From Passive Feeds to Guided Discovery: AI-Initiated Interaction for Vague Intent in Content Exploration
Abstract
Recommendation feeds work well when people are simply browsing, and search works well when they can formulate a query. Between these two cases is a common but poorly supported state: users feel that their feed has become repetitive, yet cannot clearly specify what they want instead. We refer to this state as vague intent. We present Red-Rec, an AI-supported exploration interface for this middle ground. After a period of browsing, the system summarizes patterns in the current feed (e.g., dominant content categories and possible latent interests), offers clickable exploration options, asks at most one follow-up question, and then gradually blends new content into the feed. The design is motivated by a formative study which found that users often recognize feed staleness but struggle to articulate alternatives, suggesting the need for proactive and low-effort interaction.We evaluated Red-Rec in a mixed-design lab study against three comparison conditions: a passive feed, search, and a user-initiated chat interface. Compared with user-initiated chat, Red-Rec led to broader exploration, higher serendipity ratings, and lower interaction effort. Participants in the AI-initiated condition typed very little , relying mainly on option selection, whereas participants in the user-initiated chat condition typed substantially more . We discuss how proactive, option-based AI support can help users move beyond repetitive feeds without undermining their sense of control, and we outline design implications for recommendation interfaces that support open-ended exploration.
Figures & tables
| Intent Type | Current Interface | User State |
|---|---|---|
| No intent | Recommendation feed | "Just browsing" |
| Vague intent | (Unserved) | "Bored but can’t say what I want" |
| Explicit intent | Search | "Weekend trips near Beijing" |
| Condition | Description |
|---|---|
| FEED | Standard two-column masonry feed with pull-to-refresh. No exploration tools. |
| SEARCH | Feed + a search bar supporting keyword and category-based filtering. Search results supplement or replace the current feed. |
| USER-CHAT | Feed + a chat panel. The AI does not initiate; it displays a prompt ("How can I help you?") and responds only after user input. No options are auto-generated. Same LLM backend as AI-INIT. |
| AI-INIT | Full Red-Rec : AI proactively analyzes the feed, surfaces insights, offers clickable options, follows up with guided narrowing, and gradually blends new content. |
| Measure | FEED | SEARCH | USER | AI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breadth (# cat.) | 2.8 (0.9) | 4.6 (1.4) a | 4.1 (1.7) a | 7.4 (1.8) abc |
| Diversity gain ( ) | 0.12 (0.18) | 0.58 (0.31) a | 0.43 (0.35) a | 1.24 (0.41) abc |
| Bubble-breaking (%) | 8.2 (7.1) | 22.6 (12.4) a | 18.9 (14.3) | 48.7 (15.2) abc |
| Serendipity (1–7) | 2.86 (0.93) | 3.64 (1.02) a | 4.31 (1.18) ab | 5.72 (0.84) abc |
| Measure | FEED | SEARCH | USER | AI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived effort (1–7, ) | — | — | 4.52 (1.21) | 2.74 (0.89) c |
| Expression cost (chars) | 0 | 18.4 (22.1) | 73.2 (41.6) | 6.1 (12.8) c |
| Time to 1st discovery (s) | 412 (187) | 198 (94) a | 247 (126) a | 89 (43) abc |
| Tool engagement (%, first 5 min) | — | 71.4 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
| Measure | USER-CHAT | AI-INIT |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived control (1–7) | 4.89 (1.08) | 5.14 (0.92) |
| Sense of agency (1–7) | 4.07 (1.22) | 5.43 (0.87) ∗ |
| SUS (0–100) | 68.2 (12.4) | 78.6 (9.1) ∗ |
| AI proactivity acceptability (1–7) | 4.18 (1.31) | 5.61 (0.96) ∗ |
| , independent-samples -test. | ||
Human-AI Interaction
Human-AI interaction studies how people and AI systems communicate, collaborate, make decisions, and shape one another over time.
See all 329 papers