Michael Xieyang Liu

Michael Xieyang Liu, Tongshuang Wu, Tianying Chen et al.

Sensemaking in unfamiliar domains can be challenging, demanding considerable user effort to compare different options with respect to various criteria. Prior research and our formative study found that people would benefit from reading an overview of an information space upfront, including the criteria others previously found useful. However, existing sensemaking tools struggle with the "cold-start" problem -- it not only requires significant input from previous users to generate and share these overviews, but such overviews may also turn out to be biased and incomplete. In this work, we introduce a novel system, Selenite, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) as reasoning machines and knowledge retrievers to automatically produce a comprehensive overview of options and criteria to jumpstart users' sensemaking processes. Subsequently, Selenite also adapts as people use it, helping users find, read, and navigate unfamiliar information in a systematic yet personalized manner. Through three studies, we found that Selenite produced accurate and high-quality overviews reliably, significantly accelerated users' information processing, and effectively improved their overall comprehension and sensemaking experience.

Savvas Petridis, Michael Xieyang Liu, Alexander J. Fiannaca et al.

As AI systems grow increasingly capable of operating for hours or days at a time, users' prompts are transforming into elaborate specifications for the AI to autonomously work on. While prompting for bounded, single-turn tasks has been extensively studied, less is known about how people communicate specifications for long-horizon tasks. We conducted a qualitative study in which 16 professionals drafted specifications for both a human colleague and an AI, revealing a core divergence: participants treated human delegation as a "compass", offering high-level intent to encourage flexible exploration. In contrast, communication with AI resembled painstakingly laying down "railway tracks": rigid, exhaustive instructions to minimize ambiguity and deviation. This reflected a perception that current AI struggles to infer intent, prioritize, and make judgments on its own. When envisioning an ideal AI collaborator, users desired a hybrid: a collaborator blending AI's efficiency and large context window with the critical thinking and agency of a human colleague. We discuss design implications for future AI systems, proposing that they align on outcomes through generated rough drafts, verify feasibility via end-to-end "test runs," and monitor execution through intelligent check-ins -- ultimately transforming AI from a passive instruction-follower into a reliable collaborator for ambiguous, long-horizon tasks.

Minsuk Kahng, Ian Tenney, Mahima Pushkarna et al. · deepmind

Automatic side-by-side evaluation has emerged as a promising approach to evaluating the quality of responses from large language models (LLMs). However, analyzing the results from this evaluation approach raises scalability and interpretability challenges. In this paper, we present LLM Comparator, a novel visual analytics tool for interactively analyzing results from automatic side-by-side evaluation. The tool supports interactive workflows for users to understand when and why a model performs better or worse than a baseline model, and how the responses from two models are qualitatively different. We iteratively designed and developed the tool by closely working with researchers and engineers at a large technology company. This paper details the user challenges we identified, the design and development of the tool, and an observational study with participants who regularly evaluate their models.

Crystal Qian, Michael Xieyang Liu, Emily Reif et al.

As large language models (LLMs) grow increasingly adept at processing unstructured text data, they offer new opportunities to enhance data curation workflows. This paper explores the evolution of LLM adoption among practitioners at a large technology company, evaluating the impact of LLMs in data curation tasks through participants' perceptions, integration strategies, and reported usage scenarios. Through a series of surveys, interviews, and user studies, we provide a timely snapshot of how organizations are navigating a pivotal moment in LLM evolution. In Q2 2023, we conducted a survey to assess LLM adoption in industry for development tasks (N=84), and facilitated expert interviews to assess evolving data needs (N=10) in Q3 2023. In Q2 2024, we explored practitioners' current and anticipated LLM usage through a user study involving two LLM-based prototypes (N=12). While each study addressed distinct research goals, they revealed a broader narrative about evolving LLM usage in aggregate. We discovered an emerging shift in data understanding from heuristic-first, bottom-up approaches to insights-first, top-down workflows supported by LLMs. Furthermore, to respond to a more complex data landscape, data practitioners now supplement traditional subject-expert-created 'golden datasets' with LLM-generated 'silver' datasets and rigorously validated 'super golden' datasets curated by diverse experts. This research sheds light on the transformative role of LLMs in large-scale analysis of unstructured data and highlights opportunities for further tool development.

Chenyang Yang, Yike Shi, Qianou Ma et al.

Prompt underspecification is a common challenge when interacting with LLMs. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of this problem, showing that while LLMs can often infer unspecified requirements by default (41.1%), such behavior is fragile: Under-specified prompts are 2x as likely to regress across model or prompt changes, sometimes with accuracy drops exceeding 20%. This instability makes it difficult to reliably build LLM applications. Moreover, simply specifying all requirements does not consistently help, as models have limited instruction-following ability and requirements can conflict. Standard prompt optimizers likewise provide little benefit. To address these issues, we propose requirements-aware prompt optimization mechanisms that improve performance by 4.8% on average over baselines. We further advocate for a systematic process of proactive requirements discovery, evaluation, and monitoring to better manage prompt underspecification in practice.

