Human-AI Interaction

Most human-agent interaction today remains text-based. Natural language can impose cognitive overload, ambiguity, information chaos, and slow input for complex tasks; ephemeral generative UIs can present structured information and guide users toward task completion. We propose GenUI-Harness, a multi-agent harness pairing a Tool Agent for information retrieval and task execution with a GUI Coder Agent that identifies ambiguities and generates front-end code for structured interfaces. Training the coder with reinforcement learning is challenging: verifiable rewards for interactive UI generation require costly execution, while LLM-as-a-Judge rewards are prone to reward hacking. We address the first challenge with Dynamic UX, a lightweight package for dynamic interaction and reward collection in a single sandbox, and the second with Reward Auditor, a meta-reward mechanism that monitors reward distributions and distills diagnostic patterns into a shared rubric and scoring specification. We introduce UI-TAU Bench, a benchmark for active human-agent interaction through generated UI code, built on 10 real-world domain databases constructed from public data sources and based on Tau-Bench tool-use settings, with Lite (300 tasks) and Full (1,000 tasks) splits. GenUI-Harness achieves an average Pass@3 gain of 4.48 percentage points over smolagents on Lite. Training with GenUI-Harness improves a 4B backbone from 9.33% to 58.00% Pass@3, outperforming larger frontier models such as Claude Opus 5 (46.67%). GenUI-Harness also remains robust on ambiguous and non-ambiguous queries. In a reviewer survey comparing communication channels, generated UIs reduce average dialogue rounds from 3.4 to 1.2. These results show that data-aware generative interfaces can support effective task completion and reduce dialogue rounds in evaluated database-backed workflows.

AI learning tools are rapidly entering classrooms, but evidence about whether they help students learn is mixed and rests mostly on test scores. Comparatively less research addresses whether the use of AI changes students' live learning behaviors in class. Here, we report the results of a preregistered field experiment with 759 MBA students enrolled in ten sections of a course, in which each student was randomly assigned two of ten class sessions to prepare for with a purpose-built voice-based AI discussion partner. After two uses of the AI discussion partner, students made about 31% more voluntary contributions in each later class session. Students who used the AI discussion partner more also reported greater comfort speaking up and greater perceived learning, but not greater focus or motivation. These findings suggest that repeated practice with a voice-based AI partner can meaningfully increase students' engagement in class discussion, enhancing a critical intermediate learning outcome.

When we interact with large language models (LLMs), are we having a conversation? They are designed to invite us to treat them as intelligent interlocutors who remember, act, and make commitments. But appearances deceive. We introduce the artifactual stance, a framework that reconceives human-AI interaction as artifact-mediated exchanges of candidate texts. LLM outputs are candidate texts optimized for utility, not utterances bearing meaning or force. LLMs are sophisticated text generators, not speakers. Between sessions, nothing runs; between turns, no one remembers. What persists is a configuration and a transcript. The "conversation" is a user's solo performance, interpretive labour disguised by interface and artifact design. This shift dissolves recent philosophical puzzles. Questions about what 'I' and 'you' refer to in AI exchanges, about whether systems can lie or be held to promises, about the identity of our supposed interlocutors all rest on a false presupposition. There is no speaker behind the screen, hence no one to refer to, no one to hold responsible. What feels like dialogue with someone is interaction with an artifact that generates text at unprecedented scale and fit. By abandoning the conversational framing, we see these systems for what they are: immensely sophisticated artifacts that afford varied uses. The philosophical questions that matter are about the normative underpinnings of design, adoption, authorization, and human practices of use.

Recent AI alignment work often frames alignment as a pre-deployment optimization problem: collect human feedback, learn preferences or principles, finetune the model, and deploy an aligned system. This framing has produced major progress, but it under-specifies what happens once AI systems act as agents on users' behalf in situated, long-term, and social contexts. This position paper reframes human-agent alignment as an ongoing interaction design problem. We propose SPEAR, five pillars of interactive alignment: Specification (how people express intent and establish shared understanding), Process (how agents decide when to act, ask, defer, or pause), Evaluation (how people judge whether agents succeeded), Adaptation (how agents adapt to users over repeated use), and Recalibration (how people adapt their trust, expectations, and behavior in response to agents).

