Architecting Human-AI Cocreation for Technical Services -- Interaction Modes and Contingency Factors

July 18, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Jochen Wulf, Jurg Meierhofer, Frank Hannich arXiv ID 2507.14034 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Citations 0 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Agentic AI systems, powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), offer transformative potential for value co-creation in technical services. However, persistent challenges like hallucinations and operational brittleness limit their autonomous use, creating a critical need for robust frameworks to guide human-AI collaboration. Drawing on established Human-AI teaming research and analogies from fields like autonomous driving, this paper develops a structured taxonomy of human-agent interaction. Based on case study research within technical support platforms, we propose a six-mode taxonomy that organizes collaboration across a spectrum of AI autonomy. This spectrum is anchored by the Human-Out-of-the-Loop (HOOTL) model for full automation and the Human-Augmented Model (HAM) for passive AI assistance. Between these poles, the framework specifies four distinct intermediate structures. These include the Human-in-Command (HIC) model, where AI proposals re-quire mandatory human approval, and the Human-in-the-Process (HITP) model for structured work-flows with deterministic human tasks. The taxonomy further delineates the Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) model, which facilitates agent-initiated escalation upon uncertainty, and the Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL) model, which enables discretionary human oversight of an autonomous AI. The primary contribution of this work is a comprehensive framework that connects this taxonomy to key contingency factors -- such as task complexity, operational risk, and system reliability -- and their corresponding conceptual architectures. By providing a systematic method for selecting and designing an appropriate level of human oversight, our framework offers practitioners a crucial tool to navigate the trade-offs between automation and control, thereby fostering the development of safer, more effective, and context-aware technical service systems.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted