Bahareh Sarrafzadeh

Rupak Sarkar, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Nirupama Chandrasekaran et al.

Human-LLM conversations are increasingly becoming more pervasive in peoples' professional and personal lives, yet many users still struggle to elicit helpful responses from LLM Chatbots. One of the reasons for this issue is users' lack of understanding in crafting effective prompts that accurately convey their information needs. Meanwhile, the existence of real-world conversational datasets on the one hand, and the text understanding faculties of LLMs on the other, present a unique opportunity to study this problem, and its potential solutions at scale. Thus, in this paper we present the first LLM-centric study of real human-AI chatbot conversations, focused on investigating aspects in which user queries fall short of expressing information needs, and the potential of using LLMs to rewrite suboptimal user prompts. Our findings demonstrate that rephrasing ineffective prompts can elicit better responses from a conversational system, while preserving the user's original intent. Notably, the performance of rewrites improves in longer conversations, where contextual inferences about user needs can be made more accurately. Additionally, we observe that LLMs often need to -- and inherently do -- make \emph{plausible} assumptions about a user's intentions and goals when interpreting prompts. Our findings largely hold true across conversational domains, user intents, and LLMs of varying sizes and families, indicating the promise of using prompt rewriting as a solution for better human-AI interactions.

Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan et al. · microsoft-research

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Michael Gamon et al.

Writing is a complex non-linear process that begins with a mental model of intent, and progresses through an outline of ideas, to words on paper (and their subsequent refinement). Despite past research in understanding writing, Web-scale consumer and enterprise collaborative digital writing environments are yet to greatly benefit from intelligent systems that understand the stages of document evolution, providing opportune assistance based on authors' situated actions and context. In this paper, we present three studies that explore temporal stages of document authoring. We first survey information workers at a large technology company about their writing habits and preferences, concluding that writers do in fact conceptually progress through several distinct phases while authoring documents. We also explore, qualitatively, how writing stages are linked to document lifespan. We supplement these qualitative findings with an analysis of the longitudinal user interaction logs of a popular digital writing platform over several million documents. Finally, as a first step towards facilitating an intelligent digital writing assistant, we conduct a preliminary investigation into the utility of user interaction log data for predicting the temporal stage of a document. Our results support the benefit of tools tailored to writing stages, identify primary tasks associated with these stages, and show that it is possible to predict stages from anonymous interaction logs. Together, these results argue for the benefit and feasibility of more tailored digital writing assistance.

Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Adam Roegiest, Edward Lank

In exploratory search tasks, alongside information retrieval, information representation is an important factor in sensemaking. In this paper, we explore a multi-layer extension to knowledge graphs, hierarchical knowledge graphs (HKGs), that combines hierarchical and network visualizations into a unified data representation asa tool to support exploratory search. We describe our algorithm to construct these visualizations, analyze interaction logs to quantitatively demonstrate performance parity with networks and performance advantages over hierarchies, and synthesize data from interaction logs, interviews, and thinkalouds on a testbed data set to demonstrate the utility of the unified hierarchy+network structure in our HKGs. Alongside the above study, we perform an additional mixed methods analysis of the effect of precision and recall on the performance of hierarchical knowledge graphs for two different exploratory search tasks. While the quantitative data shows a limited effect of precision and recall on user performance and user effort, qualitative data combined with post-hoc statistical analysis provides evidence that the type of exploratory search task (e.g., learning versus investigating) can be impacted by precision and recall. Furthermore, our qualitative analyses find that users are unable to perceive differences in the quality of extracted information. We discuss the implications of our results and analyze other factors that more significantly impact exploratory search performance in our experimental tasks.

Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Christopher H. Lin et al.

Email triage involves going through unhandled emails and deciding what to do with them. This familiar process can become increasingly challenging as the number of unhandled email grows. During a triage session, users commonly defer handling emails that they cannot immediately deal with to later. These deferred emails, are often related to tasks that are postponed until the user has more time or the right information to deal with them. In this paper, through qualitative interviews and a large-scale log analysis, we study when and what enterprise email users tend to defer. We found that users are more likely to defer emails when handling them involves replying, reading carefully, or clicking on links and attachments. We also learned that the decision to defer emails depends on many factors such as user's workload and the importance of the sender. Our qualitative results suggested that deferring is very common, and our quantitative log analysis confirms that 12% of triage sessions and 16% of daily active users had at least one deferred email on weekdays. We also discuss several deferral strategies such as marking emails as unread and flagging that are reported by our interviewees, and illustrate how such patterns can be also observed in user logs. Inspired by the characteristics of deferred emails and contextual factors involved in deciding if an email should be deferred, we train a classifier for predicting whether a recently triaged email is actually deferred. Our experimental results suggests that deferral can be classified with modest effectiveness. Overall, our work provides novel insights about how users handle their emails and how deferral can be modeled.