Human-Ai Interaction

Improving the Theory of Mind (ToM) capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for effective social interactions between these AI models and humans. However, the existing benchmarks often measure ToM capability improvement through story-reading, multiple-choice questions from a third-person perspective, while ignoring the first-person, dynamic, and open-ended nature of human-AI (HAI) interactions. To directly examine how ToM improvement techniques benefit HAI interactions, we first proposed the new paradigm of interactive ToM evaluation with both perspective and metric shifts. Next, following the paradigm, we conducted a systematic study of four representative ToM enhancement techniques using both four real-world datasets and a user study, covering both goal-oriented tasks (e.g., coding, math) and experience-oriented tasks (e.g., counseling). Our findings reveal that improvements on static benchmarks do not always translate to better performance in dynamic HAI interactions. This paper offers critical insights into ToM evaluation, showing the necessity of interaction-based assessments in developing next-generation, socially aware LLMs for HAI symbiosis.

We present four conceptual value-sensitive AI systems to examine how the presence of AI could influence praying experiences. Drawing on key values and practices associated with praying identified through a diary study, we designed AI systems intended to "assist" prayer practices. These designs were presented to participants through speculative design workbooks, serving as provocations to co-reflect on how the intervention of AI systems might shape their praying experiences. Our findings suggest that a sense of authenticity (or feeling a genuine connection to the divine) is a crucial value, while the presence of AI was often perceived as diminishing this authenticity, particularly when AI assumed too much agency in guiding praying practices. Based on our findings, we argue that AI system designs for deeply value-laden experiences should preserve users' agency in shaping their own experiences by maintaining interpretive openness, perhaps by leveraging AI's inexplicability as a resource for personal meaning-making or by recognizing non-use of AI as a legitimate design choice.

Modern AI assistants are trained to follow instructions, implicitly assuming that users can clearly articulate their goals and the kind of assistance they need. Decades of behavioral research, however, show that people often engage with AI systems before their goals are fully formed. When AI systems treat prompts as complete expressions of intent, they can appear to be useful or convenient, but not necessarily aligned with the users' needs. We call these failures Fantasia interactions. We argue that Fantasia interactions demand a rethinking of alignment research: rather than treating users as rational oracles, AI should provide cognitive support by actively helping users form and refine their intent through time. This requires an interdisciplinary approach that bridges machine learning, interface design, and behavioral science. We synthesize insights from these fields to characterize the mechanisms and failures of Fantasia interactions. We then show why existing interventions are insufficient, and propose a research agenda for designing and evaluating AI systems that better help humans navigate uncertainty in their tasks.

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed how humans access information, but not how we reason with it. Their fluency accelerates consumption while bypassing the slow, reflective processes that underpin sound judgment. This paper introduces Relational Reflective Intelligence (RRI), an inference-time governance layer that operationalizes reflection through auditable reasoning loops. RRI operates not inside the model but around it, providing a practical structure for stable, auditable reasoning between humans and LLMs. The core premise is that LLMs inherit cognitive vulnerabilities similar to those that shape human thought: reliance on intuitive shortcuts, confusion between representation and reality, and a preference for coherence over falsification. When humans and models share these tendencies, their errors compound. We refer to this as relational drift, a failure that arises from interaction rather than from the model alone. Addressing this requires a shift from modeling relations between words to structuring relations between model outputs and human reasoning. RRI provides this missing layer through three components: the Rose-Frame, which identifies likely breakdowns in reasoning; the Architect's Pen, which introduces targeted reflection steps at critical moments; and an inference-time workflow that embeds these steps without retraining the model. Together, these elements transform human-AI interaction into a joint reasoning system with explicit checkpoints, conflict surfacing, and an auditable trail of assumptions. Rather than making machines think like humans or forcing humans to reason like machines, RRI creates a structured interaction in which both compensate for each other's limitations. It reframes AI safety as a cognitive architecture problem, where reliable decisions depend on embedding reflection directly into the interaction process.

