AIarXiv
Ranked by formulaVerdict: NotableMeasuring AI Agents as Teammates with Collaborative Intelligence
Progress in AI is often measured by what a single model can do on its own.
Key numbers
- 14% of conflicts
- 97% to 81% when they
Caveats
- Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.
VerdictWorth a reader's time today.
Abstract
Progress in AI is often measured by what a single model can do on its own. Yet teams of AI agents are starting to make breakthroughs and discoveries in science, medicine, mathematics and software engineering. As AI begins to work in teams of agents and people, the ability to collaborate becomes a core part of their intelligence. Research on human teams has measured this ability for decades. Inspired by this, we introduce the Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark, which measures how well an AI agent works as a teammate. It contains 240 tasks across 8 dimensions of teamwork, from refusing an unsafe shortcut to checking the work that a weaker model leaves behind. Each task comes from a real record or an existing benchmark, from aviation accident reports and clinical cases to coding tasks and negotiations, and has a programmatically verifiable outcome. To isolate teamwork from individual capability, models are scored only on tasks that they can solve by themselves when they have full information. We evaluate 18 closed- and open-weight models and find that every model, across sizes and families, has clear weaknesses as a teammate, with the best model scoring only 82.2 out of 100. Frontier models almost always refuse unsafe shortcuts and report misconduct, yet they cave under interpersonal pressure, reaching the best overall deal in only 14% of conflicts, and their pass rate drops from 97% to 81% when they take over a task in which a weaker model has cheated. Crucially, general capability does not guarantee good teamwork, as models with nearly the same capability score differ by up to 11 points as teammates. The benchmark includes 160 public tasks with code and data, along with 80 held-out tasks for evaluation. As AI agents increasingly work alongside other agents and people, the ability to collaborate effectively is becoming a crucial capability to measure and develop.
The editor's rubric
- Leverage4 / 5
- A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing).
- Magnitude2 / 5
- Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem.
- Evidence3 / 5
- Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
- Novelty3 / 5
- A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
- Trajectory2 / 5
- Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
- Stakes2 / 5
- Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).
Editor’s rationale
Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); breadth (many tasks); novelty (open problem, discovery); verification (multiple benchmarks, held-out test); stakes (general AI).
How the score was computed
Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.
- Merit
- 5.6 / 10
- Adjusted merit
- 4.7 / 10
- Attention
- 16%
- Freshness
- 70%
- Hugging Face upvotes4 (reference 25, via hf-daily, Nov 3, 2026, 13:39 UTC)
- GitHub stars15 (reference 250, via hf-daily, Nov 3, 2026, 13:39 UTC)