 2025Embracing Trustworthy Brain-Agent Collaboration as Paradigm Extension for Intelligent Assistive Technologiescited by 5
- 2026Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AIcited by 3
- 2026When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Toolscited by 0
- 2026Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generationcited by 0
- 2026The FIL Hypothesis: Inductive Biases Help with Kernel Engineeringcited by 0
- 2026The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participationcited by 0
- 2026The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation23 Jul 2026
- 2026The FIL Hypothesis: Inductive Biases Help with Kernel Engineering29 Jun 2026
- 2026Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation22 Jun 2026
- 2026When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools11 May 2026
- 2026Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI23 Jan 2026
- 2025Embracing Trustworthy Brain-Agent Collaboration as Paradigm Extension for Intelligent Assistive Technologies25 Oct 2025
- 2025Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework29 Aug 2025
- 2025Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation11 Aug 2025
- 2025A Call for Collaborative Intelligence: Why Human-Agent Systems Should Precede AI Autonomy11 Jun 2025
- 2025LLM-Based Human-Agent Collaboration and Interaction Systems: A Survey1 May 2025
- 2025Can LLMs Automate Fact-Checking Article Writing?22 Mar 2025