AIMar 2
What Papers Don't Tell You: Recovering Tacit Knowledge for Automated Paper ReproductionLehui Li, Ruining Wang, Haochen Song et al.
Automated paper reproduction -- generating executable code from academic papers -- is bottlenecked not by information retrieval but by the tacit knowledge that papers inevitably leave implicit. We formalize this challenge as the progressive recovery of three types of tacit knowledge -- relational, somatic, and collective -- and propose \method, a graph-based agent framework with a dedicated mechanism for each: node-level relation-aware aggregation recovers relational knowledge by analyzing implementation-unit-level reuse and adaptation relationships between the target paper and its citation neighbors; execution-feedback refinement recovers somatic knowledge through iterative debugging driven by runtime signals; and graph-level knowledge induction distills collective knowledge from clusters of papers sharing similar implementations. On an extended ReproduceBench spanning 3 domains, 10 tasks, and 40 recent papers, \method{} achieves an average performance gap of 10.04\% against official implementations, improving over the strongest baseline by 24.68\%. The code will be publicly released upon acceptance; the repository link will be provided in the final version.
HCMar 6
Structured Exploration vs. Generative Flexibility: A Field Study Comparing Bandit and LLM Architectures for Personalised Health Behaviour InterventionsDominik P. Hofer, Haochen Song, Rania Islambouli et al.
Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) are central to digital health interventions, yet selecting and delivering effective techniques remains challenging. Contextual bandits enable statistically grounded optimisation of BCT selection, while Large Language Models (LLMs) offer flexible, context-sensitive message generation. We conducted a 4-week study on physical activity motivation (N=54; 9 post-study interviews) that compared five daily messaging approaches: random templates, contextual bandit with templates, LLM generation, hybrid bandit+LLM, and LLM with interaction history. LLM-based approaches were rated substantially more helpful than templates, but no significant differences emerged among LLM conditions. Unexpectedly, bandit optimisation for BCTs selection yielded no additional perceived helpfulness compared with LLM-only approaches. Unconstrained LLMs focused heavily on a single BCT, whereas bandit systems enforced systematic exploration-exploitation across techniques. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggest contextual acknowledgement of user input drove perceived helpfulness. We contribute design suggestions for reflective AI health behaviour change systems that address a trade-off between structured exploration and generative autonomy.
LGJun 8, 2025
Investigating the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Tailored Behavior Change Messaging: Connecting Contextual Bandit with Large Language ModelsHaochen Song, Dominik Hofer, Rania Islambouli et al.
Machine learning approaches, such as contextual multi-armed bandit (cMAB) algorithms, offer a promising strategy to reduce sedentary behavior by delivering personalized interventions to encourage physical activity. However, cMAB algorithms typically require large participant samples to learn effectively and may overlook key psychological factors that are not explicitly encoded in the model. In this study, we propose a hybrid approach that combines cMAB for selecting intervention types with large language models (LLMs) to personalize message content. We evaluate four intervention types: behavioral self-monitoring, gain-framed, loss-framed, and social comparison, each delivered as a motivational message aimed at increasing motivation for physical activity and daily step count. Message content is further personalized using dynamic contextual factors including daily fluctuations in self-efficacy, social influence, and regulatory focus. Over a seven-day trial, participants receive daily messages assigned by one of four models: cMAB alone, LLM alone, combined cMAB with LLM personalization (cMABxLLM), or equal randomization (RCT). Outcomes include daily step count and message acceptance, assessed via ecological momentary assessments (EMAs). We apply a causal inference framework to evaluate the effects of each model. Our findings offer new insights into the complementary roles of LLM-based personalization and cMAB adaptation in promoting physical activity through personalized behavioral messaging.
LGJan 7, 2025
Adaptive Experiments Under Data Sparse Settings: Applications for Educational PlatformsHaochen Song, Ilya Musabirov, Ananya Bhattacharjee et al.
Adaptive experimentation is increasingly used in educational platforms to personalize learning through dynamic content and feedback. However, standard adaptive strategies such as Thompson Sampling often underperform in real-world educational settings where content variations are numerous and student participation is limited, resulting in sparse data. In particular, Thompson Sampling can lead to imbalanced content allocation and delayed convergence on which aspects of content are most effective for student learning. To address these challenges, we introduce Weighted Allocation Probability Adjusted Thompson Sampling (WAPTS), an algorithm that refines the sampling strategy to improve content-related decision-making in data-sparse environments. WAPTS is guided by the principle of lenient regret, allowing near-optimal allocations to accelerate learning while still exploring promising content. We evaluate WAPTS in a learnersourcing scenario where students rate peer-generated learning materials, and demonstrate that it enables earlier and more reliable identification of promising treatments.
LGDec 15, 2021
Algorithms for Adaptive Experiments that Trade-off Statistical Analysis with Reward: Combining Uniform Random Assignment and Reward MaximizationTong Li, Jacob Nogas, Haochen Song et al.
Traditional randomized A/B experiments assign arms with uniform random (UR) probability, such as 50/50 assignment to two versions of a website to discover whether one version engages users more. To more quickly and automatically use data to benefit users, multi-armed bandit algorithms such as Thompson Sampling (TS) have been advocated. While TS is interpretable and incorporates the randomization key to statistical inference, it can cause biased estimates and increase false positives and false negatives in detecting differences in arm means. We introduce a more Statistically Sensitive algorithm, TS-PostDiff (Posterior Probability of Small Difference), that mixes TS with traditional UR by using an additional adaptive step, where the probability of using UR (vs TS) is proportional to the posterior probability that the difference in arms is small. This allows an experimenter to define what counts as a small difference, below which a traditional UR experiment can obtain informative data for statistical inference at low cost, and above which using more TS to maximize user benefits is key. We evaluate TS-PostDiff against UR, TS, and two other TS variants designed to improve statistical inference. We consider results for the common two-armed experiment across a range of settings inspired by real-world applications. Our results provide insight into when and why TS-PostDiff or alternative approaches provide better tradeoffs between benefiting users (reward) and statistical inference (false positive rate and power). TS-PostDiff's adaptivity helps efficiently reduce false positives and increase statistical power when differences are small, while increasing reward more when differences are large. The work highlights important considerations for future Statistically Sensitive algorithm development that balances reward and statistical analysis in adaptive experimentation.