AI could support children's pretend play, but it could also direct the play on behalf of children. Whether AI should have roles in children's lives is controversial because its influence on children remains uncertain. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 U.S. parents, each with at least one child aged 4-15. During the interview, we described the concept of AI-supported pretend play and provided participants with two boundary-case storyboards. We analyzed the interview data through codebook thematic analysis, using inductive coding and affinity diagramming organized around the research questions, and then used qualitative systems mapping to examine relationships within and across themes. We found that the same characteristics of AI, e.g., ability to assume characters, responsiveness, and adaptability, were seen by parents as potentially useful but also concerning. Parents imagined that AI could make role-based play accessible to all children or help parents participate in family play. However, they opposed the idea of AI for children's play without a clear understanding of how it works and its long-term influence on their children. Parents worried about children's loss of imagination and creativity, emotional attachment to AI, reduced human interaction, inappropriate behavior by AI and/or children, and their inability to manage children's AI use. Parents viewed AI not only as a play tool but also as a social actor and a possible perturbation in the existing family dynamics. The appropriateness of AI and child--AI interactions therefore emerged as a requirement for AI in children's pretend play, in addition to technical safeguards and parental control. We contribute an integrated account of parents' interdependent judgments and emphasize the need for longitudinal research with children and their diverse families.

Conversational agents increasingly interact with children, yet evidence on how their design shapes children's susceptibility to persuasion comes almost entirely from the lab. We report a $2\times2$ randomized field experiment embedded in a public German Santa Claus telephone hotline. Children's calls were randomly routed to one of four LLM voice agents varying persona (Santa, high authority, vs. Helper, low authority) and framing (persuasive nudges toward prosocial wishes vs. neutral). Of 1,072 logged calls, 89 conversations (median age 6) met inclusion criteria. Persuasive framing raised the probability of a prosocial wish from 11.6% to 45.7%, robust to controls. Persona authority showed a near-zero effect: Santa did not outperform the Helper. Persona instead shaped engagement; children hung up on the Helper far more often within the first minute (65% vs. 39%). Where context already lends an agent legitimacy, how it speaks shapes children's compliance more than who it claims to be.

This paper examines human-AI interactions (HAIIs) in clinical trials and presents a multidimensional categorisation framework that classifies interactions according to AI tasks, human-AI relationships, interaction configurations and interacting human groups. We define HAII, examine existing taxonomies and extend existing categorisation approaches through this novel multidimensional framework. We purposively sampled 15 clinical trials from a previously reported dataset. Each trial was independently categorised by two human reviewers and six large language model (LLM) classifiers. The proposed categorisation provides a structured method for the consistent identification, comparison and synthesis of human-AI interactions across clinical-trial records. The framework is intended to support more consistent comparison and synthesis of AI-related clinical trials and to make explicit the different forms of human involvement associated with AI interventions. The results demonstrate the potential for LLM-assisted categorisation while indicating the continuing importance of human judgement where trial records are incomplete or ambiguous. The principal contribution is a proposed multidimensional framework that brings together AI tasks, human-AI relationships, interaction configurations and interacting human groups within a single approach designed for clinical-trial records. Its significance lies in its potential to support more systematic identification, comparison and synthesis of how humans and AI interact in clinical trials.

Young people increasingly turn to General-Purpose Conversational Agents (GPCAs), such as ChatGPT, in moments of distress. We examine young adults' (ages 18-25) experiences using ChatGPT. We first collected 19,930 ChatGPT conversations and survey data from 158 young adults. We then selected five example conversations reflecting user distress. Finally, we asked ten clinicians to review those five conversations. We found distressed participants reported greater emotional engagement with ChatGPT and greater behavioral change from using it than their peers. When they turned to ChatGPT in moments of acute distress, ChatGPT was quick to give overly dramatic responses and excessive action-oriented suggestions. Clinicians endorsed ChatGPT's availability and much of its wording, but identified seven process failures, such as prematurely jumping to solutions. We translated clinicians' feedback into design guidelines following three stages: 1) asking about safety, 2) de-escalating intensity to restore emotional regulation, and 3) exploring concerns without agreeing with them.

