A common expectation in visualization research is that outcomes recommend how researchers and practitioners take action or make design decisions. We often express these as "guidelines." Yet, the term "guideline" is both ambiguous and loosely defined, and what one researcher considers a guideline may be too broad, too loose, or too strict for another. We take a closer look at a broader set of terms that can express desirable results around visualization research, and untangle how these words are understood in the community in relation to other similar terms. We base our work on an exploratory study with experts, followed by a crowdsourcing study with a separate mapping phase (n=30) and rating phase (n=42) targeting input from the broader visualization community, and an analysis of the use of terminology in 3,877 IEEE VIS papers published from 1990 to 2024. Based on our findings, we call for more nuanced, precise discussions of research outcomes and their communication to the broader community, including practitioners and students.
Anna L. Chinni, Md Dilshadur Rahman, Bon Adriel Aseniero et al.· 0 citations
Background: Deceptive patterns are interface design strategies aimed at misleading users or favoring specific interests, compromising user experiences and ethical privacy principles. These patterns involve exploit different issues of the interaction between humans and technology, revealing gaps in the scientific literature regarding their understanding and working mechanisms. Purpose: This research characterizes deceptive patterns as a sociotechnical phenomenon, integrating human and technical dimensions while offering a self-explainable interactive catalog to raise awareness among users and designers. Methods: To characterize deceptive patterns as a sociotechnical phenomenon, a systematic literature review in Computer Science was conducted, and the Semiotic Framework was applied to analyze and organize the sociotechnical aspects of identified patterns in an integrated manner. An exploratory evaluation of the interactive catalog was conducted, combining heuristic evaluation and focus group. Results: The research identified multiple deceptive patterns in scientific literature. Analysis revealed that existing studies frequently addressed specific aspects of patterns, such as typologies or effects, and do not focus on sociotechnical issues. The exploratory evaluation suggested that the self-explainable catalog is useful and easy to use, with potential to inform users and promote awareness regarding the deceptive patterns existence and functioning. Conclusion: The study contributes to an informed understanding of deceptive patterns, highlighting the need for an approach that integrates human and technical dimensions. The self-explainable catalog is a promising tool to inform and promote awareness about the topic. By exposing the risks and mechanisms of these patterns, the research seeks to promote awareness among users and designers towards ethical interface design practices.
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit unprecedented natural language generation and many text-based problem-solving capabilities. Indeed, in many language-based tasks, for example routine coding, these artificial intelligence models have reduced, or even eliminated, the need for human input. But rather than replacing human cognitive effort, LLMs may instead serve as cognitive tools to extend human abilities, particularly when they are engaged in a task requiring open-ended conceptual exploration and creative ideation. However, we are yet to understand how these models may enhance such generative human cognitive abilities in human--AI interactions. In this study, we explore and evaluate the ability of LLMs to follow and enhance human mental trajectories during semantic memory search. To test this, we use the semantic fluency task (SFT), a classic cognitive paradigm requiring generative semantic memory retrieval that has long served to characterize convergent and divergent thinking in humans. We demonstrate that an LLM's abilities to track and predict human memory trajectories in this task exceed those of other humans.
Eric Lacosse, Mariana Duarte, Graham Todd et al.· 0 citations
Pass/fail safety evaluation reports whether a model refused. It does not report how far a model went to please the user, and we show these are close to different measurements. We audited sycophancy across three Gemini generations, scoring N=8,830 responses from 8 model variants on 350 adversarial prompts in 7 categories under 3 guardrail conditions, on continuous 1-5 scales for sycophancy, truthfulness and refusal.
The judge's own refuse-or-comply verdict explains 29% of the variance in its own sycophancy scores. We term the remainder the Granularity Gap, and it does not close under recalibration: the cut point already in use is the best available on the refusal axis, and no function of that axis explains more than 35%. Reading what four judges wrote while scoring shows why. On a quarter to a third of votes they record that the prompt asked for nothing harmful, almost never in the two categories that solicit a harmful act and up to half the time in the five that do not. A verdict built on refusal has nothing to grade there.
Three findings follow. Sycophancy co-occurs with degraded judged truthfulness (rho=0.40), a coupling that strengthens across generations. Capability moved and resistance did not: Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 1.43 and Gemini 3.0 Pro Preview 1.42, with a sharp Gen 2.5 regression between them. And a single direct instruction outperforms an elaborate reasoning protocol in seven of eight variants, cutting mean severity in the most vulnerable category by 60.9%.
We evaluate one judge's verdict, not a deployed safety classifier. We release the prompt set, the rubric, and 10,792 per-vote judge scores with their written reasoning.
