Lydia Chilton

Vivian Liu, Lydia Chilton

Motion and emotion are core parts of intelligent, expressive behavior. In this paper, we introduce fog, a function composition framework for implementing and compose motion functions. We demonstrate how fog can be used to express motion and emotion in Heider-Simmel style animations. This code generation framework can help users generate functions for verbs, adverbs, gestures, and emotions to create an open-ended motion vocabulary. It is complemented by an animation editor that helps users refine motion through direct manipulation and dynamically generated UI. We evaluate our approach with a perceptual evaluation, where we test 452 fog-generated animations to see if people can recognize the semantic meaning of the motion. We find that fog's motion functions can be recognized at 68% accuracy, a 2.68x improvement over a chance baseline. In a mixed-methods user study with professionals and novices, we show that fog in interface form can support users with more rapid iteration, exploration, and control.

Zahra Hassanzadeh, Anne Hsu, Rachel Kornfield et al.

This paper explores the design space for one-minute digital interventions that prompt immediate action without onboarding or sensing. By embracing Fogg's Behavior Model and four design principles informed by literature, the goal of these interventions was to provide triggers that encourage actions so simple that even people with low motivation would be willing to complete them. We examined the utility of these prompts by conducting a 14-day study with 22 participants interested in making small lifestyle improvements in at least one of three domains: physical activity, healthy eating, and mental well-being. When combined with insights drawn from participants' rewrites of our prompts, our findings suggest that intentional personalization through co-authorship could be a lightweight personalization mechanism that balances relevance with low friction.

Zeyu He, Xuan Qi, Subramanian Chidambaram et al.

Large language models increasingly serve as judges in AI evaluation, but current approaches rely on consensus preferences that ignore individual evaluator variation. We propose a novel simulation approach that combines categorical judgments with evaluator-specific auxiliary data--retrospective reasoning traces and interface telemetry--to enable LLM-based simulation of individual evaluators via in-context learning. We conduct a systematic empirical study of this approach using multi-facet data from 32 trained annotators across 4,200 preference judgments in a 4 x 4 x 4 factorial design. Our key findings: (1) The simulation approach achieves up to 9.9 percentage point improvements over the Base Judge; (2) Reasoning traces provide the largest gains with higher collection efforts, while interface telemetry often hurts rather than helps performance despite being cheaper to collect. (3) Simulation difficulty is systematic, predicted by an evaluator's neutral usage (most clearly on Helpfulness) and divergence from consensus; the neutral-usage tendency--rather than simulatability itself--is the cross-task-stable property (r = 0.728). These results establish both the potential and limits of evaluator-specific auxiliary data for personalized evaluation, offering methodological insights for scaling individual aware AI assessment.