PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 21, 2026PNAS Nexus16 citationsOpen Access

Toward a science of human–AI teaming for decision-making: A complementarity framework

View Full Paper
CGCleotilde GonzalezDecision Sciences (United States)KDKate DonahueUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignDGDaniel G. GoldsteinMicrosoft (United States)

Key Points

  • The study aims to explore how to structure Human-AI collaboration for improved decision-making effectiveness.
  • Integrated insights from cognitive science, AI, human factors, and ethics.
  • Developed a framework based on collective intelligence.
  • Identified sociotechnical factors influencing team performance.
  • Outlined design principles for achieving complementarity among teams.
  • Highlighted the importance of trust, training, and clear goals in team effectiveness.
  • Emphasized alignment with human values and accountability in AI implementation.

Abstract

Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes embedded in critical decisions involving health, safety, finance, and governance, the key challenge is no longer whether humans and AI will collaborate, but how to structure this collaboration to achieve true complementarity, conditions under which Human-AI teams outperform either humans or AI-only teams. This paper advances the science of Human–AI teaming for decision-making by integrating insights from cognitive science, AI, human factors, organizational behavior, and ethics. We propose a framework grounded in collective intelligence, anchored in the foundational processes of reasoning, memory, and attention, for understanding and engineering effective Human–AI teams. We examine how Human–AI teams can achieve complementarity, and identify the sociotechnical factors that shape their effectiveness, including team composition, trust calibration, shared mental models, training, and task structure. We then outline design principles for achieving complementarity: defining goals and constraints, partitioning roles, orchestrating attention and interrogation, building knowledge infrastructures, and establishing continuous training and evaluation. We conclude with theoretical, practical, and policy implications, emphasizing alignment with human values, accountability, and equity. Taken together, these insights offer a roadmap for building Human–AI teams that are not only high-performing and adaptive but also transparent, trustworthy, and fundamentally human-centered.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gonzalez et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69994c38873532290d020808https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag030
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper