Completion $\neq$ Collaboration: Scaling Collaborative Effort with Agents

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.25744
• Title: Completion $\neq$ Collaboration: Scaling Collaborative Effort with Agents
• Authors: Shannon Zejiang Shen, Valerie Chen, Ken Gu, Alexis Ross, Zixian Ma, Jillian Ross, Alex Gu, Chenglei Si, Wayne Chi, Andi Peng, Jocelyn Shen, Ameet Talwalkar, Tongshuang Wu, David Sontag
• Institutions: MIT, CMU, University of Washington, Stanford University
• Classification: cs.CL cs.AI
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25744
• Project Link: https://github.com/clinicalml/collaborative-effort-scaling

Abstract

Current agent evaluation focuses primarily on one-shot task completion, failing to account for the iterative and collaborative nature inherent in many real-world problems, where human objectives are often underspecified and evolving. This paper proposes shifting from building and evaluating task-completion agents toward developing collaborative agents, assessed not only by final output quality but also by how they interact with and augment human effort throughout the problem-solving process. To support this transition, the authors introduce the Collaborative Effort Scaling framework, which captures how agent utility grows with increased user engagement. Through case studies and simulated evaluation, the research demonstrates that state-of-the-art agents perform poorly in multi-turn realistic scenarios, revealing missing elements in agent design: the ability to maintain engagement and support user understanding.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

1. Core Issue: Existing agents are primarily optimized for one-shot task completion, yet real-world complex tasks often require iterative human-AI collaboration
2. Problem Significance: As LLM-based agents are increasingly applied to complex knowledge work, effective collaboration becomes a critical challenge
3. Existing Limitations:
   • Assumes user requirements are static and fully specified
   • Overlooks the process of user understanding construction and goal evolution
   • Lacks evaluation mechanisms for collaboration process quality

Research Motivation

Through case studies across five domains (data analysis, travel planning, financial consulting, education, and mathematical discovery), the authors identify systematic issues with current task-completion agents in multi-turn interactions:

• Premature generation of difficult-to-digest complete results
• Inability to effectively integrate user feedback
• Lack of transparency in reasoning processes
• Poor performance when user needs evolve

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Framework: Proposes the Collaborative Effort Scaling framework, evaluating human-AI collaboration quality across two dimensions: user effort and joint utility
2. Evaluation Methodology: Designs a metric system for quantifying collaborative agent performance, including interaction sustainability and maximum availability
3. Empirical Findings: Demonstrates through simulated experiments that current SOTA agents perform poorly in collaborative scenarios, highlighting the importance of collaborative design
4. Design Insights: Provides concrete design guidance and diagnostic tools for building more effective collaborative agents

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Models human-AI collaboration as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP):

• Action Sequence: $a = [a_1^{(l_1)}, a_2^{(l_2)}, ..., a_T^{(l_T)}]$, where $l_t \in \{H, A\}$ denotes human or agent
• Context Window: $c = [c_1^{(l_1)}, c_2^{(l_2)}, ..., c_T^{(l_T)}]$
• Collaborative Rounds: Decomposes the entire process into rounds $a_k = a[i_k:j_k]$ through human-agent handoffs

Framework Core Components

1. Dual-Dimension Evaluation System

• User Effort: Cognitive and research work invested by users in the collaboration process
  • Base Metric: Number of human-led rounds $|a^H|$
  • Enhanced Metric: Context tokens processed $\sum c^A$
• Utility of Joint Actions: Quality of work completed jointly by the human-AI team

2. Key Metric Definitions

Overall Utility: $U = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \max U_k^{(i)}$

Improvement Gain: $G = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \max U_k^{(i)} - U_{k'_i}^{(i)}$

Availability Decline: $D@\tau = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} U_{k_{i,\tau}}^{(i)} - U_{K_i}^{(i)}$

3. Ideal Collaborative Properties

• Interaction Sustainability: Agents should generate greater value as user effort increases
• Maximum Availability: Agents should encourage and maintain long-term interaction, preventing premature user abandonment

Technical Innovations

1. From Outcome-Oriented to Process-Oriented: Focuses not only on final output quality but also on collaboration process effectiveness
2. Scaling Law Inspiration: Borrows concepts from scaling laws in machine learning to study collaborative utility scaling properties
3. Multi-Stage Modeling: Distinguishes between initial request phase and refinement phase, more precisely capturing collaborative dynamics

Experimental Setup

Experimental Environment

• Platform: Collaborative-Gym environment supporting asynchronous human-agent actions
• Tasks: Travel planning tasks, developing detailed itineraries including activities, accommodations, and transportation from high-level descriptions

Model Configuration

• Test Models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 4.0 Sonnet, Llama-3.1 70B
• Agent Types:
  • Automated baseline agents
  • One-stage collaborative agents
  • Two-stage collaborative agents (with added planning steps)

