Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Teaming in the AI Era: AI-Augmented Frameworks for Forming, Simulating, and Optimizing Human Teams

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This dissertation argues that AI can improve human teamwork at every stage—forming, performing, and simulating—with three systems: a bandit-based team recommender, an LLM feedback assistant, and an LLM agent simulation framework.

desk verdict A clearly written doctoral-consortium status report whose three proposed systems are sensible but whose only quantitative evaluation (tAIfa, n=54) lacks significance testing and is explicitly preliminary. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05265 v2 pith:MWOV5RFJ submitted 2025-06-05 cs.HC cs.AIcs.MA

Mohammed Almutairi This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.MA
keywords human-AIteamsLLM-basedagentmodelingpersonalizedteamrecommendationautomatedfeedbackmulti-armedbanditsimulationsatisfactionengagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This dissertation argues that AI can improve human teamwork at every stage—assembling teams, sustaining engagement, and simulating dynamics—by replacing static methods with adaptive algorithms and LLM-based agents. The author proposes three systems: a multi-armed bandit (MAB) team-formation framework that iteratively refines team compositions using user feedback; tAIfa, an LLM-powered assistant that delivers personalized feedback to individuals and teams on Slack; and PuppeteerLLM, an LLM-based simulation framework for multi-agent teamwork. Preliminary results show that the bandit algorithm aligns recommended teams with user preferences in offline evaluation, and that tAIfa increases conversation duration, turn frequency, and task performance in a 54-person lab study. If these systems perform as intended, they would offer a scalable alternative to manual team assembly, scarce human coaching, and costly real-team experiments.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three mechanisms. The first is a multi-armed bandit formulation of team formation, extending the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) algorithm to balance exploration and exploitation: each potential team composition is an "arm," and user feedback is the reward that iteratively refines recommendations. The second is tAIfa's four-stage pipeline—retrieve team messages into JSON, compute seven communication metrics (language style matching, sentiment, transactive memory, engagement, collective pronoun usage, communication flow, topic coherence), generate personalized LLM feedback, and deliver it via private and public Slack messages. The third is PuppeteerLLM's simulation engine, which models the environment as a graph $G=\{g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_n\}$ of spatial regions, gives agents conversation and event-scheduling capabilities, and logs simulations as JSON for quantitative and qualitative analysis.

What would settle it

A field study that measures actual team satisfaction against Big Five-based preference predictions would falsify the formation claim if the correlation is near zero; similarly, a preregistered replication of the tAIfa study with a larger sample and inferential statistics would settle whether the engagement gains are real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AI-augmented optimization can improve team outcomes by addressing dynamic preferences and providing timely feedback. Specifically, the paper reports three findings: (1) an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) bandit algorithm, treating each candidate team as an arm and user feedback as reward, achieves high alignment between recommended and user-selected teams when preferences are represented by Big Five personality traits; (2) tAIfa's LLM-generated feedback, based on seven communication metrics, increases team engagement and performance in a between-subjects lab experiment with 54 participants; (3) PuppeteerLLM provides a graph-based environment with event scheduling that lets LLM agents navigate space, hold conversations, and maintain long-term coordination, producing structured JSON logs for analysis. The author frames these as building blocks for a human-centered approach to team optimization across the forming, performing, and simulation stages.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Big Five personality traits adequately represent the user preferences that drive team satisfaction, so the offline alignment result would generalize to real teams.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the MAB formation framework works in live settings, team assembly could move from one-shot static assignment to iterative, preference-driven recommendation that converges on satisfying compositions.
  • tAIfa could provide scalable, real-time feedback to teams that lack dedicated human coaches, potentially improving cohesion and performance in classrooms, workplaces, and online collaborations.
  • PuppeteerLLM could let researchers test team structures, roles, and intervention strategies in realistic simulations before running expensive human experiments.
  • The communication metrics used by tAIfa offer a concrete, automation-ready operationalization of team dynamics that could be reused by other feedback systems.
  • The iterative preference-score matrix generated by the formation algorithm can be solved as an assignment problem to maximize overall user-team alignment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The Big Five proxy in the offline evaluation is a stand-in for real preferences; a natural next test is measuring how much Big Five similarity actually predicts satisfaction in live teams, not just alignment with simulated choices.
  • The three systems could be composed: PuppeteerLLM could generate synthetic dialogue to train or pre-prompt tAIfa, and tAIfa's engagement metrics could serve as reward signals for the MAB formation algorithm.
  • The tAIfa effects are reported without statistical significance tests or effect sizes, so the practical magnitude of the engagement gains remains an open question.
  • PuppeteerLLM's event-scheduling design points toward using LLM agents as cheap, ethical proxies for pilot studies of team interventions, but validating that requires comparing simulation outputs to ground-truth human team data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This doctoral consortium paper describes three AI-augmented systems for human team optimization: (1) a multi-armed bandit framework for team formation that iteratively refines recommendations from user preferences, (2) tAIfa, an LLM-powered feedback assistant for teams on Slack that generates communication feedback using seven metrics from small-group research, and (3) PuppeteerLLM, an LLM-based multi-agent simulation framework for modeling team dynamics. The paper reports a preliminary offline evaluation of the bandit approach, a between-subjects user study of tAIfa with 54 participants, and no evaluation of PuppeteerLLM. The author positions the work as a Ph.D. dissertation in progress, with several planned validation experiments described as future work. The central claim in the abstract is that these frameworks and systems 'enhance team satisfaction, engagement, and performance.'

