Sean Wu, Aneesh Pappu, Jiaru Zou, Yubin Kim, Yuncong Mao, Hongjian Zhou, Junchi Yu, Jieneng Chen 等 9 位作者
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.
As Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly participate in persistent social environments, understanding their long-term social interaction capabilities becomes increasingly important. While existing research has advanced long-term memory and conversational context retrieval, less attention has been paid to whether agents can autonomously re-engage with previously inactive conversations. In particular, remembering a past interaction does not necessarily mean that an agent can identify when to revisit it, decide to return, or reconstruct the context needed for a coherent continuation. To investigate this gap, we introduce agent social re-entry as a multi- dimensional evaluation problem, distinguishing three complementary capabilities: Finding, Returning, and Reconstructing. We develop a shared-snapshot evaluation framework that measures these dimensions independently, allowing us to examine how conversational resurfacing and persistent memory relate to different aspects of social re-entry. Evaluations across six LLM configurations show that resurfacing substantially improves target conversation identification, while persistent memory is associated with higher rates of autonomous target-directed replying. However, neither improvement is accompanied by consistent gains in contextual reconstruction. These results highlight the distinction between accessing previous conversations, choosing to re-engage, and maintaining conversational continuity. Our framework provides a way to evaluate these capabilities separately rather than relying on memory retrieval or conversational response quality alone.