Michael Xieyang Liu, Savvas Petridis, Vivian Tsai et al.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs), with their expansive world knowledge and reasoning capabilities, present a unique opportunity for end-users to create personalized AI sensors capable of reasoning about complex situations. A user could describe a desired sensing task in natural language (e.g., "alert if my toddler is getting into mischief"), with the MLLM analyzing the camera feed and responding within seconds. In a formative study, we found that users saw substantial value in defining their own sensors, yet struggled to articulate their unique personal requirements and debug the sensors through prompting alone. To address these challenges, we developed Gensors, a system that empowers users to define customized sensors supported by the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Gensors 1) assists users in eliciting requirements through both automatically-generated and manually created sensor criteria, 2) facilitates debugging by allowing users to isolate and test individual criteria in parallel, 3) suggests additional criteria based on user-provided images, and 4) proposes test cases to help users "stress test" sensors on potentially unforeseen scenarios. In a user study, participants reported significantly greater sense of control, understanding, and ease of communication when defining sensors using Gensors. Beyond addressing model limitations, Gensors supported users in debugging, eliciting requirements, and expressing unique personal requirements to the sensor through criteria-based reasoning; it also helped uncover users' "blind spots" by exposing overlooked criteria and revealing unanticipated failure modes. Finally, we discuss how unique characteristics of MLLMs--such as hallucinations and inconsistent responses--can impact the sensor-creation process. These findings contribute to the design of future intelligent sensing systems that are intuitive and customizable by everyday users.

Muzhe Wu, Yanzhi Zhao, Shuyi Han et al.

Responsible AI (RAI) efforts increasingly emphasize the importance of addressing potential harms early in the AI development lifecycle through social-technical lenses. However, in cross-functional industry teams, this work is often stalled by a persistent knowledge handoff challenge: the difficulty of transferring high-level, early-stage technical design rationales from technical experts to non-technical or user-facing roles for ethical evaluation and harm identification. Through literature review and a co-design study with 8 practitioners, we unpack how this challenge manifests -- technical design choices are rarely handed off in ways that support meaningful engagement by non-technical roles; collaborative workflows lack shared, visual structures to support mutual understanding; and non-technical practitioners are left without scaffolds for systematic harm evaluation. Existing tools like JIRA or Google Docs, while useful for product tracking, are ill-suited for supporting joint harm identification across roles, often requiring significant extra effort to align understanding. To address this, we developed AI LEGO, a web-based prototype that supports cross-functional AI practitioners in effectively facilitating knowledge handoff and identifying harmful design choices in the early design stages. Technical roles use interactive blocks to draft development plans, while non-technical roles engage with those blocks through stage-specific checklists and LLM-driven persona simulations to surface potential harms. In a study with 18 cross-functional practitioners, AI LEGO increased the volume and likelihood of harms identified compared to baseline worksheets. Participants found that its modular structure and persona prompts made harm identification more accessible, fostering clearer and more collaborative RAI practices in early design.

Michael Xieyang Liu, Aniket Kittur, Brad A. Myers

Developers perform online sensemaking on a daily basis, such as researching and choosing libraries and APIs. Prior research has introduced tools that help developers capture information from various sources and organize it into structures useful for subsequent decision-making. However, it remains a laborious process for developers to manually identify and clip content, maintaining its provenance and synthesizing it with other content. In this work, we introduce a new system called Crystalline that attempts to automatically collect and organize information into tabular structures as the user searches and browses the web. It leverages natural language processing to automatically group similar criteria together to reduce clutter as well as passive behavioral signals such as mouse movement and dwell time to infer what information to collect and how to visualize and prioritize it. Our user study suggests that developers are able to create comparison tables about 20% faster with a 60% reduction in operational cost without sacrificing the quality of the tables.

Amber Horvath, Michael Xieyang Liu, River Hendriksen et al.

Modern software development requires developers to find and effectively utilize new APIs and their documentation, but documentation has many well-known issues. Despite this, developers eventually overcome these issues but have no way of sharing what they learned. We investigate sharing this documentation-specific information through \textit{annotations}, which have advantages over developer forums as the information is contextualized, not disruptive, and is short, thus easy to author. Developers can also author annotations to support their own comprehension. In order to support the documentation usage behaviors we found, we built the Adamite annotation tool, which supports features such as multi-anchoring, annotation types, and pinning. In our user study, we found that developers are able to create annotations that are useful to themselves and are able to utilize annotations created by other developers when learning a new API, with readers of the annotations completing 67% more of the task, on average, than the baseline.

Michael Xieyang Liu, Aniket Kittur, Brad A. Myers

As the amount of information online continues to grow, a correspondingly important opportunity is for individuals to reuse knowledge which has been summarized by others rather than starting from scratch. However, appropriate reuse requires judging the relevance, trustworthiness, and thoroughness of others' knowledge in relation to an individual's goals and context. In this work, we explore augmenting judgements of the appropriateness of reusing knowledge in the domain of programming, specifically of reusing artifacts that result from other developers' searching and decision making. Through an analysis of prior research on sensemaking and trust, along with new interviews with developers, we synthesized a framework for reuse judgements. The interviews also validated that developers express a desire for help with judging whether to reuse an existing decision. From this framework, we developed a set of techniques for capturing the initial decision maker's behavior and visualizing signals calculated based on the behavior, to facilitate subsequent consumers' reuse decisions, instantiated in a prototype system called Strata. Results of a user study suggest that the system significantly improves the accuracy, depth, and speed of reusing decisions. These results have implications for systems involving user-generated content in which other users need to evaluate the relevance and trustworthiness of that content.