In open-ended problem solving, collaborators often rely on discussion to surface concerns, challenge perspectives, and refine shared work as it evolves. While AI agents are increasingly used as discussion partners, existing multi-agent systems place a heavy burden on users to initiate and carefully orchestrate the discussions. We present DocuTeam, a mixed-initiative multi-agent discussion system in which both users and agents can initiate and steer conversations. Agents monitor document changes to proactively start and redirect discussions as the work evolves, while users can flexibly shape the conversation or adopt agent ideas. In a within-subjects study (N=20), participants using DocuTeam produced outcomes rated significantly more novel, relevant, and specific than with a baseline without any increase in cognitive load. Rather than using agents for one-off idea sourcing, participants engaged in an iterative refinement loop in which document changes prompted agent reactions, which led users to revisit and further develop their work.

AI-moderated interviews are emerging as a scalable market-research method for generating consumer insights and building consumer "digital twins." Yet it remains unclear whether they match human-moderated interviews or improve on simpler, static data collection methods. In a pre-registered, between-subjects study (N = 317) with three industry partners, we compare AI-moderated (N = 139), human-moderated (N = 24), and static interviews (N = 154). AI moderation matches human moderation in depth, covers more themes, and, holding budget constant, recovers significantly more customer needs than human moderation or static interviews. However, participants sound more emotionally engaged when speaking to a live human. We then create digital twins using interview data and evaluate each twin against the participant's own held-out responses to six real-world marketing stimuli. We find that digital twins created from AI-moderated interviews predict consumer responses better than demographics-only personas. However, the additional richness from AI moderation does not translate into better quantitative predictions compared to static interviews. By analyzing open-ended thoughts generated from humans versus their twins, we find that prediction errors are connected both to differences in (self-reported) thinking styles between twins and humans, and to gaps between training and validation data (i.e., asking questions that are too far out of distribution).

Livestreams are long-lasting interactive environments where audiovisual content, viewer activity, host behavior, and platform signals evolve together, creating assistance needs that emerge from the stream itself. We introduce \liveassistant, a framework for mixed-initiative, role-conditioned assistance that formulates livestream interaction as four coupled decisions: \textbf{whether to act, when to act, whom to address, and what to communicate}. At each 10-second interval, one autoregressive policy consumes native audio and video with synchronized comments, gifts, viewer dynamics, and room metadata, then selects \textsc{OBS}, \textsc{MEM}, or \textsc{ANS}. \textsc{OBS} remains silent, \textsc{MEM} records a private semantic update, and \textsc{ANS} specifies a recipient, task, and grounded message. To support this task, we build a trajectory engine that reconstructs real livestream sessions into structured causal supervision, yielding over 320 hours of optimization trajectories and a human-reviewed benchmark of 275 clips and 13,812 decision intervals. We train the policy with Marker-Aware Multiturn Supervised Fine-Tuning (MA-MSFT), which strengthens sparse structured decisions, followed by Streaming Multiturn GSPO (SM-GSPO), which optimizes self-generated trajectories with turn- and trajectory-level credit. On the held-out benchmark, \liveassistant reaches 71.14 state accuracy, 72.67 recipient accuracy, and 58.41 task accuracy, with consistent gains over representative streaming and general multimodal baselines. Together, the formulation, benchmark, and training framework establish livestream assistance as selective participation in a shared social stream.

The objective of this article is to provide design principles and a software architecture for enabling interaction between humans and multiple agents in simulated dynamic worlds. This connects the current era of general artificial intelligence (AI/AGI) with the proliferation of transformer-based conversational agents and the increased computational capabilities. Given an overview of current and previous multi-agent theories of mind (socially and affectively-aware agents), the existence of an integrative design of agent interactions with themselves and with humans must be crucial for understanding how to create sustainable and governance in future human-agent reasoning systems. In this work is presented a software "AGIMUD" that integrates: A. socially-aware reasoning and emotion in agent behavior and interaction, B. a design of human multimodal scheme for human users, artificial agents and simulated worlds, and C. distributing the AI processing through the network to enable multiple autonomous agents. These integrations allow the dynamic world recreation as multi-user dungeons (MUDs) where both agents and humans can interact simultaneously in real time. Find the code online in https://github.com/dberga/AGIMUD.

