Most of the social sciences, including psychology, economics and subjective social network theory, are modeled on the individual, leaving the field not only a-theoretical, but also inapplicable to a physics of hybrid teams, where hybrid refers to arbitrarily combining humans, machines and robots into a team to perform a dedicated mission (e.g., military, business, entertainment) or to solve a targeted problem (e.g., with scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs). As a common social science practice, the ingredient at the heart of the social interaction, interdependence, is statistically removed prior to the replication of social experiments; but, as an analogy, statistically removing social interdependence to better study the individual is like statistically removing quantum effects as a complication to the study of the atom. Further, in applications of Shannon’s information theory to teams, the effects of interdependence are minimized, but even there, interdependence is how classical information is transmitted. Consequently, numerous mistakes are made when applying non-interdependent models to policies, the law and regulations, impeding social welfare by failing to exploit the power of social interdependence. For example, adding redundancy to human teams is thought by subjective social network theorists to improve the efficiency of a network, easily contradicted by our finding that redundancy is strongly associated with corruption in non-free markets. Thus, built atop the individual, most of the social sciences, economics and social network theory have little if anything to contribute to the engineering of hybrid teams. In defense of the social sciences, the mathematical physics of interdependence is elusive, non-intuitive and non-rational. However, by replacing determinism with bistable states, interdependence at the social level mirrors entanglement at the quantum level, suggesting the applicability of quantum tools for social science. We report how our quantum-like models capture some of the essential aspects of interdependence, a tool for the metrics of hybrid teams; as an example, we find additional support for our model of the solution to the open problem of team size. We also report on progress with the theory of computational emotion for hybrid teams, linking it qualitatively to the second law of thermodynamics. We conclude that the science of interdependence

As humanity grapples with the concept of autonomy for human–machine teams (A-HMTs), unresolved is the necessity for the control of autonomy that instills trust. For non-autonomous systems in states with a high degree of certainty, rational approaches exist to solve, model or control stable interactions; e.g., game theory, scale-free network theory, multi-agent systems, drone swarms. As an example, guided by artificial intelligence (AI, including machine learning, ML) or by human operators, swarms of drones have made spectacular gains in applications too numerous to list (e.g., crop management; mapping, surveillance and fire-fighting systems; weapon systems). But under states of uncertainty or where conflict exists, rational models fail, exactly where interdependence theory thrives. Large, coupled physical or information systems can also experience synergism or dysergism from interdependence. Synergistically, the best human teams are not only highly interdependent, but they also exploit interdependence to reduce uncertainty, the focus of this work-in-progress and roadmap. We have long argued that interdependence is fundamental to human autonomy in teams. But for A-HMTs, no mathematics exists to build from rational theory or social science for their design nor safe or effective operation, a severe weakness. Compared to the rational and traditional social theory, we hope to advance interdependence theory first by mapping similarities between quantum theory and our prior findings; e.g., to maintain interdependence, we previously established that boundaries reduce dysergic effects to allow teams to function (akin to blocking interference to prevent quantum decoherence). Second, we extend our prior findings with case studies to predict with interdependence theory that as uncertainty increases in non-factorable situations for humans, the duality in two-sided beliefs serves debaters who explore alternatives with tradeoffs in the search for the best path going forward. Third, applied to autonomous teams, we conclude that a machine in an A-HMT must be able to express itself to its human teammates in causal language however imperfectly.

Key concepts: We review interdependence theory measured by entropic forces, findings in support, and several examples from the field to advance a science of autonomous human-machine teams (A-HMTs) with artificial intelligence (AI). While theory is needed for the advent of autonomous HMTs, social theory is predicated on methodological individualism, a statistical and qualitative science that neither generalizes to human teams nor HMTs. Maximum interdependence in human teams is associated with the performance of the best teams when compared to independent individuals; our research confirmed that the top global oil firms maximize interdependence by minimizing redundant workers, replicated for the top militaries in the world, adding that impaired interdependence is associated with proportionately less freedom, increased corruption, and poorer team performance. We advanced theory by confirming that the maximum interdependence in teams requires intelligence to overcome obstacles to maximum entropy production (MEP; e.g., navigating obstacles while abiding by military rules of engagement requires intelligence). Approach: With a case study, we model as harmonic the long-term oscillations driven by two federal agencies in conflict over closing two high-level radioactive waste tanks, ending when citizens recommended closing the tanks. Results: While contradicting rational consensus theory, our quasi-Nash equilibrium model generates the information for neutrals to decide; it suggests that HMTs should adopt how harmonic oscillations in free societies regulate human autonomy to improve decisions and social welfare.

For the science of autonomous human–machine systems, traditional causal-time interpretations of reality in known contexts are sufficient for rational decisions and actions to be taken, but not for uncertain or dynamic contexts, nor for building the best teams. First, unlike game theory where the contexts are constructed for players, or machine learning where contexts must be stable, when facing uncertainty or conflict, a rational process is insufficient for decisions or actions to be taken; second, as supported by the literature, rational explanations cannot disaggregate human–machine teams. In the first case, interdependent humans facing uncertainty spontaneously engage in debate over complementary tradeoffs in a search for the best path forward, characterized by maximum entropy production (MEP); however, in the second case, signified by a reduction in structural entropy production (SEP), interdependent team structures make it rationally impossible to discern what creates better teams. In our review of evidence for SEP–MEP complementarity for teams, we found that structural redundancy for top global oil producers, replicated for top global militaries, impedes interdependence and promotes corruption. Next, using UN data for Middle Eastern North African nations plus Israel, we found that a nation’s structure of education is significantly associated with MEP by the number of patents it produces; this conflicts with our earlier finding that a U.S. Air Force education in air combat maneuvering was not associated with the best performance in air combat, but air combat flight training was. These last two results exemplify that SEP–MEP interactions by the team’s best members are made by orthogonal contributions. We extend our theory to find that competition between teams hinges on vulnerability, a complementary excess of SEP and reduced MEP, which generalizes to autonomous human–machine systems.