From Task Success to Productive Success: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration by Quality and Cost
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI productivity is often measured by task completion time, economic value, or improvements in outcome quality. However, these measures usually treat collaboration as a black box where they capture what output was produced, but not the interaction cost required to produce it. Motivated by economics literature, we introduce a productivity-oriented framework for evaluating human-AI collaboration as outcome quality relative to interaction cost. Across two datasets spanning four tasks, we show that: (1) sessions with identical quality ratings can differ by up to 70 times in interaction cost; (2) quality-cost relationships vary by task, with some tasks rewarding extended interaction and others favoring fast convergence; (3) subjective user ratings are not reliable substitutes for productivity; and (4) productive sessions are characterized by agents probing earlier and users spending less effort repairing the interaction. By distinguishing productive success from costly success, our framework makes interactional cost visible and shows how dialogue analysis can inform the evaluation and design of AI systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.
Builds on
25 of 57 references.
References · 25
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2020ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learningcited by 1,205
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 902
- 2018MultiWOZ -- A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Wizard-of-Oz Dataset for Task-Oriented Dialogue Modellingcited by 766
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 629
- 2023LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Datasetcited by 461
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 274
13 more
- 2022CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilitiescited by 249
- 2024WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wildcited by 218
- 2025CollabLLM: From Passive Responders to Active Collaboratorscited by 124
- 2025Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivitycited by 101
- 2025Which Economic Tasks are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversationscited by 96
- 2024Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaborationcited by 65
- 2023Grounding Gaps in Language Model Generationscited by 47
- 2025ChatBench: From Static Benchmarks to Human-AI Evaluationcited by 34
- 2025Navigating Rifts in Human-LLM Grounding: Study and Benchmarkcited by 29
- 2024Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Frameworkcited by 27
- 2019Goals, Process, and Challenges of Exploratory Data Analysis: An Interview Studycited by 11
- 2025Better Slow than Sorry: Introducing Positive Friction for Reliable Dialogue Systemscited by 7
- 2026Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Sciencecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.