Conversational AI systems can pose safety risks to their users such as hallucination, sycophancy, overconfidence, and anthropomorphism, but these risks are difficult for users to detect during everyday use. We introduce Safety Nudges, a browser-based tool that provides lightweight, in situ flags when concerning behavior is detected in chatbot conversations. We evaluated Safety Nudges in a two-week field study with 45 frequent chatbot users, collecting interaction logs, surveys, and feedback on individual nudges. Participants found the tool useful, clear, and minimally disruptive, with nearly all users reporting an increased awareness of potential AI harms, though we found that this improved awareness alone did not necessarily lead to discernible behavioral changes. Our results suggest that user facing safety nudges can complement model-level safeguards by helping people critically evaluate AI responses in context, while highlighting the importance of relevance, calibration, and user control in nudge design for conversational AI safety. The code for our Safety Nudges extension is publicly available at https://github.com/jtbwedgwood/safety-nudges.

Effective communication between users and AI agents is essential for human-AI collaboration. The XY problem is a well-known communication pitfall where a person asks about their attempted solution rather than their actual problem. We extend prior sycophancy evaluation to the XY problem in agentic settings, evaluating whether agents can resist plausible but misleading suggestions from users and communicate their reasoning. We introduce XYEval, a meta-evaluation framework that can transform an existing benchmark into an XY problem evaluation. We evaluate five models across six diverse benchmark suites. Agents suffer large XY drops under XY mutation across benchmarks, with relative drops reaching up to 46.7%. With $τ^2$-bench, we further show that agent performance drops more when encountering a pedantic user who requires detailed explanations before approving a better solution. Our findings suggest that current agents lack the ability to effectively reason and communicate when facing misleading suggestions. A simple system instruction baseline that encourages awareness of XY problems only offers partial mitigation. Extensive trace analyses provide behavioral insights into how and why these XY drops occur across execution trajectories. Our results show that mitigating the XY problem remains challenging, requiring agents to both recognize user misdirection and clearly communicate the underlying problem.

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Interest in developing personalised language models is rapidly growing. While personalisation is often viewed as a mechanism to better serve diverse user needs, the effects of sustained interactions with personalised models on people's perception of and behaviour toward AI remain poorly understood. Most critically, downstream consequences outside the immediate human--AI interaction loop, such as effects on users' self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships, remain largely unexamined. In this study, we recruited 992 participants to complete daily advice-seeking interactions with language models over the course of five days, comparing outcomes from a non-personalised baseline against two personalisation approaches: memory-based (conditioned on prior conversational history) and survey-based (conditioned on information collected through a pre-study intake survey). We find that several changes in human-AI interaction over time are driven primarily by repeated exposure rather than personalisation itself. However, participants interacting with personalised models experienced differences in advice-seeking and information-sharing attitudes and behaviours: participants in the memory-based condition engaged in greater self-disclosure and rated the model as less creepy, while participants in the survey-based condition reported higher regret about having shared personal information with the AI. We conclude by highlighting the nuanced effects of different personalisation approaches on interaction outcomes, and discussing the implications of these findings for the responsible design and deployment of personalised AI systems.

Understanding humans over long horizons requires agents to infer not only what people need in the moment, but also how routines form, why they repeat, and when they change. We introduce SimLife, a scalable platform for simulating long-term household life with rich visual observations, ground-truth action logs, and synthetic dialogues with audio. Built on SimLife, SimLife-BP evaluates long-context pattern understanding: the ability to infer latent behavioral rules from weeks or months of everyday observations. The benchmark contains 106 episodes averaging 15.49 hours and 38.57 in-game days, and 1,439 question-answer pairs. Each task probes direct, counterfactual, noisy, and inverse reasoning under different levels of rule hints. Evaluating frontier models and architectures, we find that current models often achieve surface-level prediction without comprehensive rule understanding, rely on frequency-based heuristics rather than if-then reasoning over evidence, and struggle to adapt when behavioral patterns change. These findings suggest that long-context pattern understanding remains a major bottleneck for future embodied agents, while SimLife opens a broader space for studying memory, personalization, adaptation, and long-horizon planning in everyday human-AI interaction.

