Matthew Jörke

Helena Vasconcelos, Matthew Jörke, Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin et al. · uw

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.

Aishwarya Mandyam, Matthew Jörke, William Denton et al.

Promoting healthy lifestyle behaviors remains a major public health concern, particularly due to their crucial role in preventing chronic conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. Mobile health applications present a promising avenue for low-cost, scalable health behavior change promotion. Researchers are increasingly exploring adaptive algorithms that personalize interventions to each person's unique context. However, in empirical studies, mobile health applications often suffer from small effect sizes and low adherence rates, particularly in comparison to human coaching. Tailoring advice to a person's unique goals, preferences, and life circumstances is a critical component of health coaching that has been underutilized in adaptive algorithms for mobile health interventions. To address this, we introduce a new Thompson sampling algorithm that can accommodate personalized reward functions (i.e., goals, preferences, and constraints), while also leveraging data sharing across individuals to more quickly be able to provide effective recommendations. We prove that our modification incurs only a constant penalty on cumulative regret while preserving the sample complexity benefits of data sharing. We present empirical results on synthetic and semi-synthetic physical activity simulators, where in the latter we conducted an online survey to solicit preference data relating to physical activity, which we use to construct realistic reward models that leverages historical data from another study. Our algorithm achieves substantial performance improvements compared to baselines that do not share data or do not optimize for individualized rewards.

Caleb Ziems, Dora Zhao, Rose E. Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping the private and professional lives of users, with numerous applications in business, education, finance, healthcare, law, and science. With this rise in global influence comes greater urgency to build, evaluate, and deploy these systems in a manner that prioritizes not only technical capabilities but also human priorities. This work presents a framework for developing Human-Centered Large Language Models (HCLLMs), which integrates perspectives from Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and responsible AI. Considering the ethics, economics, and technical objectives of language modeling, we argue that model developers need to address human concerns, preferences, values, and goals, not only during a cursory post-training stage, but rather with rigor and care at every stage of the pipeline. This paper offers human-centered insights and recommendations for developers at each stage, from system design to data sourcing, model training, evaluation, and responsible deployment. Then we conclude with a case study, applying these insights to understand the future of work with HCLLMs.

Chacha Chen, Matthew Jörke, Adam Goliński et al.

Modern AI systems are being deployed in complex domains such as medicine, science, and law, where it is important that they not only produce correct answers, but also represent and update uncertain beliefs about the world as new evidence arrives. We introduce the novel technique of studying LLMs as information processing rules and utilize the information processing gap to study the internal (in)consistencies of how LLMs update their probabilistic beliefs from evidence. Our extensive experiments evaluate multiple approaches in which LLMs can incorporate evidence into their beliefs. Some of these approaches produce (nearly) Bayesian updates; others seem to use a learned heuristic. Surprisingly, the non-Bayesian heuristic updates often outperform exact Bayesian computation in terms of downstream task performance -- indicating the LLMs' probabilistic models of the world are misspecified. Lastly, we show how our measure can provide diagnostics to identify issues with LLM-powered inferential systems.

Shardul Sapkota, Matthew Jörke, Zane Sabbagh et al.

Recent advances in user modeling make it feasible to conduct open-ended inference over a person's everyday computer use. Despite longstanding visions of systems that deeply understand our actions and the purposes they serve in our lives, existing systems only capture what a person is doing in the moment -- not why they are doing it -- limiting these systems to surface-level support. We introduce striving co-creation, a process for inferring broader life goals from unstructured observations of computer use. Grounded in Activity Theory and Emmons' personal strivings framework, our system progressively constructs a hierarchical representation of a person's activities. Crucially, strivings are difficult to fully resolve from observation alone, as the same action can be driven by many different goals. Our system therefore supports an editing interface that gives people agency over how they are understood by the system, feeding their corrections back into subsequent rounds of striving induction. In a week-long field deployment (N=14), we find that our co-creation process produces strivings that are representative of participants' long-term goals and gives them greater agency than baseline methods.