Significance. If the stated effects were validated, the three systems would constitute a useful suite of tools spanning team formation, performance feedback, and simulation, with practical integration into platforms like Slack and Discord. The paper's strengths are its clear mapping of research objectives to concrete systems, its grounding of communication metrics in prior small-group research, and its honest enumeration of future work. However, the current evidence base is thin: the formation framework has no reported quantitative results, the feedback study provides means without inferential statistics, and the simulation framework is entirely unvalidated. The significance of the contribution therefore rests on planned rather than completed validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1.2] The offline evaluation of the UCB team formation framework is described only qualitatively: it states that the algorithm achieved a 'high degree of alignment' between recommended teams and users' selections, but reports no sample size, no alignment metric, no baseline comparison, and no statistical uncertainty. Since this is the only evidence presented for RO1, it does not support the conclusion that the framework enhances team satisfaction. Please provide the actual numbers, compare against random or greedy assignment baselines, and report effect sizes or confidence intervals, or explicitly reposition RO1 as a framework proposal awaiting validation.
  2. [3.2.4] The tAIfa user study table reports averages for four metrics (conversation duration 6.9 vs 8.14 min; speaker turn frequency 16 vs 20.87; word count 233.04 vs 260.3; task performance 60.4% vs 62%) without any p-values, confidence intervals, or effect sizes. The observed differences are small, especially for task performance. Section 3.2.5 explicitly states that the author plans to 'recruit larger and more diverse samples to ensure statistically significant findings,' which is an admission that the current results are not statistically significant. As presented, the data do not support the claim that tAIfa enhances team engagement or performance; the manuscript should either supply inferential statistics or clearly label these results as a pilot with no significance claims.
  3. [3.3.2] PuppeteerLLM is described in detail, but no evaluation is provided. The planned comparative analysis against a ground-truth team dataset is listed as future work, so there is currently no evidence that the simulation framework produces human-like team dynamics. Without at least one validation experiment or an explicit statement that the framework is unvalidated, RO3 cannot be considered addressed.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.1.2] The abstract's claim that the dissertation develops frameworks and systems that 'enhance team satisfaction, engagement, and performance' outruns the evidence in the body. The only quantitative study lacks significance tests, the formation algorithm has no reported results, and the simulation has no validation. This is a load-bearing framing issue: the claims should be softened to 'aim to enhance' or 'show preliminary promise' until the planned experiments are completed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.1.3] The text lists 'four experimental conditions: random teams, self-assembled teams, and proposed team formation framework,' but only three conditions are enumerated; the fourth condition is missing and should be added or the count corrected.
  2. [3.2.4] The results table would be more informative with standard deviations, and the text should state whether the reported metrics were pre-registered or exploratory.
  3. [1] There is a typo in the introduction: 'in theperform- ing stage' should be 'in the performing stage.'
  4. [3.2.3] The paper does not report demographic information, ethical approval, or whether the participant sample was balanced; please include these details if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found; the paper presents preliminary empirical claims and future work, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a dissertation status report rather than a derivation chain. RO1 reports a UCB-based team formation framework with an offline simulation; the alignment result is presented as preliminary motivation, and the text does not specify the reward signal in enough detail to show that the reported alignment is identical to the optimized objective, so no circular reduction can be exhibited. RO2 presents tAIfa with a between-subjects study; feedback is generated from communication metrics, but the reported outcomes (conversation duration, turn frequency, word count, task performance) are external measurements that could in principle diverge from the feedback's targets, so no outcome equals the system's output by construction. RO3 describes PuppeteerLLM with no validation and defers comparison to a ground-truth dataset, which is an evidentiary gap, not circularity. The only citations to the advisor's prior work support related-work descriptions of team-assembly systems and are not load-bearing for any derivation. The paper's own limitation statement in Section 3.2.5 ('recruit larger and more diverse samples to ensure statistically significant findings') and the future-work status of Sections 3.1.3 and 3.3.2 weaken the strength of the central claim about enhanced team outcomes, but that is a correctness and evidence concern, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper relies on three domain assumptions: Big Five traits as a preference proxy, seven communication metrics as engagement indicators, and LLM agents as human emulators. No numeric free parameters are explicitly reported. Two new systems, tAIfa and PuppeteerLLM, are introduced without external validation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Big Five personality traits represent user preferences for team composition
    Invoked in section 3.1.2 offline evaluation; if invalid, the UCB alignment result loses meaning.
  • domain assumption Seven communication metrics (e.g., LSM, sentiment, transactive memory) capture team engagement and cohesion
    Used in section 3.2.1 to construct prompts; if invalid, tAIfa feedback is not grounded.
  • domain assumption LLM agents can accurately emulate human team interaction dynamics
    Basis for PuppeteerLLM in section 3.3.1; no validation against ground truth yet.
invented entities (2)
  • tAIfa
    purpose: LLM-powered feedback assistant for teams on Slack
    New system prototype; claimed benefits rely on a preliminary user study without significance tests, so no evidence outside the paper.
  • PuppeteerLLM
    purpose: LLM-based simulation framework for team dynamics
    No experiments are reported; validation is future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teaming in the AI Era: AI-Augmented Frameworks for Forming, Simulating, and Optimizing Human Teams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWOV5RFJ