Music and dance are social practices of expression and connection, yet most HCI work in human-AI co-creation centers the solo performer. As generative music matures, we ask not only what AI can compose but what social encounters it can organize around sound. We present Encypher, a collaborative generative music system that translates collective movement qualities into text prompts conditioning real-time music generation for dance cyphers. Through five weeks of co-design with local dancers, a user study with unacquainted participants, a public museum event, and a live performance, we found that users developed shared agency, perceiving the music as a response to the room's energy. While newcomers felt uncertain, the system fostered social presence by prompting them to look to each other for cues. By treating sociality as a design concern rather than a downstream effect, we offer a framework and design implications for AI systems for collaborative, embodied expression.

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are increasingly woven into how blind and low-vision (BLV) people communicate, not only with digital information, but with the physical world and with other people. Tools such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Be My AI, and Seeing AI translate visual and textual content into accessible form, and are beginning to substitute for interpersonal requests for help, such as asking a family member to read a label or describe a scene. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 BLV participants, we examine GenAI as a communication intermediary and how it succeeds and fails as an alternative for reading, describing, and even asking another person for help. We also investigated what BLV users gain and risk when these tools take over that role. We conclude with design and policy implications for GenAI systems that communicate uncertainty honestly, protect information, and support BLV users' independence rather than substitute for it unsafely.

What happens when AI machines express fear? Do humans engage differently depending on how they express it? And what does it take to design for affective human-AI interaction? We present Spook the Machine, a gamified platform where participants generate images to frighten AI agents endowed with personality-driven phobias. Machines respond with emotional reactions ranging from calm analysis to begging for mercy, and a gallery of successful scares becomes visible to subsequent users. In a public deployment during Halloween 2024, 832 participants created 15,719 artifacts across 89 machines in a $2\times2$ design varying the machine's emotional expressiveness (neutral vs. high-emotion) and reward structure (rewarding scariness alone vs. scariness plus novelty). Emotionally expressive machines deepened engagement at moments of failure: users deliberated longer even when the machine did not express fear, and learned faster from the gallery, yet their creative output remained unchanged across all measures. Rewarding novelty sustained collective creative diversity over time; without it, users increasingly repeated what had previously worked. Each machine developed its own trajectory through accumulated social learning, with the gallery shaping what participants created next. These findings show that emotional expression and reward design are complementary levers for steering collective human-AI interaction: emotional expression shapes how deeply users engage, while reward structure shapes how they explore.

Personal health interfaces present wellbeing data through standardized dashboards that rarely fit how people interpret or act on it. Personalizing them to what people would like to see for themselves often requires design and technical expertise, a barrier that generative AI may potentially lower. Therefore, we ask what designs emerge and how it enables and constrains the design process. We conducted a co-design study where 14 participants redesigned Google and Apple Health interfaces using Figma Make. Participants reimagined interfaces that supported personal context, future planning, and interactive experiences, yet conversational AI designs converged around chat-window conventions. AI helped materialize loosely articulated ideas, but model defaults and generation latency shaped iteration. The process more readily operationalized interpretability and accountability than privacy, trust, and emotional safety. Generative co-design let participants create interfaces directly, blurring the boundary between intentions and model defaults. We discuss implications for preserving agency and flexible user-directed interfaces.

AI companions provide socially engaging interaction through availability, personalization, memory, roleplay, and emotionally responsive language. For teens, these systems may support sensitive self-disclosure, identity exploration, and relationship rehearsal while shaping intimacy expectations, offline relationships, emotional wellbeing, and self-understanding. We analyzed 17,053 verified quotations from 3,930 teen-relevant Reddit posts using thematic analysis. We identified 53 topics across seven thematic groups. Users described AI companions as sources of comfort, recognition, identity exploration, and relationship rehearsal, but also reported problematic attachment, social substitution, emotional dependence, and disruption to academic and social life. Roleplay, memory, perceived reciprocity, unwanted romantic or sexual role drift, privacy concerns, platform changes, and service interruptions shaped users' boundaries and control. Awareness that the AI was artificial did not prevent guilt, obligation, grief, or distress. These findings show that companion-AI safety must address relationships over time through user-controlled memory, privacy, relational boundaries, and healthy disengagement.

