Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41834945›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

Toward a science of human-AI teaming for decision making: A complementarity framework.

Cleotilde Gonzalez, Kate Donahue, Daniel G Goldstein, Hoda Heidari, Mohammad S Jalali, Beau Schelble, Aarti Singh, Anita Williams Woolley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cleotilde GonzalezSocial and Decision Sciences Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6244-2918
Kate DonahueComputer Science Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 601 E. John Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-3952
Daniel G GoldsteinMicrosoft Research, 300 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0970-5598
Hoda HeidariMachine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3710-4076
Mohammad S JalaliHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-2732
Beau SchelbleIndustrial and Systems Engineering, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, 527 Andy Holt Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3704-697X
Aarti SinghMachine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Anita Williams WoolleyTepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0620-4744

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

alignmentcomplementarityhuman–AI teaming

Identifiers

PMID41834945
PMCPMC12983458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.