Skip to content
← Back to explorer

DoubleAgents: Human-Agent Alignment in a Socially Embedded Workflow

Tao Long, Xuanming Zhang, Sitong Wang, Zhou Yu, Lydia B Chilton · Sep 16, 2025 · Citations: 0

General Pairwise Preference
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Recent

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Recent

Trust level

Low

Signals: Recent

What still needs checking

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Signal confidence: 0.45

Abstract

Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront. We present DoubleAgents, a system for human-agent alignment in coordination tasks, grounded in distributed cognition. DoubleAgents integrates three components: (1) a coordination agent that maintains state and proposes plans and actions, (2) a dashboard visualization that makes the agent's reasoning legible for user evaluation, and (3) a policy module that transforms user edits into reusable alignment artifacts, including coordination policies, email templates, and stop hooks, which improve system behavior over time. We evaluate DoubleAgents through a two-day lab study (n=10), three real-world deployments, and a technical evaluation. Participants' comfort in offloading tasks and reliance on DoubleAgents both increased over time, correlating with the three distributed cognition components. Participants still required control at points of uncertainty - edge-case flagging and context-dependent actions. We contribute a distributed cognition approach to human-agent alignment in socially embedded tasks.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Pairwise Preference

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.45
  • Known cautions: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.
  • We present DoubleAgents, a system for human-agent alignment in coordination tasks, grounded in distributed cognition.
  • DoubleAgents integrates three components: (1) a coordination agent that maintains state and proposes plans and actions, (2) a dashboard visualization that makes the agent's reasoning legible for user evaluation, and (3) a policy module that transforms user edits into reusable alignment artifacts, including coordination policies, email templates, and stop hooks, which improve system behavior over time.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Aligning agentic AI with user intent is critical for delegating complex, socially embedded tasks, yet user preferences are often implicit, evolving, and difficult to specify upfront.
  • We present DoubleAgents, a system for human-agent alignment in coordination tasks, grounded in distributed cognition.
  • We evaluate DoubleAgents through a two-day lab study (n=10), three real-world deployments, and a technical evaluation.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We present DoubleAgents, a system for human-agent alignment in coordination tasks, grounded in distributed cognition.
  • We evaluate DoubleAgents through a two-day lab study (n=10), three real-world deployments, and a technical evaluation.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now