@misc{pith2026250605265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teaming in the AI Era: AI-Augmented Frameworks for Forming, Simulating, and Optimizing Human Teams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWOV5RFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05265}
}
read the original abstract

Effective teamwork is essential across diverse domains. During the team formation stage, a key challenge is forming teams that effectively balance user preferences with task objectives to enhance overall team satisfaction. In the team performing stage, maintaining cohesion and engagement is critical for sustaining high team performance. However, existing computational tools and algorithms for team optimization often rely on static data inputs, narrow algorithmic objectives, or solutions tailored for specific contexts, failing to account for the dynamic interplay of team members personalities, evolving goals, and changing individual preferences. Therefore, teams may encounter member dissatisfaction, as purely algorithmic assignments can reduce members commitment to team goals or experience suboptimal engagement due to the absence of timely, personalized guidance to help members adjust their behaviors and interactions as team dynamics evolve. Ultimately, these challenges can lead to reduced overall team performance. My Ph.D. dissertation aims to develop AI-augmented team optimization frameworks and practical systems that enhance team satisfaction, engagement, and performance. First, I propose a team formation framework that leverages a multi-armed bandit algorithm to iteratively refine team composition based on user preferences, ensuring alignment between individual needs and collective team goals to enhance team satisfaction. Second, I introduce tAIfa (Team AI Feedback Assistant), an AI-powered system that utilizes large language models (LLMs) to deliver immediate, personalized feedback to both teams and individual members, enhancing cohesion and engagement. Finally, I present PuppeteerLLM, an LLM-based simulation framework that simulates multi-agent teams to model complex team dynamics within realistic environments, incorporating task-driven collaboration and long-term coordination.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Essa Alhazmi, Sameera Horawalavithana, John Skvoretz, Jeremy Blackburn, and Adriana Iamnitchi. 2017. An empirical study on team formation in online games. InProceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017. 431–438

