Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research reframes AI productivity by introducing a framework that evaluates human-AI collaboration based on the ratio of outcome quality to interaction cost, moving beyond simple task completion metrics. The study reveals significant variations in efficiency across different tasks and demonstrates that agents which probe earlier can reduce user effort, offering actionable insights for designing more economically viable AI systems.
Sources coveringarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist, Latent Space, itbusinessnet.com
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

From Task Success to Productive Success: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration by Quality and Cost

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.21117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.

Abstract: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.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2609.21117 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.21117v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.21117 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 260 words

Related coverage