ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Toward a science of human-AI teaming for decision making: A complementarity framework.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Human-AI Teaming in Risk Analysis: Role Evolution, Thematic Landscape, and Governance Mechanisms From News Media.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Human-centered digital ecosystem: safeguarding healthcare workers' sleep, ergonomics, and occupational health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 rather how to structure this collaboration to achieve true complementarity. Human-AI complementarity refers to the conditions under which human-AI teams outperform either humans alone or AI systems alone. 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 and anchored in the foundational cognitive processes-reasoning, memory, and attention-to understand and engineer effective human-AI teams. We examine the sociotechnical factors that shape team 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. 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.