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Oznur Alkan, Elizabeth M Daly, and Inge Vejsbjerg. 2018. Opportunity team builder for sales teams. In23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Inter- faces. 251–261

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Li An, Volker Grimm, Abigail Sullivan, BL Turner Ii, Nicolas Malleson, Alison Heppenstall, Christian Vincenot, Derek Robinson, Xinyue Ye, Jianguo Liu, et al

    work page

  4. [4]

    Hamsa Bastani, Mohsen Bayati, and Khashayar Khosravi. 2021. Mostly exploration-free algorithms for contextual bandits.Management Science67, 3 (2021), 1329–1349

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Karim Benharrak, Tim Zindulka, Florian Lehmann, Hendrik Heuer, and Daniel Buschek. 2024. Writer-defined AI personas for on-demand feedback generation. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    LouAnne E Boyd, Alejandro Rangel, Helen Tomimbang, Andrea Conejo-Toledo, Kanika Patel, Monica Tentori, and Gillian R Hayes. 2016. SayWAT: Augmenting face-to-face conversations for adults with autism. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 4872–4883

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Sébastien Bubeck, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, et al. 2012. Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems.Foundations and Trends®in Machine Learning5, 1 (2012), 1–122

    2012

  8. [8]

    Taufiq Daryanto, Xiaohan Ding, Lance T Wilhelm, Sophia Stil, Kirk McInnis Knutsen, and Eugenia H Rho. 2025. Conversate: Supporting Reflective Learning in Interview Practice Through Interactive Simulation and Dialogic Feedback. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, GROUP (2025), 1–32

    work page 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Galina Deeva, Daria Bogdanova, Estefanía Serral, Monique Snoeck, and Jochen De Weerdt. 2021. A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classi- fication framework, challenges and opportunities.Computers & Education162 (2021), 104094

    2021

  2. [10]

    Heather A Faucett, Matthew L Lee, and Scott Carter. 2017. I should listen more: real-time sensing and feedback of non-verbal communication in video telehealth. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction1, CSCW (2017), 1–19

    2017

  3. [11]

    Chen Gao, Xiaochong Lan, Nian Li, Yuan Yuan, Jingtao Ding, Zhilun Zhou, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. 2024. Large language models empowered agent-based modeling and simulation: A survey and perspectives.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11, 1 (2024), 1–24

    2024

  4. [12]

    Aurélien Garivier and Eric Moulines. 2008. On upper-confidence bound policies for non-stationary bandit problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.3415(2008)

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Diego Gómez-Zará, Archan Das, Bradley Pawlow, and Noshir Contractor. 2022. In search of diverse and connected teams: A computational approach to assem- ble diverse teams based on members’ social networks.PloS one17, 11 (2022), e0276061

    2022

  6. [14]

    Diego Gómez-Zará, Leslie A DeChurch, and Noshir S Contractor. 2020. A taxon- omy of team-assembly systems: Understanding how people use technologies to form teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–36

    2020

  7. [15]

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J Richard Hackman and Edward E Lawler. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics.Journal of applied psychology55, 3 (1971), 259

    1971

  9. [17]

    Helen Ai He, Naomi Yamashita, Chat Wacharamanotham, Andrea B Horn, Jenny Schmid, and Elaine M Huang. 2017. Two sides to every story: Mitigating intercul- tural conflict through automated feedback and shared self-reflections in global virtual teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Hum...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Wai-Tat Fu, Karrie Karahalios, Darko Marinov, and Brian Bailey. 2017. You want me to work with who? Stakeholder perceptions of auto- mated team formation in project-based courses. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing system...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Nicolas Jones, Armelle Brun, and Anne Boyer. 2011. Improving reliability of user preferences: Comparing instead of rating. In2011 Sixth International Conference on Digital Information Management. IEEE, 316–321

    2011

  12. [20]

    Rishabh Joshi, Varun Gupta, Xinyue Li, Yue Cui, Ziwen Wang, Yaser Norouz- zadeh Ravari, Diego Klabjan, Rafet Sifa, Azita Parsaeian, Anders Drachen, et al

