Zahra Ashktorab

Zahra Ashktorab, Benjamin Hoover, Mayank Agarwal et al. · ibm-research

Mitigating algorithmic bias is a critical task in the development and deployment of machine learning models. While several toolkits exist to aid machine learning practitioners in addressing fairness issues, little is known about the strategies practitioners employ to evaluate model fairness and what factors influence their assessment, particularly in the context of text classification. Two common approaches of evaluating the fairness of a model are group fairness and individual fairness. We run a study with Machine Learning practitioners (n=24) to understand the strategies used to evaluate models. Metrics presented to practitioners (group vs. individual fairness) impact which models they consider fair. Participants focused on risks associated with underpredicting/overpredicting and model sensitivity relative to identity token manipulations. We discover fairness assessment strategies involving personal experiences or how users form groups of identity tokens to test model fairness. We provide recommendations for interactive tools for evaluating fairness in text classification.

Jaeyoon Song, Zahra Ashktorab, Thomas W. Malone

Scheduling is a perennial-and often challenging-problem for many groups. Existing tools are mostly static, showing an identical set of choices to everyone, regardless of the current status of attendees' inputs and preferences. In this paper, we propose Togedule, an adaptive scheduling tool that uses large language models to dynamically adjust the pool of choices and their presentation format. With the initial prototype, we conducted a formative study (N=10) and identified the potential benefits and risks of such an adaptive scheduling tool. Then, after enhancing the system, we conducted two controlled experiments, one each for attendees and organizers (total N=66). For each experiment, we compared scheduling with verbal messages, shared calendars, or Togedule. Results show that Togedule significantly reduces the cognitive load of attendees indicating their availability and improves the speed and quality of the decisions made by organizers.

Hyo Jin Do, Zahra Ashktorab, Jasmina Gajcin et al.

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm enables flexible, user-defined evaluation, but its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of diverse, representative data for refining criteria. We present a tool that integrates synthetic data generation into the LLM-as-a-judge workflow, empowering users to create tailored and challenging test cases with configurable domains, personas, lengths, and desired outcomes, including borderline cases. The tool also supports AI-assisted inline editing of existing test cases. To enhance transparency and interpretability, it reveals the prompts and explanations behind each generation. In a user study (N=24), 83% of participants preferred the tool over manually creating or selecting test cases, as it allowed them to rapidly generate diverse synthetic data without additional workload. The generated synthetic data proved as effective as hand-crafted data for both refining evaluation criteria and aligning with human preferences. These findings highlight synthetic data as a promising alternative, particularly in contexts where efficiency and scalability are critical.

Inkit Padhi, Manish Nagireddy, Giandomenico Cornacchia et al. · ibm-research

We introduce the Granite Guardian models, a suite of safeguards designed to provide risk detection for prompts and responses, enabling safe and responsible use in combination with any large language model (LLM). These models offer comprehensive coverage across multiple risk dimensions, including social bias, profanity, violence, sexual content, unethical behavior, jailbreaking, and hallucination-related risks such as context relevance, groundedness, and answer relevance for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Trained on a unique dataset combining human annotations from diverse sources and synthetic data, Granite Guardian models address risks typically overlooked by traditional risk detection models, such as jailbreaks and RAG-specific issues. With AUC scores of 0.871 and 0.854 on harmful content and RAG-hallucination-related benchmarks respectively, Granite Guardian is the most generalizable and competitive model available in the space. Released as open-source, Granite Guardian aims to promote responsible AI development across the community. https://github.com/ibm-granite/granite-guardian

Matthew Riemer, Zahra Ashktorab, Djallel Bouneffouf et al.

Our paper argues that the majority of theory of mind benchmarks are broken because of their inability to directly test how large language models (LLMs) adapt to new partners. This problem stems from the fact that theory of mind benchmarks for LLMs are overwhelmingly inspired by the methods used to test theory of mind in humans and fall victim to a fallacy of attributing human-like qualities to AI agents. We expect that humans will engage in a consistent reasoning process across various questions about a situation, but this is known to not be the case for current LLMs. Most theory of mind benchmarks only measure what we call literal theory of mind: the ability to predict the behavior of others. However, this type of metric is only informative when agents exhibit self-consistent reasoning. Thus, we introduce the concept of functional theory of mind: the ability to adapt to agents in-context following a rational response to their behavior. We find that many open source LLMs are capable of displaying strong literal theory of mind capabilities, but seem to struggle with functional theory of mind -- even with exceedingly simple partner policies. Simply put, strong literal theory of mind performance does not necessarily imply strong functional theory of mind performance or vice versa. Achieving functional theory of mind, particularly over long interaction horizons with a partner, is a significant challenge deserving a prominent role in any meaningful LLM theory of mind evaluation.

Shang-Ling Hsu, Raj Sanjay Shah, Prathik Senthil et al.

Millions of users come to online peer counseling platforms to seek support. However, studies show that online peer support groups are not always as effective as expected, largely due to users' negative experiences with unhelpful counselors. Peer counselors are key to the success of online peer counseling platforms, but most often do not receive appropriate training.Hence, we introduce CARE: an AI-based tool to empower and train peer counselors through practice and feedback. Concretely, CARE helps diagnose which counseling strategies are needed in a given situation and suggests example responses to counselors during their practice sessions. Building upon the Motivational Interviewing framework, CARE utilizes large-scale counseling conversation data with text generation techniques to enable these functionalities. We demonstrate the efficacy of CARE by performing quantitative evaluations and qualitative user studies through simulated chats and semi-structured interviews, finding that CARE especially helps novice counselors in challenging situations. The code is available at https://github.com/SALT-NLP/CARE

Charles Chiang, Simret Gebreegziabher, Annalisa Szymanski et al.

