Mohammed Alsobay

Mohammed Alsobay, David M. Rothschild, Jake M. Hofman et al.

Group decision-making often suffers from uneven information sharing, hindering decision quality. While large language models (LLMs) have been widely studied as aids for individuals, their potential to support groups of users, potentially as facilitators, is relatively underexplored. We present a pre-registered randomized experiment with 1,475 participants assigned to 281 live groups completing a hidden profile task--selecting an optimal city for a hypothetical sporting event--under one of four facilitation conditions: no facilitation, a one-time message prompting information sharing, a human facilitator, or an LLM (GPT-4o) facilitator. We find that LLM facilitation increased information shared within a discussion by raising the minimum level of engagement with the task among group members, and that these gains came at limited cost in terms of participants' attitudes towards the task, their group, or their facilitator. Whether by human or AI, there was no significant effect of facilitation on the final decision outcome, suggesting that even substantial but partial increases in information sharing were insufficient to overcome the hidden profile effect studied. To support the design and evaluation of LLM-mediated group decision-making systems, we release our data and our experimental platform, the Group-AI Interaction Laboratory (GRAIL), as an open-source tool.

Hussein Mozannar, Valerie Chen, Mohammed Alsobay et al. · cmu, microsoft-research

Evaluation of large language models for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), or more recently using human preferences of LLM responses. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks or more preferred LLM responses translate to programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. We introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=243) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with seven LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better proxy signals. We open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.