Papers for

customer service managers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Human and AI cooperation requires error correction for better accuracy

When Do Humans and Machines Truly Complement Each Other? Formal Conditions and Empirical Evidence for Human-AI Synergy

Abstract: Can humans and artificial intelligence cooperate such that their combination yields greater accuracy than either agent alone? This result, termed \emph{synergy} or \emph{complementarity}, is notoriously difficult to achieve, even when both agents possess significant independent accuracy. In this paper, we present a formal framework to model human-AI interaction through the lens of reliance patterns, which characterize the joint correctness structure of human and algorithmic decisions. We derive mathematically necessary and sufficient conditions for synergy, demonstrating that its emergence depends on the ability of either agent to identify and correct the errors of the other, what we call Human and Algorithmic Correction. Beyond its theoretical contribution, the proposed framework provides a foundation for the design and evaluation of knowledge-based decision support systems, where interaction policies must dynamically integrate heterogeneous sources of expertise. We demonstrate this through the analysis of seven clinical case studies. Our empirical results reveal a ``dominance trap,'' where a strong algorithmic advantage can paradoxically inhibit synergy by eroding human corrective intervention. We also show that synergy can persist even in the presence of cognitive biases, such as automation bias, provided there is functional de-correlation between human and AI errors. These results provide a formal foundation for key concepts in the human-AI systems literature and offer actionable insights for designing interaction-centric AI systems that foster complementarity.

Tue 20 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Humans and AI each make mistakes, so working together well is tricky. This paper explains exactly when combining a person's judgment with AI leads to better results than either alone. The key is that both need to catch and fix each other's errors. The researchers also found that if AI is too dominant, humans stop correcting it, which hurts teamwork. Even if people have biases, cooperation can still work if their mistakes are different from the AI's.
Open → 2610.27965v1

Interactive interviewer adjusts questions to participant expertise

Evidence-Traceable Dynamic Interviewer Architecture for Expertise-Adaptive Qualitative Interviews Using Local LLMs

Abstract: Automated interviewers and conversational agents are increasingly used in research, recruitment, customer service, and education. However, many existing systems rely on fixed question sequences and provide limited context-based personalization without considering participants' knowledge, which can lead to repetitive or irrelevant follow-up questions. Therefore, there is a need for an adaptive interviewing system that can adjust question depth while maintaining conversational continuity and semantic progression. To address this, an Evidence-Traceable Dynamic Interviewer Architecture is presented using a locally hosted Large Language Model (LLM), with the interview continuously adapted throughout the entire conversation based on the participant's responses and evolving context. The interviewer profiles participants' expertise in real time to generate knowledge-appropriate questions, well-articulated responses, and smooth transition messages that support conversational continuity. A five-module prompt-driven architecture and persistent interview-state record support these functions. The interviewer was evaluated with 246 participants. Expertise Profiling module (M3) showed 78.9% exact agreement with independently reported participant expertise, with a weighted Cohen's K of 0.80. Generate Iterative Questions module (M4) showed a strong expertise-complexity association (p=.79, p<.001), and participants reported high relevance (mean 4.41), engagement (mean 4.32), and satisfaction (mean 4.38), providing evidence that the architecture's adaptive components operated consistently with their intended functions while participants reported a positive interview experience.

Thu 8 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Interviews usually follow fixed questions that don't change based on what the person knows, which can get boring or confusing. The authors designed a smart interviewer that listens to answers and adjusts the questions to fit the person's knowledge level. It runs on a locally stored language model and keeps track of the conversation to make the interview feel smooth and relevant. They tested it with 246 people and found it did a good job guessing expertise and asking fitting questions, while people found the experience engaging and useful.
Open → 2610.11651v1

Shared inputs cause bias in random choices by ai reasoning agents

Shared and structured inputs undermine collective random choice by reasoning AI agents

Abstract: Random selection is widely used in resource allocation and auditing, making reliable implementation essential for AI-agent systems. Behavioural tests across six reasoning models uncovered threshold and divisibility rules used in identifier-based choices. For threshold-following GPT-6 Sol and Gemini 3.8 Flash, single-agent measurements prospectively predicted correlated participation under shared identifiers and biased participation under distinct identifiers with common timestamp bits. Changing dates, formats and identifier labels revealed when these predictions held. Explicit instructions to randomize independently reduced but did not eliminate shared-input correlation. To test implications for oversight, we asked four models to select customer requests randomly for human review. GPT-6 Sol approached the target rate while selecting predictably from identifiers; the others rarely selected requests. All four closely followed supplied random draws. These findings expose collective and audit vulnerabilities that selection rates alone miss, making input-dependent bias, correlation and predictability central targets for agent evaluation.

Wed 7 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Artificial intelligence agents are often used to make random selections, like choosing requests for review. However, this paper shows that when these AI agents base their choices on shared or structured information such as parts of identifiers or timestamps, their selections become predictable and correlated. The authors tested several AI models and found that even explicit instructions to randomize didn’t fully prevent this issue. This reveals hidden risks when relying on AI for truly random decisions, especially in auditing and resource allocation.
Open → 2610.09667v1