AI design characteristics and human personality traits each impact the quality and outcomes of human-AI interactions. However, their relative and joint impacts are underexplored in imperfectly cooperative scenarios, where people and AI only have partially aligned goals and objectives. This study compares a purely simulated dataset comprising 2,000 simulations and a parallel human subjects experiment involving 290 human participants to investigate these effects across two scenario categories: (1) hiring negotiations between human job candidates and AI hiring agents; and (2) human-AI transactions wherein AI agents may conceal information to maximize internal goals. We examine user Extraversion and Agreeableness alongside AI design characteristics, including Adaptability, Expertise, and chain-of-thought Transparency. Our causal discovery analysis extends performance-focused evaluations by integrating scenario-based outcomes, communication analysis, and questionnaire measures. Results reveal divergences between purely simulated and human study datasets, and between scenario types. In simulation experiments, personality traits and AI attributes were comparatively influential. Yet, with actual human subjects, AI attributes -- particularly transparency -- were much more impactful. We discuss how these divergences vary across different interaction contexts, offering crucial insights for the future of human-centered AI agents.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in everyday life brings with it new challenges and questions for regarding how humans interact with autonomous agents. Multi-agent experiments, where humans and AI act together, can offer important opportunities to study social decision making, but there is a lack of accessible tooling available to researchers to run such experiments. We introduce two tools designed to reduce these barriers. The first, CoGrid, is a multi-agent grid-based simulation library with dual NumPy and JAX backends. The second, Multi-User Gymnasium (MUG), translates such simulation environments directly into interactive web-based experiments. MUG supports interactions with arbitrary numbers of humans and AI, utilizing either server-authoritative or peer-to-peer networking with rollback netcode to account for latency. Together, these tools can enable researchers to deploy studies of human-AI interaction, facilitating inquiry into core questions of psychology, cognition, and decision making and their relationship to human-AI interaction. Both tools are open source and available to the broader research community. Documentation and source code is available at {cogrid, multi-user-gymnasium}.readthedocs.io. This paper details the functionality of these tools and presents several case studies to illustrate their utility in human-AI multi-agent experimentation.

Large language models have advanced rapidly, from pattern recognition to emerging forms of reasoning, yet they remain confined to linguistic simulation rather than grounded understanding. They can produce fluent outputs that resemble reflection, but lack temporal continuity, causal feedback, and anchoring in real-world interaction. This paper proposes a complementary approach in which reasoning is treated as a relational process distributed between human and model rather than an internal capability of either. Building on recent work on "System-2" learning, we relocate reflective reasoning to the interaction layer. Instead of engineering reasoning solely within models, we frame it as a cognitive protocol that can be structured, measured, and governed using existing systems. This perspective emphasizes collaborative intelligence, combining human judgment and contextual understanding with machine speed, memory, and associative capacity. We introduce "The Architect's Pen" as a practical method. Like an architect who thinks through drawing, the human uses the model as an external medium for structured reflection. By embedding phases of articulation, critique, and revision into human-AI interaction, the dialogue itself becomes a reasoning loop: human abstraction -> model articulation -> human reflection. This reframes the question from whether the model can think to whether the human-AI system can reason. The framework enables auditable reasoning traces and supports alignment with emerging governance standards, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001. It provides a practical path toward more transparent, controllable, and accountable AI use without requiring new model architectures.

Writing longer prompts for an AI assistant to generate a story increases psychological ownership, a user's feeling that the writing belongs to them. To encourage users to write longer prompts, we evaluated two interaction techniques that modify the prompt entry interface of chat-based generative AI assistants: pressing and holding the prompt submission button, and continuously moving a slider up and down when submitting a short prompt. A within-subjects experiment investigated the effects of such techniques on prompt length and psychological ownership, and results showed that these techniques increased prompt length and led to higher psychological ownership than baseline techniques. A second experiment further augmented these techniques by showing AI-generated suggestions for how the prompts could be expanded. This further increased prompt length, but did not lead to improvements in psychological ownership. Our results show that simple interface modifications like these can elicit more writing from users and improve psychological ownership.

