mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SPEAR: Five Principles for Interactive Human-Agent Alignment

arXiv 2610.07204 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.HC cs.AI cs.MAcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent AI alignment work often frames alignment as a pre-deployment optimization problem: collect human feedback, learn preferences or principles, finetune the model, and deploy an aligned system. This framing has produced major progress, but it under-specifies what happens once AI systems act as agents on users' behalf in situated, long-term, and social contexts. This position paper reframes human-agent alignment as an ongoing interaction design problem. We propose SPEAR, five pillars of interactive alignment: Specification (how people express intent and establish shared understanding), Process (how agents decide when to act, ask, defer, or pause), Evaluation (how people judge whether agents succeeded), Adaptation (how agents adapt to users over repeated use), and Recalibration (how people adapt their trust, expectations, and behavior in response to agents).

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025The Coming Crisis of Multi-Agent Misalignment: AI Alignment Must Be a Dynamic and Social Process
  2. 2026Align AI to Dynamic Human-AI Workflows
  3. 2024Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment
  4. 2026Constructive Alignment: Governing Preference Dynamics in Human-AI Interaction
  5. 2026Co-Constructing Alignment: A Participatory Approach to Situate AI Values ↗
  6. 2025DoubleAgents: Human-Agent Alignment in a Socially Embedded Workflow
  7. 2026Design Principles for Human-Agent Interaction
  8. 2026AI Alignment through a Game-theoretic Lens: A Survey