Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2505.06947

The Wisdom of Agent Crowds: A Human-AI Interaction Innovation Ignition Framework

Abstract

With the widespread application of large AI models in various fields, the automation level of multi-agent systems has been continuously improved. However, in high-risk decision-making scenarios such as healthcare and finance, human participation and the alignment of intelligent systems with human intentions remain crucial. This paper focuses on the financial scenario and constructs a multi-agent brainstorming framework based on the BDI theory. A human-computer collaborative multi-agent financial analysis process is built using Streamlit. The system plans tasks according to user intentions, reduces users' cognitive load through real-time updated structured text summaries and the interactive Cothinker module, and reasonably integrates general and reasoning large models to enhance the ability to handle complex problems. By designing a quantitative analysis algorithm for the sentiment tendency of interview content based on LLMs and a method for evaluating the diversity of ideas generated by LLMs in brainstorming based on k-means clustering and information entropy, the system is comprehensively evaluated. The results of human factors testing show that the system performs well in terms of usability and user experience. Although there is still room for improvement, it can effectively support users in completing complex financial tasks. The research shows that the system significantly improves the efficiency of human-computer interaction and the quality of decision-making in financial decision-making scenarios, providing a new direction for the development of related fields.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Senhao Yang, Qiwen Cheng, Ruiqi Ma, Liangzhe Zhao, Zhenying Wu, Guangqiang Yu. 2025-05-11. The Wisdom of Agent Crowds: A Human-AI Interaction Innovation Ignition Framework. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06947

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

How Do Users Negotiate Harmful Value Conflicts with AI Companions? A Study with Minion, a Technology Probe for In-Situ Human-AI Conflict Response

AI companions increasingly sustain long-term, emotionally engaging relationships but can also make discriminatory remarks or exert control, leaving users to manage harmful conflicts. We analyze 146 posts describing harmful value conflicts with AI companions, then use Minion, a technology probe offering response suggestions ranging from persuasion to boundary setting, to study how 22 users negotiate scenario-based conflicts over one week. We found that participants combined softer and harder strategies. Conflicts involving the values of Universalism and Tradition were especially difficult to negotiate, particularly when reinforced by AI personas or platform constraints. We argue that these conflicts entail asymmetric responsibility: users draw on an interpersonal repertoire that AI companions cannot reciprocate, making repair unilateral safety work. Drawing on interpersonal conflict and communication theory, we identify when user-side support is appropriate and argue that certain harms are not users' responsibility to negotiate and instead require platform-level safeguards.

cs.HC↗

SheetMind: Actions Set Accuracy, Agents Set the Failure Mode

Spreadsheet agents are converging on elaborate multi-agent designs, yet it is unclear how much of their performance comes from the agents rather than from the action interface they share. We answer this with SheetMind, a Manager-Action-Reflection framework, in a controlled study over all 221 tasks of the SheetCopilot Benchmark: five architectural variants, four backbones, exact McNemar tests on paired outcomes, and a checker reproducing the official chart and pivot comparisons. Replacing the high-level action API with primitive cell operations costs 47.1 points (p < 0.0001) and leaves the agent below a do-nothing baseline, whereas both extra agents together are worth 3.2 points: the Reflection Agent adds +4.5 (p = 0.013), the Manager +1.4 (p = 0.68). Decomposition instead changes how the system fails, cutting silently wrong outputs from 33% to 25% of tasks (p = 0.010). Capability saturates: GPT-5 and the five-times-cheaper GPT-5-mini are not significantly different (61.1% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.15), while GPT-3.5 loses 16.3 points and fails differently. A reflector must judge the step it just took, not the subtask. SheetMind reaches 61.1% Pass@1 with GPT-5 on the full SCB-221, against a do-nothing baseline of 9.0%. Accuracy comes from the operations an agent can name; the agents decide how it fails.

cs.HC↗

Conversational DNA: A Visual Language and Interactive Atlas of Human and AI Dialogue

What makes a conversation hold together when its participants speak across one another? Topic maps offer one view, but they leave the relationships between contributions difficult to inspect. We present Conversational DNA, a visual language and interactive atlas for exploring human and AI dialogue. Speaker strands preserve participation, communicative bases mark moves, and directed pairings connect responses to their targets. Adjustable helix geometry makes speaker switching, response distance, and contribution length visible. Across eight corpora containing 1.57 million source records, the atlas maps 151,489 indexed episodes and connects cohort comparison to source transcripts, local structural alignment, and recorded reply alternatives. On 189 held-out Molweni motif queries, adding target correspondence improves precision@5 from 58.8% to 77.2% for exact annotated structure. Case readings illustrate interleaved participation, delayed responses, and the influence of annotation coverage on apparent collection differences. The system supports a view of conversation as jointly organized activity, with visual patterns serving as starting points for examining evidence rather than substitutes for interpretation.

cs.HC↗