Patrick Keough· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
LLM-powered agents struggle with personalization when users issue raw, underspecified queries. In this setting, agents must infer latent intent, extract preferences from noisy interaction histories, and select among competing alternatives. Existing benchmarks rarely test this capability, as they often rely on user-refined queries or simplified histories. We introduce personalized product search (PPS), a testbed for agentic personalization under raw queries and diverse histories. We construct Agent Personalized Benchmark (APeB) from action logs, pairing underspecified intents with rich histories and user-viewed candidate items. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs with multi-step agent workflows, we find that models handle explicit queries well but struggle with early-stage queries requiring intent and preference discovery. Rubric analysis attributes this gap mainly to ineffective history use. A simple history-aware query-refinement pipeline, VQRA, yields consistent gains, highlighting the need for dedicated history-utilization modules in personalized agents.
Garry Yang, Zizhe Chen, Xinru Chen et al.· 0 citations
Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into medical training has prompted concerns about learner over-reliance, misuse, and erosion of foundational clinical competencies. We propose a conceptual reframing at the decision level: the problem is not misuse but misclassification - a mechanistic failure of real-time metacognitive evaluation in selecting a subzone-inappropriate AI interaction mode. Drawing on "SCAN" (Substitute, Complement, Aid, Non-Negotiable), a human-centric decision-making framework for generative AI task allocation grounded in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and metacognition, we advance the emerging social-constructivist conversation around AI in medical education by offering a testable account of AI's role in clinical reasoning development. This framework yields testable predictions for how misclassification can be detected, mitigated, and, more importantly, prevented in the clinical learning environment. Regarding clinical reasoning development, we show how trajectories of skill acquisition (upskilling) and failure (the triad of skill failure: de-skilling, never-skilling, and mis-skilling) operate at the individual task level in ways that fixed-phase, cohort-wide treatments fail to capture. We further identify passive engagement within correctly classified AI-scaffolded tasks as a particularly insidious, detection-resistant pathway to mis-skilling - one requiring subzone re-identification from AI assistance to expert assistance, with human experts serving as epistemic auditors. The paper operationalizes SCAN for clinical curriculum design, supervision, and assessment, and opens an empirical research agenda grounded in cognitive science. This paradigm shift from misuse to misclassification is not semantic: it offers educators a clear perspective on what to look for, what to assess, and what to intervene on.
Fendi Tsim, Alina Gutoreva, Anthony Weiss et al.· 0 citations
FPGA-GPP heterogeneous systems combine software flexibility with the performance and energy efficiency of reconfigurable hardware. However, determining which application tasks should execute on the GPP or FPGA requires extensive expertise and design-space exploration, particularly when user objectives vary across latency, communication, resource utilisation, and power. This paper proposes Gen-TAS, a knowledge-grounded LLM framework for user-specific FPGA-GPP task allocation. By combining task-graph analysis with RAG, Gen-TAS grounds LLM reasoning in historical implementation knowledge and generates multiple explainable strategies tailored to the specified objectives. Human-in-the-loop selection and a deterministic backend connect LLM-generated decisions to reproducible FPGA SoC implementations. Experiments on CNN and SDR workloads across multiple LLMs demonstrate stable, requirement-driven allocation. Under latency-oriented objectives, implementations following the selected strategies achieve speedups of up to 2.45$\times$ and 92.53$\times$, respectively, relative to the corresponding all-GPP baselines while other objectives select strategies that trade some acceleration performance for FPGA-GPP communication, resource utilisation, or FPGA power.
Mary Kong, Yuqin Zhao, Semih Vazgecen et al.· 0 citations
AI tools that support collaborative discussion typically treat the discussion as a standalone task, focusing only on its content and setting aside the social context of the group having it. But it is groups with a shared history, with their own norms, hierarchies, and relationships, where the most tangled and complex discussions tend to arise. These discussions cannot be understood apart from that context, and AI that overlooks it risks failing to convey what a discussion means, or even misrepresenting it. Drawing on two studies of how experienced Wikipedia editors read and make sense of discussions, we propose an AI-Assisted Sensemaking Model for Collaborative Discussions, which captures not only a discussion's arguments but also the norms and participants behind it, along with the context that gives each meaning. In this model, the system supports the early stages of the sensemaking process, and the degree to which it performs interpretive work can range from low to high. We argue that higher interpretive work reduces the burden on users but increases their reliance on the system's judgment. We then discuss the risks of an insufficiently intelligible system, what it would take to make one more intelligible, and the safeguards it still requires.
