Anastasia Kuzminykh

Saleh Afroogh, Seyd Ishtiaque Ahmed, Petra Ahrweiler et al. · cmu

This study provides a cross-disciplinary examination of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)-and identifies empirical and conceptual limitations in current XAI. We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions). These fundamental problems within the current XAI research field reveal three insights: experimentally, XAI exhibits significant flaws; conceptually, it is paradoxical; and pragmatically, further attempts to reform the paradoxical XAI might exacerbate its confusion-demanding fundamental shifts and new research directions. To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged synthesized paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development. These four components include: verification-focused Interactive AI (IAI) to establish scientific community protocols for certifying AI system performance rather than attempting post-hoc explanations, AI Epistemology for rigorous scientific foundations, User-Sensible AI to create context-aware systems tailored to specific user communities, and Model-Centered Interpretability for faithful technical analysis-together offering comprehensive post-XAI research directions.

Kelly McConvey, Shion Guha, Anastasia Kuzminykh

The use of algorithms for decision-making in higher education is steadily growing, promising cost-savings to institutions and personalized service for students but also raising ethical challenges around surveillance, fairness, and interpretation of data. To address the lack of systematic understanding of how these algorithms are currently designed, we reviewed an extensive corpus of papers proposing algorithms for decision-making in higher education. We categorized them based on input data, computational method, and target outcome, and then investigated the interrelations of these factors with the application of human-centered lenses: theoretical, participatory, or speculative design. We found that the models are trending towards deep learning, and increased use of student personal data and protected attributes, with the target scope expanding towards automated decisions. However, despite the associated decrease in interpretability and explainability, current development predominantly fails to incorporate human-centered lenses. We discuss the challenges with these trends and advocate for a human-centered approach.

Harsh Kumar, Ilya Musabirov, Mohi Reza et al.

Personalized chatbot-based teaching assistants can be crucial in addressing increasing classroom sizes, especially where direct teacher presence is limited. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue, with increasing research exploring their educational utility. However, the challenge lies not only in establishing the efficacy of LLMs but also in discerning the nuances of interaction between learners and these models, which impact learners' engagement and results. We conducted a formative study in an undergraduate computer science classroom (N=145) and a controlled experiment on Prolific (N=356) to explore the impact of four pedagogically informed guidance strategies on the learners' performance, confidence and trust in LLMs. Direct LLM answers marginally improved performance, while refining student solutions fostered trust. Structured guidance reduced random queries as well as instances of students copy-pasting assignment questions to the LLM. Our work highlights the role that teachers can play in shaping LLM-supported learning environments.

Mohi Reza, Nathan Laundry, Ilya Musabirov et al.

Exploring alternative ideas by rewriting text is integral to the writing process. State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) can simplify writing variation generation. However, current interfaces pose challenges for simultaneous consideration of multiple variations: creating new variations without overwriting text can be difficult, and pasting them sequentially can clutter documents, increasing workload and disrupting writers' flow. To tackle this, we present ABScribe, an interface that supports rapid, yet visually structured, exploration and organization of writing variations in human-AI co-writing tasks. With ABScribe, users can swiftly modify variations using LLM prompts, which are auto-converted into reusable buttons. Variations are stored adjacently within text fields for rapid in-place comparisons using mouse-over interactions on a popup toolbar. Our user study with 12 writers shows that ABScribe significantly reduces task workload (d = 1.20, p < 0.001), enhances user perceptions of the revision process (d = 2.41, p < 0.001) compared to a popular baseline workflow, and provides insights into how writers explore variations using LLMs.

Patrick Yung Kang Lee, Jessica Y. Bo, Zixin Zhao et al.

Individuals are turning to increasingly anthropomorphic, general-purpose chatbots for AI companionship, rather than roleplay-specific platforms. However, not much is known about how individuals perceive and conduct their relationships with general-purpose chatbots. We analyzed semi-structured interviews (n=13), survey responses (n=43), and community discussions on Reddit (41k+ posts and comments) to triangulate the internal dynamics, external influences, and steering strategies that shape AI companion relationships. We learned that individuals conceptualize their companions based on an interplay of their beliefs about the companion's own agency and the autonomy permitted by the platform, how they pursue interactions with the companion, and the perceived initiatives that the companion takes. In combination with the external factors that affect relationship dynamics, particularly model updates that can derail companion behaviour and stability, individuals make use of different types of steering strategies to preserve their relationship, for example, by setting behavioural instructions or porting to other AI platforms. We discuss implications for accountability and transparency in AI systems, where emotional connection competes with broader product objectives and safety constraints.

Harsh Kumar, Suhyeon Yoo, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy et al.

Although engagement in self-directed wellness exercises typically declines over time, integrating social support such as coaching can sustain it. However, traditional forms of support are often inaccessible due to the high costs and complex coordination. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in providing human-like dialogues that could emulate social support. Yet, in-depth, in situ investigations of LLMs to support behavior change remain underexplored. We conducted two randomized experiments to assess the impact of LLM agents on user engagement with mindfulness exercises. First, a single-session study, involved 502 crowdworkers; second, a three-week study, included 54 participants. We explored two types of LLM agents: one providing information and another facilitating self-reflection. Both agents enhanced users' intentions to practice mindfulness. However, only the information-providing LLM, featuring a friendly persona, significantly improved engagement with the exercises. Our findings suggest that specific LLM agents may bridge the social support gap in digital health interventions.

Mohi Reza, Jeb Thomas-Mitchell, Peter Dushniku et al.

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become integral to everyday writing, critical questions arise about how to preserve writers' sense of agency and ownership when using these tools. Yet, a systematic understanding of how AI assistance affects different aspects of the writing process - and how this shapes writers' agency - remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 109 HCI papers using the PRISMA approach. From this literature, we identify four overarching design strategies for AI writing support: structured guidance, guided exploration, active co-writing, and critical feedback - mapped across the four key cognitive processes in writing: planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring. We complement this analysis with interviews of 15 writers across diverse domains. Our findings reveal that writers' desired levels of AI intervention vary across the writing process: content-focused writers (e.g., academics) prioritize ownership during planning, while form-focused writers (e.g., creatives) value control over translating and reviewing. Writers' preferences are also shaped by contextual goals, values, and notions of originality and authorship. By examining when ownership matters, what writers want to own, and how AI interactions shape agency, we surface both alignment and gaps between research and user needs. Our findings offer actionable design guidance for developing human-centered writing tools for co-writing with AI, on human terms.