arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.27965

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

Andrea Campagner·Federico Cabitza·Vincenzo Crupi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrea Campagner, Federico Cabitza, Vincenzo Crupi. 2026-10-20. When Do Humans and Machines Truly Complement Each Other? Formal Conditions and Empirical Evidence for Human-AI Synergy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27965

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

Developing visual perception models for active agents and sensorimotor control are cumbersome to be done in the physical world, as existing algorithms are too slow to efficiently learn in real-time and robots are fragile and costly. This has given rise to learning-in-simulation which consequently casts a question on whether the results transfer to real-world. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of developing real-world perception for active agents, propose Gibson Virtual Environment for this purpose, and showcase sample perceptual tasks learned therein. Gibson is based on virtualizing real spaces, rather than using artificially designed ones, and currently includes over 1400 floor spaces from 572 full buildings. The main characteristics of Gibson are: I. being from the real-world and reflecting its semantic complexity, II. having an internal synthesis mechanism, "Goggles", enabling deploying the trained models in real-world without needing further domain adaptation, III. embodiment of agents and making them subject to constraints of physics and space.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

GenoMAS: Guided Multi-Agent Programming for Scientific Discovery from Genomic Data

Gene expression analysis holds the key to many biomedical discoveries, yet extracting insights from raw transcriptomic data remains challenging due to the complexity of multiple large, semi-structured files and the need for extensive domain expertise. Current approaches either rely on inflexible workflows that fail in edge cases or fully autonomous agents that lack the precision required for rigorous scientific inquiry. GenoMAS addresses this by presenting a team of LLM-based agents that integrates structured workflows with autonomous adaptability, orchestrating diverse specialized agents through typed message-passing protocols. At its core lies a guided-planning framework where programming agents decompose task guidelines into Action Units and dynamically choose to advance, revise, bypass, or backtrack, maintaining logical coherence while adapting to the idiosyncrasies of genomic data. On the GenoTEX benchmark, GenoMAS achieves 89.13% CSC for data preprocessing and 60.48% $F_1$ for identifying trait-associated genes, surpassing prior art by 10.61% and 16.85%. Beyond transcriptomics, it outperforms strong agent baselines on ScienceAgentBench and DiscoveryBench, two independent bioinformatics benchmarks. Qualitative analysis shows that GenoMAS identifies gene-phenotype associations that are biologically plausible and corroborated by the literature.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective

AI planning provides agents the ability to act autonomously towards achieving a goal in a given environment. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the prospect of using unstructured input for planning, making LLMs in planning an active area of research, especially for supporting autonomous agents. However, LLMs remain unreliable as long-horizon planners, since some of the plans they produce contain mistaken or hallucinated actions; executing such plans could lead to unexpected and harmful outcomes. Existing benchmarks for LLMs in planning primarily rely on binary evaluation metrics, providing limited insight into the quality of plans that do not achieve the goal, and how far those are from becoming valid. In this paper, we frame the evaluation of LLMs in planning as a natural language processing (NLP) task, as LLMs are themselves NLP models. We propose a pipeline comprising three NLP-based steps that assess plan quality from complementary perspectives, followed by a symbolic planning step to achieve a valid plan, to provide a finer-grained understanding of the quality of invalid plans. In our experiments, we find no clear evidence of logical derivation or state-tracking during LLM plan generation -- on average, for all non-empty plans, only 3.55 actions per plan are executable, despite symbolically-generated optimal plans having an average length of 9.47 actions, which suggests that LLMs are still far from the reliability of symbolic planners. Our suite of metrics is further used to investigate patterns in LLM plan generation over time, and can provide a useful metric for assessing the quality of individual invalid plans.

cs.AI↗