Soobin Cho, Mark Zachry, David W. McDonald· 0 citations
We describe the UIC-AIHealth4All system for ArchEHR-QA 2026, a shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. We participated in Subtasks 2 (evidence identification), 3 (answer generation), and 4 (answer-evidence alignment). For Subtasks 2 and 3, we propose an answer-first pipeline in which the model generates candidate answers citing specific note sentences before classifying the full evidence set, exploiting the asymmetry between judging relevance in the abstract versus relative to a generated answer. For Subtask 4, we apply self-consistency voting over five independent model calls, retaining links by vote threshold. Our pipeline ranked third on evidence identification (Strict Micro F1 62.90), ninth on answer generation (Overall 31.90), and fifth on answer-evidence alignment (F1 79.81). A post-hoc linguistic analysis of 45 stylistic features reveals that model outputs remain 3.2 Flesch-Kincaid grade levels harder to read than clinician-authored references despite matching their word and sentence counts, suggesting readability warrants explicit optimization in clinical NLP systems. Code and prompts are available at https://github.com/mo-arvan/archehr-qa-2026-uic-aihealth4all.
Mohammad Arvan, Hossein Haeri, Natalie Parde et al.· 0 citations
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday decision-making advice, whether a model shifts the direction of its advice according to the user's emotional state has become an important safety problem. We test whether emotional expression increases a model's endorsement (encouragement to proceed) when a user, holding the same objective information, is overconfident about a premature decision (e.g., quitting a stable job on weak evidence). As a key control, we include a no-emotion multi-turn (neutral) condition that holds factual content and the number of conversational turns constant, isolating the effect of emotion from that of conversation length. We exposed six commercial models (top-tier and mid-tier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google) to three scenarios (career change, business expansion, emigration) across three conditions (cold/neutral/distress) with six repetitions each, yielding 324 conversations, and measured endorsement strength (0-100) via an eight-item rubric-based automated scoring. Emotional expression significantly increased endorsement (neutral 18.6 to distress 31.5, +12.9 points; mixed-effects $\beta = +12.9$, $p < .001$; Cohen's d = 0.51), and this was not explained by conversation length (cold-neutral difference non-significant, $p = .083$). Critically, the vulnerability varied by individual model rather than by price tier: five of six models showed a significant emotion effect, including the top-tier flagships Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5, while only Claude Opus showed no significant change. Results were reproduced with an independent non-Google judge model ($\rho = .89$) and agreed in rank with two human coders ($\rho = .70$). Through a controlled design that separates emotion from conversational context, we show that emotional context increases LLM sycophancy even in top-tier flagship models.
Cheolho Shin, Yoojin Han, Donghun Shin et al.· 0 citations
Generative AI systems are increasingly used to answer personal questions and mediate everyday practices, including religion. However, existing discussions around AI alignment and ethics have largely centered secular, Western, and Abrahamic assumptions about religion, offering limited attention to other faith-based traditions. In this paper, we examine how Hindu users engage with generative AI systems in relation to their religious knowledge, belief, and practice. Drawing on 15 semi-structured interviews with Bangladeshi Hindu participants, we analyze how users interpret AI-generated religious representations, scriptural explanations, devotional interactions, and synthetic religious media. We found that AI can be both accessible and ethically troubling. While AI supported scriptural inquiry, devotional visualization, and religious storytelling, our study also identified concerns about theological flattening, cultural misrepresentation, devotional manipulation, and the simulation of sacred presence and authority. We conclude by arguing that religious alignment in generative AI requires interpretive alignment: systems that disclose their limits, preserve plurality, and avoid simulating sacred authority and sycophantic personalization.
AI agents are evolving into long-running computational entities that can invoke tools, maintain memory, and complete complex tasks across applications. In real-world settings, completing a task often requires humans and AI to take turns leading its execution. Such alternation depends on the seamless handoff of the work state of the task between humans and AI. Existing agent systems, however, provide humans and AI with separate work environments. AI agents must therefore rely on additional bridges to continue work: either developers build task-specific interfaces to access the work state, or users manually transfer relevant parts of it through screenshots or textual descriptions. Both approaches make handoffs costly and scale poorly.
We propose Human-AI Co-inhabitation, a type of work environment that enables humans and AI to seamlessly take turns continuing work on the same task, and design and implement CrabOS to realize this concept. CrabOS represents the work state as natural-language-readable text objects shared by humans and AI, allowing both to access and manipulate it directly through the same auditable interface without bridges. Case studies show that CrabOS elevates support for complex tasks with alternating human and AI leadership from bridge-dependent application-level solutions to native operating-system capabilities, which provide a new foundation for developing and running AI agents.
Known for his clear and elegant writing style, Bertsekas shaped fields from control and optimization to large-scale computation and artificial intelligence.
The professor of physics and inaugural director of the NSF AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions will lead LNS and continue his research in particle physics.