LLM-as-a-judge approaches have emerged as a scalable solution for evaluating model behaviors, yet they rely on evaluation criteria often created by a single individual, embedding that person's assumptions, priorities, and interpretive lens. In practice, defining such criteria is a collaborative and contested process involving multiple stakeholders with different values, interpretations, and priorities; an aspect largely unsupported by existing tools. To examine this problem in depth, we present a formative study examining how stakeholders collaboratively create, negotiate, and refine evaluation criteria for LLM-as-a-judge systems. Our findings reveal challenges in human oversight, including difficulties in establishing shared understanding, aligning values across stakeholders with different expertise and priorities, and translating nuanced human judgments into criteria that are interpretable and actionable for LLM judges. Based on these insights, we developed MultEval, a system that supports collaborative criteria by enabling multiple evaluators to surface and diagnose disagreements using consensus-building theory, iteratively revise criteria with attached examples and proposal history, and maintain transparency over how judgments are encoded into an automated evaluator. We further report a case study in which a team of domain experts used MultEval to collaboratively author criteria, illustrating how coordination and collaborative consensus-making shape criteria evolution.

Nico Wagner, Michael Desmond, Rahul Nair et al.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various tasks. We address the challenge of quantifying the uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. While uncertainty quantification has been well-studied in other domains, applying it effectively to LLMs poses unique challenges due to their complex decision-making capabilities and computational demands. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty. We evaluate our method across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating a strong correlation between the accuracy of LLM evaluations and the derived uncertainty scores. Our findings suggest that this method can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations.

Werner Geyer, Jessica He, Daita Sarkar et al.

The broad availability of generative AI offers new opportunities to support various work domains, including agile software development. Agile epics are a key artifact for product managers to communicate requirements to stakeholders. However, in practice, they are often poorly defined, leading to churn, delivery delays, and cost overruns. In this industry case study, we investigate opportunities for large language models (LLMs) to evaluate agile epic quality in a global company. Results from a user study with 17 product managers indicate how LLM evaluations could be integrated into their work practices, including perceived values and usage in improving their epics. High levels of satisfaction indicate that agile epics are a new, viable application of AI evaluations. However, our findings also outline challenges, limitations, and adoption barriers that can inform both practitioners and researchers on the integration of such evaluations into future agile work practices.

Mouad Abrini, Omri Abend, Dina Acklin et al. · cambridge

This volume includes a selection of papers presented at the Workshop on Advancing Artificial Intelligence through Theory of Mind held at AAAI 2025 in Philadelphia US on 3rd March 2025. The purpose of this volume is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the ToM and AI research community.

Kush R. Varshney, Zahra Ashktorab, Djallel Bouneffouf et al.

Much of the research focus on AI alignment seeks to align large language models and other foundation models to the context-less and generic values of helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. Frontier model providers also strive to align their models with these values. In this paper, we motivate why we need to move beyond such a limited conception and propose three dimensions for doing so. The first scope of alignment is competence: knowledge, skills, or behaviors the model must possess to be useful for its intended purpose. The second scope of alignment is transience: either semantic or episodic depending on the context of use. The third scope of alignment is audience: either mass, public, small-group, or dyadic. At the end of the paper, we use the proposed framework to position some technologies and workflows that go beyond prevailing notions of alignment.

Michael Desmond, Zahra Ashktorab, Michelle Brachman et al.

Labeling data is an important step in the supervised machine learning lifecycle. It is a laborious human activity comprised of repeated decision making: the human labeler decides which of several potential labels to apply to each example. Prior work has shown that providing AI assistance can improve the accuracy of binary decision tasks. However, the role of AI assistance in more complex data-labeling scenarios with a larger set of labels has not yet been explored. We designed an AI labeling assistant that uses a semi-supervised learning algorithm to predict the most probable labels for each example. We leverage these predictions to provide assistance in two ways: (i) providing a label recommendation and (ii) reducing the labeler's decision space by focusing their attention on only the most probable labels. We conducted a user study (n=54) to evaluate an AI-assisted interface for data labeling in this context. Our results highlight that the AI assistance improves both labeler accuracy and speed, especially when the labeler finds the correct label in the reduced label space. We discuss findings related to the presentation of AI assistance and design implications for intelligent labeling interfaces.

Dakuo Wang, Haoyu Wang, Mo Yu et al.

Despite the long history of studying instant messaging usage, we know very little about how today's people participate in group chat channels and interact with others inside a real-world organization. In this short paper, we aim to update the existing knowledge on how group chat is used in the context of today's organizations. The knowledge is particularly important for the new norm of remote works under the COVID-19 pandemic. We have the privilege of collecting two valuable datasets: a total of 4,300 group chat channels in Slack from an R&D department in a multinational IT company; and a total of 117 groups' performance data. Through qualitative coding of 100 randomly sampled group channels from the 4,300 channels dataset, we identified and reported 9 categories such as Project channels, IT-Support channels, and Event channels. We further defined a feature metric with 21 meta features (and their derived features) without looking at the message content to depict the group communication style for these group chat channels, with which we successfully trained a machine learning model that can automatically classify a given group channel into one of the 9 categories. In addition to the descriptive data analysis, we illustrated how these communication metrics can be used to analyze team performance. We cross-referenced 117 project teams and their team-based Slack channels and identified 57 teams that appeared in both datasets, then we built a regression model to reveal the relationship between these group communication styles and the project team performance. This work contributes an updated empirical understanding of human-human communication practices within the enterprise setting, and suggests design opportunities for the future of human-AI communication experience.