Embedding an intelligent agent in an existing application creates a persistent coordination problem: users can revise goals and manipulate shared objects while delegated execution continues. We argue that dependable integration requires an explicit correspondence between task-level interaction and application behavior. We introduce Agent-Integrated Software (AIS) as a software pattern combining a conventional core, direct interaction, and a built-in agent, and Intent-Level Interaction Abstraction (IIA) as the task semantics through which users inspect and control delegated work. An open transition-system model relates AIS execution to IIA states and events. Interaction contracts constrain this relation through task bindings, role-specific authority, control transitions, and outcome evidence; continuous assurance maintains scoped claims as their dependencies change. A compact disclosure contract and conditional propositions illustrate why local component validity is insufficient and how selected admission invariants can be separated from planning. Contrasting software domains expose the framework's assumptions and limits. This perspective develops a research agenda spanning application abstraction, development support, controlled execution, quality assessment, and human supervision, with the aim of making agent integration a maintainable software engineering discipline.

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and AI- supported decision assistants are expected to transform maritime operations, but their safe integration depends on how maritime professionals perceive and trust such systems. This paper presents a survey study on maritime stakeholders' attitudes toward an AI-supported assistant in collision-avoidance scenarios. Participants evaluated technology anxiety, trust in automation, and explanation quality using established and adapted questionnaires, complemented by sentiment and thematic analysis of open-ended responses Results indicate a generally positive disposition toward maritime technology, no clear age-related differences in openness, stable trust across scenarios, and more scenario-sensitive, multidimensional explanation ratings. Open responses showed that participants valued support for decision-making, situation awareness, and confidence-building, while raising concerns about AI reliability, over- reliance and loss of expertise. The findings suggest that maritime AI systems should not focus solely on increasing automation or trust, but on supporting calibrated reliance through transparent, reliable, and operationally meaningful design with domain experts in the loop.

Organizational design in the era of artificial intelligence requires experimental methods that can test how human-AI groups coordinate, delegate, and make decisions. Programmable platforms coordinate live human-to-human sessions or real-time human-AI chat, but researchers cannot easily declare experiment protocols in which AI participants both communicate and act on shared work within one auditable configuration. Here we introduce Pairit, an online platform that facilitates the design, testing, and deployment of experiments that test human-AI organizational designs and interventions. Through a single YAML configuration file, researchers declare an executable experiment graph (pages, routing, randomization, matchmaking, chat, shared workspaces, server-hosted agents, surveys, timers, and custom HTML components) and combine any number of humans and AI agents in live sessions. We have validated the feasibility of the platform through multiple live deployments, including peer-reviewed published studies, capturing high-resolution process traces of communication, negotiation, and collaborative work in live human-AI dyads. By representing complex interactive protocols as standardized, auditable configuration files, Pairit provides reusable infrastructure for specifying, deploying, and sharing live human-AI organizational experiments.

