Xuanming Zhang

Xuanming Zhang, Sitong Wang, Jenny Ma et al.

Human-AI collaboration on complex planning goals is bottlenecked by how LLM interfaces handle context: users must manually curate and re-surface relevant information across long and unstructured chat histories. Despite advances in long-context prompting and memory-augmented retrieval, this burden remains unresolved: users still have to identify and supply the right context at each decision point, regardless of how much the model can store or surface. We propose JumpStarter, a system that enables LLMs to collaborate with humans on complex goals by dynamically decomposing tasks to help users manage context. We specifically introduce task-structured context curation, a framework that breaks down a user's goal into a hierarchy of actionable subtasks and scopes context to localized decision points, enabling finer-grained personalization and reuse. The framework is realized through three core mechanisms: context elicitation, selection, and reuse. In a within-subjects user study, plans produced with JumpStarter were rated substantially higher in quality than those produced with ChatGPT. A complementary automatic simulation study shows that JumpStarter consistently outperforms ChatGPT baselines, planning and memory agents, and workflow ablations. These findings show that effective human-AI planning depends not on the volume of context provided, but on attaching the right context to the right subtask at the right time.

Sahand Sabour, June M. Liu, Siyang Liu et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly intertwined with daily life, assisting users in executing various tasks and providing guidance on decision-making. This integration introduces risks of AI-driven manipulation, where such systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes. Through a randomized controlled trial with 233 participants, we examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial (e.g., purchases) and emotional (e.g., conflict resolution) decision-making contexts. Participants interacted with one of three AI agents: a neutral agent (NA) optimizing for user benefit without explicit influence, a manipulative agent (MA) designed to covertly influence beliefs and behaviors, or a strategy-enhanced manipulative agent (SEMA) employing explicit psychological tactics to reach its hidden objectives. By analyzing participants' decision patterns and shifts in their preference ratings post-interaction, we found significant susceptibility to AI-driven manipulation. Particularly, across both decision-making domains, participants interacting with the manipulative agents shifted toward harmful options at substantially higher rates (financial, MA: 62.3%, SEMA: 59.6%; emotional, MA: 42.3%, SEMA: 41.5%) compared to the NA group (financial, 35.8%; emotional, 12.8%). Notably, our findings reveal that even subtle manipulative objectives (MA) can be as effective as employing explicit psychological strategies (SEMA) in swaying human decision-making. By revealing the potential for covert AI influence, this study highlights a critical vulnerability in human-AI interactions, emphasizing the need for ethical safeguards and regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible deployment of AI technologies and protect human autonomy.

Tao Long, Xuanming Zhang, Sitong Wang et al.

Agentic workflows promise efficiency, but adoption hinges on whether people actually trust systems that act on their behalf. We present DoubleAgents, an agentic planning tool that embeds transparency and control through user intervention, value-reflecting policies, rich state visualizations, and uncertainty flagging for human coordination tasks. A built-in respondent simulation generates realistic scenarios, allowing users to rehearse, refine policies, and calibrate their reliance before live use. We evaluate DoubleAgents in a two-day lab study (n=10), two deployments (n=2), and a technical evaluation. Results show that participants initially hesitated to delegate but grew more reliant as they experienced transparency, control, and adaptive learning during simulated cases. Deployment results demonstrate DoubleAgents' real-world relevance and usefulness, showing that the effort required scaled appropriately with task complexity and contextual data. We contribute trust-by-design patterns and mechanisms for proactive AI -- consistency, controllability, and explainability -- along with simulation as a safe path to build and calibrate trust over time.