AI copilots represent a new generation of AI-powered systems designed to assist users, particularly knowledge workers and developers, in complex, context-rich tasks. As these systems become more embedded in daily workflows, personalization has emerged as a critical factor for improving usability, effectiveness, and user satisfaction. Central to this personalization is preference optimization: the system's ability to detect, interpret, and align with individual user preferences. While prior work in intelligent assistants and optimization algorithms is extensive, their intersection within AI copilots remains underexplored. This survey addresses that gap by examining how user preferences are operationalized in AI copilots. We investigate how preference signals are sourced, modeled across different interaction stages, and refined through feedback loops. Building on a comprehensive literature review, we define the concept of an AI copilot and introduce a taxonomy of preference optimization techniques across pre-, mid-, and post-interaction phases. Each technique is evaluated in terms of advantages, limitations, and design implications. By consolidating fragmented efforts across AI personalization, human-AI interaction, and language model adaptation, this work offers both a unified conceptual foundation and a practical design perspective for building user-aligned, persona-aware AI copilots that support end-to-end adaptability and deployment.

The serious games between humans and AI have only just begun. Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) models the competitive and cooperative strategies of biological entities. EGT could help predict the potential evolutionary equilibrium of humans and AI. The objective of this work was to examine EGT models relevant to human-AI interaction, evolution, and co-evolution. Of thirteen EGT models considered, three were examined: the Hawk-Dove Game, Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and the War of Attrition. This selection was based on the widespread acceptance and clear relevance of these models to potential human-AI evolutionary dynamics and co-evolutionary trajectories. The Hawk-Dove Game predicts balanced mixed-strategy equilibria based on the costs of conflict. Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that repeated interaction may lead to cognitive co-evolution. The War of Attrition suggests that competition for resources may result in strategic co-evolution, asymmetric equilibria, and conventions on sharing resources. Each model was examined from the perspective of human and AI decision-making, from psychological and biological perspectives, and from an AI viewpoint. AI is being shaped by human input and is evolving in response to it. So too, neuroplasticity allows the human brain to evolve in response to stimuli. If humans and AI converge in future, what might be the result of human neuroplasticity combined with an ever-evolving AI? There are profound ethical and cognitive implications. EGT may provide a suitable framework to understand and predict human-AI interaction, evolution, and co-evolution. However, future research should extend beyond EGT and explore additional frameworks, empirical validation methods, and interdisciplinary perspectives. In the spirit of further exploration, an illustrative computational simulation is provided.

Metaphors play a critical role in shaping user experiences with Voice User Interfaces (VUIs), yet existing designs often rely on static, human-centric metaphors that fail to adapt to diverse contexts and user needs. This paper introduces Metaphor-Fluid Design, a novel approach that dynamically adjusts metaphorical representations based on conversational use-contexts. We compare this approach to a Default VUI, which characterizes the present implementation of commercial VUIs commonly designed around the persona of an assistant, offering a uniform interaction style across contexts. In Study 1 (N=130), metaphors were mapped to four key use-contexts-commands, information seeking, sociality, and error recovery-along the dimensions of formality and hierarchy, revealing distinct preferences for task-specific metaphorical designs. Study 2 (N=91) evaluates a Metaphor-Fluid VUI against a Default VUI, showing that the Metaphor-Fluid VUI enhances perceived intention to adopt, enjoyment, and likability by aligning better with user expectations for different contexts. However, individual differences in metaphor preferences highlight the need for personalization. These findings challenge the one-size-fits-all paradigm of VUI design and demonstrate the potential of Metaphor-Fluid Design to create more adaptive and engaging human-AI interactions.