  13. [21]

    Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and Bastiaan Heeren. 2018. A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises.ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)19, 1 (2018), 1–43

    2018

  14. [22]

    Hyeyoung Ko, Suyeon Lee, Yoonseo Park, and Anna Choi. 2022. A survey of recommendation systems: recommendation models, techniques, and application fields.Electronics11, 1 (2022), 141

    2022

  15. [23]

    Steve WJ Kozlowski, Daniel J Watola, Jaclyn M Jensen, Brian H Kim, and Isabel C Botero. 2008. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. InTeam effectiveness in complex organizations. Routledge, 147–190

    2008

  16. [24]

    Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman

  17. [25]

    Samuel Lapp, Kathryn Jablokow, and Christopher McComb. 2019. KABOOM: an agent-based model for simulating cognitive style in team problem solving. Design Science5 (2019), e13

    2019

  18. [26]

    Misty L Loughry, Matthew W Ohland, and David J Woehr. 2014. Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools.Journal of Marketing Education36, 1 (2014), 5–19

    2014

  19. [27]

    Judith Masthoff and Isabella Saccardi. 2024. Towards automated feedback to a team member on their performance. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 347–355

    2024

  20. [28]

    Kiana Jafari Meimandi, Matthew Bolton, and Peter Beling. 2023. RL-HAT: A New Framework for Understanding Human-Agent Teaming. InProceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, Vol. 1. 80–85

    2023

  21. [29]

    David A Nadler. 1979. The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the experimental research.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23, 3 (1979), 309–338

    1979

  22. [30]

    Nicole Nikiforow and Sebastian Wagener. 2021. The contextual effect of comple- tion on the effectiveness of performance feedback.Journal of Business Economics 91, 1 (2021), 61–90

    2021

  23. [31]

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology. 1–22

    2023

  24. [32]

    Joon Sung Park, Carolyn Q Zou, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Robb Willer, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2024. Generative agent simulations of 1,000 people.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10109 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    William Rand and Christian Stummer. 2021. Agent-based modeling of new product market diffusion: an overview of strengths and criticisms.Annals of Operations Research305, 1 (2021), 425–447

    2021

  26. [34]

    Paul Resnick, Neophytos Iacovou, Mitesh Suchak, Peter Bergstrom, and John Riedl. 1994. Grouplens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. InProceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 175–186

    1994

  27. [35]

    Elaine Rich. 1983. Users are individuals: individualizing user models.International journal of man-machine studies18, 3 (1983), 199–214

    1983

  28. [36]

    Samiha Samrose, Reza Rawassizadeh, and Ehsan Hoque. 2020. Immediate or reflective?: Effects of real-timefeedback on group discussions over videochat. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06529(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    William R Thompson. 1933. On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples.Biometrika25, 3-4 (1933), 285–294

    1933

  30. [38]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. 2023. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chong Yang, Xiaohui Yu, Yang Liu, Yanping Nie, and Yuanhong Wang. 2016. Collaborative filtering with weighted opinion aspects.Neurocomputing210 (2016), 185–196

    2016

  32. [40]

    Lingyu Zhang, Tianshu Song, Yongxin Tong, Zimu Zhou, Dan Li, Wei Ai, Lulu Zhang, Guobin Wu, Yan Liu, and Jieping Ye. 2019. Recommendation-based team formation for on-demand taxi-calling platforms. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowle...

    2019

  33. [41]

    Wei Zhang, Andrea Valencia, and Ni-Bin Chang. 2021. Synergistic integration between machine learning and agent-based modeling: A multidisciplinary review. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems34, 5 (2021), 2170– 2190

    2021

  34. [42]

    Sharon Zhou, Melissa Valentine, and Michael S Bernstein. 2018. In search of the dream team: Temporally constrained multi-armed bandits for identifying effective team structures. InProceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  35. [2017]

    Building machines that learn and think like people.Behavioral and brain sciences40 (2017), e253

    2017

  36. [2019]

    InProceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference

    A team based player versus player recommender systems framework for player improvement. InProceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference. 1–7

  37. [2021]

    Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in modeling agent-based complex systems.Ecological Modelling457 (2021), 109685

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.