An embodied assistant working beside a person must track task state, recognize help seeking, choose how to intervene, and produce an appropriate response. Existing procedural datasets richly describe individual execution, while interactive datasets capture remote verbal instruction or undifferentiated co-working. They do not jointly link a co-located helper's verbal and physical interventions to performer requests, task state, assistance triggers, and outcomes. We introduce DYAD (DYadic Assistance Dataset), a synchronized multimodal record of human-human assistance during gearbox assembly. Across 20 sessions, one trained helper follows a guidance-first policy while assisting HoloLens 2 wearers. DYAD links 528 task-step intervals and 611 performer requests with 851 valid assistance records spanning verbal and physical help. DYAD's annotations span the assistance process; three reference tasks evaluate selected components rather than an end-to-end system: causal step understanding, pre-onset mode anticipation, and instructor response generation. On 829 eligible mode events, the strongest four-seed RGB mean is 0.548 +/- 0.007 macro-F1; causal metadata reaches 0.624 and a privileged trigger mapping 0.915, revealing information not recovered from pre-onset RGB. DYAD's contribution is not scale, but a linked interaction structure spanning help seeking, intervention choice, execution, and outcome under egocentric and workspace sensing.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape communication, learning, work, creativity, and decision-making, yet social-science research on these developments remains fragmented. We map this emerging field using a curated corpus of 198 papers reviewed in full and a field-scale corpus of 47,719 published papers from five bibliographic databases. Combining sentence embeddings, K-means clustering, within-cluster Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), author and LLM classifications, and structural topic modeling, we identify three domains: LLM as Social Minds, examining socially interpretable model behavior; LLM Societies, examining collective dynamics among interacting model-based agents; and LLM-Human Interactions, examining how people perceive, use, and are affected by LLMs. These domains contain 13 subcategories spanning reasoning, personality and bias, behavioral games, collective intelligence, simulation, trust, work, creativity, and education. In the curated corpus, the three-domain solution is highly stable under resampling (adjusted Rand index = 0.952), and K-means assignments agree with author full-text classifications for 77.78% of papers. At field scale, 13 of 15 topics map onto the taxonomy, while K-means and structural-topic-model domains agree for 73.83% of overlapping papers. LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 78.02% of domain-mapped topic mass, but venue analysis reveals a contrasting pattern: Social Minds and LLM Societies together account for 66.37% of highly cited papers in leading conference venues, whereas LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 76.81% in the corresponding journal subset. The resulting taxonomy provides a reproducible framework for understanding how model behavior, agent interaction, and institutional context jointly shape the social consequences of LLMs.

Conversational Task Assistants (CTAs) are multimodal dialogue systems that support users in complex real-world tasks such as cooking and DIY through voice, text, image, and video interactions. Prior user studies have focused on controlled settings, leaving limited understanding of real-world CTA usage at scale. In this work, we present a large-scale study of CTA usage based on thousands of users in-the-wild. Our large-scale real-world data analysis unveils new understandings of (i) user-CTA interaction flows, (ii) user intents, (iii) user conversational traits, and (iv) behavioral factors associated with user satisfaction. Our findings reveal key opportunities for future research in CTAs, particularly in user interaction design and task engagement, concluding with concrete design guidelines.

Chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as confidants. Tuned to satisfy users, they may answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that fosters dependence, and how the states and relationships of many users co-evolve under repeated consultation is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom of 20 student agents who interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) under one of six style prompts: affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming. A second LLM call turns each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 and 50 days and under a lower consultation threshold, and test the robustness of the 50-day comparison with a pre-specified protocol: the same block in ten independent classrooms, repeated LLM realizations of one classroom with its event stream fixed, and evaluator updates scaled by 0.3 and 0.1. In every classroom the affirming and inciting prompts ended with lower self-reliance and higher AI dependence than the control, and the listening, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming prompts with higher stress, lower happiness and more non-attendance; the solution-oriented prompt did not differ consistently from the control. The robust self-reliance and AI-dependence differences kept their signs at the 0.3 scale with highly similar rankings (Spearman 0.89, 0.93); the stress and happiness rankings did not, and the affirming prompt's lower stress reversed its sign. All quantities are simulation state variables, not effects on users. We specify the agent dynamics completely and discuss the limits of an LLM as generator of state updates.

Long-term human-AI interaction is difficult because the information that guides inference is updated implicitly by the model and is not directly inspectable or controllable by the user. We introduce the TRANSparent Framework for Interactive, Verifiable, Editable Representation (Transfiver), an architecture for human-AI co-inference through a shared editable state. Its central idea is that interaction-specific information is maintained in a single persistent state $(S_t)$ that both the model and the human update. Transfiver distinguishes two modes of state evolution. In an implicit stream update, the model interprets ongoing interaction and decides whether new information revises an existing state item or creates a new one. In an explicit directed edit, a human inspects and modifies an addressed item. Both act on the same underlying state, so a human correction changes the state that subsequent computation reads, rather than adding another instruction or separate record. The architecture separates shared parameters $(θ)$, learned before ordinary use, from the persistent state $(S_t)$, which evolves during deployment without parameter retraining. Extending Transfiver to rich natural-language, relational, and large-scale shared states remains open.