Tae Soo Kim

Kihoon Son, Hyewon Lee, DaEun Choi et al.

Human collaborators coordinate dynamically through process visibility and workspace awareness, yet AI agents typically either provide only final outputs or expose read-only execution processes (e.g., planning, reasoning) without interpreting concurrent user actions on shared artifacts. Building on mixed-initiative interaction principles, we explore whether agents can achieve collaborative context awareness -- interpreting concurrent user actions on shared artifacts and adapting in real-time. Study 1 (N=10 professional designers) revealed that process visibility enabled reasoning about agent actions but exposed conflicts when agents could not distinguish feedback from independent work. We developed CLEO, which interprets collaborative intent and adapts in real-time. Study 2 (N=10, two-day with stimulated recall interviews) analyzed 214 turns, identifying five action patterns, six triggers, and four enabling factors explaining when designers choose delegation (70.1%), direction (28.5%), or concurrent work (31.8%). We present a decision model with six interaction loops, design implications, and an annotated dataset.

Laurent Dillard, Hyeonsoo Lee, Weonsuk Lee et al.

When developing Computer Aided Detection (CAD) systems for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), the complexity arising from the volumetric nature of the modality poses significant technical challenges for obtaining large-scale accurate annotations. Without access to large-scale annotations, the resulting model may not generalize to different domains. Given the costly nature of obtaining DBT annotations, how to effectively increase the amount of data used for training DBT CAD systems remains an open challenge. In this paper, we present SelectiveKD, a semi-supervised learning framework for building cancer detection models for DBT, which only requires a limited number of annotated slices to reach high performance. We achieve this by utilizing unlabeled slices available in a DBT stack through a knowledge distillation framework in which the teacher model provides a supervisory signal to the student model for all slices in the DBT volume. Our framework mitigates the potential noise in the supervisory signal from a sub-optimal teacher by implementing a selective dataset expansion strategy using pseudo labels. We evaluate our approach with a large-scale real-world dataset of over 10,000 DBT exams collected from multiple device manufacturers and locations. The resulting SelectiveKD process effectively utilizes unannotated slices from a DBT stack, leading to significantly improved cancer classification performance (AUC) and generalization performance.

Yoonjoo Lee, Kihoon Son, Tae Soo Kim et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are nondeterministic, the same input can generate different outputs, some of which may be incorrect or hallucinated. If run again, the LLM may correct itself and produce the correct answer. Unfortunately, most LLM-powered systems resort to single results which, correct or not, users accept. Having the LLM produce multiple outputs may help identify disagreements or alternatives. However, it is not obvious how the user will interpret conflicts or inconsistencies. To this end, we investigate how users perceive the AI model and comprehend the generated information when they receive multiple, potentially inconsistent, outputs. Through a preliminary study, we identified five types of output inconsistencies. Based on these categories, we conducted a study (N=252) in which participants were given one or more LLM-generated passages to an information-seeking question. We found that inconsistency within multiple LLM-generated outputs lowered the participants' perceived AI capacity, while also increasing their comprehension of the given information. Specifically, we observed that this positive effect of inconsistencies was most significant for participants who read two passages, compared to those who read three. Based on these findings, we present design implications that, instead of regarding LLM output inconsistencies as a drawback, we can reveal the potential inconsistencies to transparently indicate the limitations of these models and promote critical LLM usage.