aiqbench analysis
This research introduces CoTrace, a novel framework for attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration by decomposing goals into verifiable requirements rather than just analyzing final artifacts. The study reveals that while LLMs account for only 11-26% of high-level goal shaping, they significantly influence lower-level concrete requirements and introduce indirect effects across dialogue turns. Furthermore, exposing users to these granular analyses corrects systematic miscalibration in how individuals perceive their own reliance on AI assistance during collaborative tasks.
"I Didn't Make the Micro Decisions": Measuring, Inducing, and Exposing Goal-Level AI Contributions in Collaboration
arXiv:2605.21363v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.
Abstract:As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2605.21363 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2605.21363v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.21363 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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 · 250 words
Related coverage
A Framework for Object-Centric Predictive Monitoring of Collaborative Processes
arXiv · Sep 1, 2026
How Much Do Reviews Really Contribute? A Study on Text-Enriched Matrix Factorization for Recommendations
arXiv · Jun 16, 2026
Can LLMs Trust Appropriately? Evaluating Calibrated Reliance on Imperfect Partners
arXiv · Oct 27, 2026

SemiQon and NQCP test multiplexers for more qubits per cooldown.
Quantum Zeitgeist · Nov 4, 2026