The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magentic-UI: Towards Human-in-the-loop Agentic Systems
Abstract
AI agents powered by large language models are increasingly capable of autonomously completing complex, multi-step tasks using external tools. Yet, they still fall short of human-level performance in most domains including computer use, software development, and research. Their growing autonomy and ability to interact with the outside world, also introduces safety and security risks including potentially misaligned actions and adversarial manipulation. We argue that human-in-the-loop agentic systems offer a promising path forward, combining human oversight and control with AI efficiency to unlock productivity from imperfect systems. We introduce Magentic-UI, an open-source web interface for developing and studying human-agent interaction. Built on a flexible multi-agent architecture, Magentic-UI supports web browsing, code execution, and file manipulation, and can be extended with diverse tools via Model Context Protocol (MCP). Moreover, Magentic-UI presents six interaction mechanisms for enabling effective, low-cost human involvement: co-planning, co-tasking, multi-tasking, action guards, and long-term memory. We evaluate Magentic-UI across four dimensions: autonomous task completion on agentic benchmarks, simulated user testing of its interaction capabilities, qualitative studies with real users, and targeted safety assessments. Our findings highlight Magentic-UI's potential to advance safe and efficient human-agent collaboration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Human oversight remains essential in high-stakes or uncertainty-prone settings (Mozannar et al., 2025;Takerngsaksiri et al., 2025).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Mozannar et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges
Guo, T., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Chang, R., Pei, S., Chawla, N. V., Wiest, O., & Zhang, X. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01680 · Cited by 1,713
The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Survey
Masterman, T., Besen, S., Sawtell, M., & Chao, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.11584 · Cited by 35 · cited 2×
“We use the multi-agent paradigm for the design of our agent system to allow for an easily extendable and modular system [80, 46, 26, 82, 70, 93, 81, 27, 43, 96, 45, 11, 90, 111, 67, 37, 39, 18, 5, 30].”
OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety
Vijayvargiya, S., Soni, A. B., Zhou, X., Wang, Z. Z., Dziri, N., Neubig, G., & Sap, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06134 · cited 2×
“These agents interact with the outside world and can pose safety and security risks [86].”
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Tan, C., Fourney, A., Dibia, V., Chen, J., Gerrits, J., Payne, T., Maldaner, M. K., Grunde-McLaughlin, M., Zhu, E., Bassman, G., Alber, J., Chang, P., Loynd, R., Niedtner, F., Kamar, E., Murad, M., Hosn, R., & Amershi, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2507.22358
- References
- 4
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