Evaluation Setup

• Performance Metrics: Arithmetic mean of common-sense pass rate and constraint satisfaction rate
• Simulated User: Prompt-based agent based on GPT-4o with additional access to user preferences and goals
• Interaction Limit: Maximum 30 rounds of interaction

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Collaborative Utility Scaling Trends

• All agents exhibit similar collaborative effort scaling trends: initial improvement followed by plateau around 5 rounds of interaction
• Claude series models perform best, effectively leveraging user effort to achieve performance improvements

2. Significant Model Differences

Based on Table 1 results:

3. Collaborative Strategy Impact

• Claude-3.5-sonnet: Two-stage planning significantly improves performance, from 0.450 to 0.687
• Claude-4.0-sonnet: One-stage and two-stage strategies achieve similar final utility but with different efficiency
• GPT-4o and Llama-3.1-70b: Collaborative versions fail to exceed automated baselines

Effort Allocation Analysis

User Effort Differences

• Except for Claude-4.0-sonnet, other models require users to invest more tokens with limited returns
• Claude-4.0-sonnet maintains strong performance across a wider range of effort ratios

Optimal Effort Balance

• Model-dependent optimal agent-user effort ratios exist
• Joint performance declines when either party dominates interaction excessively

Experimental Insights

1. Capability Determines Strategy: Weaker models require more structured interaction scaffolding
2. Collaborative Design is Critical: Even powerful models show significant performance variations based on collaboration design
3. Effort Balance Matters: Optimal human-AI effort allocation ratios exist and require adjustment based on model capability

Related Work

Human-AI Collaboration Research

• Early research focused on human-AI collaboration design principles for limited AI systems
• Modern LLM agents possess more complex interaction capabilities, requiring new collaborative frameworks

Agent Evaluation Benchmarks

• Existing benchmarks primarily focus on task completion capabilities (e.g., SWE-Bench, WebArena, GAIA)
• Lack systematic evaluation of collaboration process quality

Interactive Evaluation

• Recent work introduces interactive evaluation but remains limited to narrowly-scoped step-by-step interactions
• This paper focuses on collaborative dynamics across extended interaction trajectories

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Paradigm Shift Necessary: Transition from task completion to collaborative capability evaluation is essential
2. Current Agents Insufficient: SOTA agents perform poorly in collaborative scenarios, lacking ability to maintain engagement and support understanding
3. Design Guidance: The Collaborative Effort Scaling framework provides effective tools for diagnosing and improving agent collaborative capabilities

Limitations

1. Limited Experimental Scope: Experiments conducted only in a single domain (travel planning), potentially missing broader collaborative dynamics
2. Simulated Users: Use of simulated rather than real human participants may not fully reflect authentic interaction patterns
3. Simplified Metrics: Use of simplified utility and effort proxy metrics; real collaboration is more complex

Future Directions

1. Richer Simulation Environments: Construct scenarios where users possess private information or domain expertise
2. Adaptive Collaboration Frameworks: Dynamically adjust collaborative strategies based on model capabilities
3. Multimodal Collaboration: Extend to collaborative scenarios incorporating vision, speech, and other modalities

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Accurate Problem Identification: Precisely identifies core deficiencies in current agent evaluation
2. Reasonable Framework Design: Collaborative Effort Scaling framework is conceptually clear and operationally practical
3. Sufficient Empirical Research: Combines case studies and simulated experiments, providing multi-perspective validation
4. High Practical Value: Provides concrete design guidance for agent developers

Weaknesses

1. Evaluation Limitations: Simulated environments and proxy metrics may not fully capture real collaboration complexity
2. Limited Model Coverage: Relatively limited number of tested models; generalizability of conclusions requires verification
3. Unknown Long-Term Effects: Lacks research on long-term collaborative relationships and learning effects

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new theoretical framework and evaluation methods for human-AI collaboration research
2. Practical Value: Offers important guidance for agent product development
3. Research Direction: May catalyze more research focusing on collaboration quality rather than pure task completion

Applicable Scenarios

1. Knowledge Work: Fields requiring iterative exploration such as data analysis, research, and consulting
2. Education and Training: Learning scenarios requiring progressive understanding construction
3. Creative Work: Tasks requiring joint human-AI creation and refinement

References

This paper cites extensive related work, including:

• Human-AI collaboration design principles (Amershi et al., 2019)
• Agent evaluation benchmarks (Jimenez et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023)
• Interactive evaluation methods (Lee et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2024)
• Scaling law research (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Kaplan et al., 2020)

Summary: This paper addresses an important and timely research question, providing a systematic framework for evaluating and improving agent collaborative capabilities. Despite certain limitations in experimental setup, its theoretical contributions and practical value make it significant work in the human-AI collaboration domain. As agent technology rapidly advances, this research direction emphasizing collaboration quality over pure task completion will become increasingly important.