mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning social norms enhances compatibility in dynamic human-AI coordination

arXiv 2607.07021 ↗First posted 8 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Humans continuously coordinate with others in dynamic interactions, often through implicit, hard-to-quantify social norms that act as shared tacit expectations among interacting agents. As AI agents, including large language models (LLMs), become embedded in daily life, they increasingly participate in such interactions and reshape social interaction structures. Yet they often fail to coordinate with humans in an effective, considerate, and natural manner. We hypothesize that this gap arises because existing approaches align model behavior with human demonstrations without explicitly quantifying the underlying norms that generate such behavior. We selected pedestrian-vehicle interaction as a representative dynamic interaction and developed a simplified experimental platform that captures its key interactive features. From 3,456 dynamic human interactions collected via this platform, we identified three principles underlying human social norms: outcome predictability, value alignment, and advantage awareness. Incorporating these principles into AI agents significantly improves human-AI coordination. In the closed-loop interaction task with humans, the social-norm-informed LLM achieved a nearly fourfold higher total score than the baseline strategy and outperformed human-human interactions by 43%. These findings indicate that formalizing tacit social norms into explicit, quantifiable principles can enable AI agents to achieve mutually beneficial coordination in dynamic interactions, supporting their more natural integration into human society.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2026.

Builds on

20 of 47 references.

References · 20

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  3. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  4. 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 312
  5. 2023Playing repeated games with Large Language Modelscited by 213
  6. 2024A Survey on Efficient Inference for Large Language Modelscited by 197
  7. 2017On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Carscited by 129
  8. 2022Imitation Is Not Enough: Robustifying Imitation with Reinforcement Learning for Challenging Driving Scenarioscited by 124
  9. 2024When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysiscited by 100
  10. 2022BITS: Bi-level Imitation for Traffic Simulationcited by 80
  11. 2024PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Taskscited by 78
  12. 2023LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Modelscited by 65
8 more
  1. 2018Hierarchical Game-Theoretic Planning for Autonomous Vehiclescited by 48
  2. 2015The social dilemma of autonomous vehiclescited by 47
  3. 2024LLM economicus? Mapping the Behavioral Biases of LLMs via Utility Theorycited by 44
  4. 2023DisasterResponseGPT: Large Language Models for Accelerated Plan of Action Development in Disaster Response Scenarioscited by 33
  5. 2024A new sociology of humans and machinescited by 32
  6. 2021Human irrationality: both bad and good for reward inferencecited by 25
  7. 2022On the Sensitivity of Reward Inference to Misspecified Human Modelscited by 25
  8. 2022No driver, No Regulation? --Online Legal Driving Behavior Monitoring for Self-driving Vehiclescited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.