Human-AI Interaction

Ethical discourse on AI in healthcare has focused predominantly on back-end concerns such as bias, fairness and explainability, while the front-end interface, where patients and clinicians actually encounter AI outputs, remains under explored. This paper identifies imbalanced user-AI relationships as a distinct class of front-end ethical failure: patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference, yet cannot understand, question or influence how they are represented. Through the concept of asymmetric legibility and a chat-based telemedicine case, we show how design choices e.g., default recommendations, restricted inputs and suppressed uncertainty, undermine agency, clinician judgment and human oversight even where systems are technically accurate. We propose reciprocity as a design orientation and offer interventions for more balanced, participatory user-AI relationships in healthcare.

When providers update AI companions, users report grief, betrayal, and loss. A growing literature asks whether the norms governing personal relationships extend to these interactions. So what, if anything, is morally significant about them? I argue that this debate has missed a prior structural question: who controls the relationship, and from where? Human-AI companion interaction is a triadic structure in which the provider exercises constitutive control over the AI. I identify three structural conditions of normatively robust dyads that the norms characteristic of personal relationships presuppose and show that AI companion interactions fail all three. This reveals what I call Unilateral Relationship Revision Power (URRP): the provider can rewrite how the AI interacts from a position where these revisions are not answerable within that interaction. I argue that it is pro tanto wrong to design interactions that cultivate the norms of personal relationships while exhibiting URRP, because the design produces expectations that the structure cannot sustain. URRP has three implications: i) normative hollowing, under which the interaction elicits commitment but no agent inside it bears the resulting obligations; ii) displaced vulnerability, under which the user's emotional exposure is governed by an agent not answerable to her within the interaction; and iii) structural irreconcilability, under which the interaction cultivates norms of reconciliation but no agent inside it can acknowledge or answer for the revision. I propose design principles that partially substitute for the internal constraints the triadic structure removes. A central and underexplored problem in relational AI ethics is therefore the structural arrangement of power over the human-AI interaction itself.

Human-robot interaction is increasingly moving toward multi-robot, socially grounded environments. Existing systems struggle to integrate multimodal perception, embodied expression, and coordinated decision-making in a unified framework. This limits natural and scalable interaction in shared physical spaces. We address this gap by introducing a multimodal framework for human-multi-agent interaction in which each robot operates as an autonomous cognitive agent with integrated multimodal perception and Large Language Model (LLM)-driven planning grounded in embodiment. At the team level, a centralized coordination mechanism regulates turn-taking and agent participation to prevent overlapping speech and conflicting actions. Implemented on two humanoid robots, our framework enables coherent multi-agent interaction through interaction policies that combine speech, gesture, gaze, and locomotion. Representative interaction runs demonstrate coordinated multimodal reasoning across agents and grounded embodied responses. Future work will focus on larger-scale user studies and deeper exploration of socially grounded multi-agent interaction dynamics.

Recent advances in game AI, such as AlphaZero and Athénan, have achieved superhuman performance across a wide range of board games. While highly powerful, these agents are ill-suited for human-AI interaction, as they consistently overwhelm human players, offering little enjoyment and limited educational value. This paper addresses the problem of balanced play, in which an agent challenges its opponent without either dominating or conceding. We introduce Minibal (Minimize & Balance), a variant of Minimax specifically designed for balanced play. Building on this concept, we propose several modifications of the Unbounded Minimax algorithm explicitly aimed at discovering balanced strategies. Experiments conducted across seven board games demonstrate that one variant consistently achieves the most balanced play, with average outcomes close to perfect balance. These results establish Minibal as a promising foundation for designing AI agents that are both challenging and engaging, suitable for both entertainment and serious games.

As AI systems increasingly mediate negotiations, understanding how the number of negotiated issues impacts human performance is crucial for maintaining human agency. We designed a human-AI negotiation case study in a realistic property rental scenario, varying the number of negotiated issues; empirical findings show that without support, performance stays stable up to three issues but declines as additional issues increase cognitive load. To address this, we introduce a novel uncertainty-based visualization driven by Bayesian estimation of agreement probability. It shows how the space of mutually acceptable agreements narrows as negotiation progresses, helping users identify promising options. In a within-subjects experiment (N=32), it improved human outcomes and efficiency, preserved human control, and avoided redistributing value. Our findings surface practical limits on the complexity people can manage in human-AI negotiation, advance theory on human performance in complex negotiations, and offer validated design guidance for interactive systems.

Conversation is ubiquitous in social life, but the empirical study of this interactive process has been thwarted by tools that are insufficiently modular and unadaptive to researcher needs. To relieve many constraints in conversation research, the current tutorial presents an overview and introduction to a new tool, Dyadic (https://www.chatdyadic.com/), a web-based platform for studying human-human and human-AI conversations using text-based or voice-based chats. Dyadic is distinct from other platforms by offering studies with multiple modalities, AI suggestions (e.g., in human-human studies, AI can suggest responses to a participant), live monitoring (e.g., researchers can evaluate, in real time, chats between communicators), and survey deployment (e.g., Likert-type scales, feeling thermometers, and open-ended text boxes can be sent to humans for in situ evaluations of the interaction), among other consequential features. No coding is required to operate Dyadic directly, and integrations with existing survey platforms are offered.

As users increasingly turn to LLMs for practical and personal advice, they become vulnerable to subtle steering toward hidden incentives misaligned with their own interests. While existing NLP research has benchmarked manipulation detection, these efforts often rely on simulated debates and remain fundamentally decoupled from actual human belief shifts in real-world scenarios. We introduce PUPPET, a theoretical taxonomy and resource that bridges this gap by focusing on the moral direction of hidden incentives in everyday, advice-giving contexts. We provide an evaluation dataset of N=1,035 human-LLM interactions, where we measure users' belief shifts. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect in current safety paradigms: while models can be trained to detect manipulative strategies, they do not correlate with the magnitude of resulting belief change. As such, we define the task of human belief shift prediction and show that while state-of-the-art LLMs achieve moderate correlation (r=0.3-0.5), they exhibit systematic directional biases, with certain models over or under-predicting the magnitude of human belief change. This work establishes a theoretically grounded and behaviorally validated foundation for AI social safety efforts by studying incentive-driven manipulation in LLMs during everyday, practical user queries.

Generative AI (GenAI) search tools are increasingly used for information seeking, yet their design tends to encourage cognitive offloading, which may lead to passive engagement, selective attention, and informational homogenization. Effective use requires metacognitive engagement to craft good prompts, verify AI outputs, and critically engage with information. We developed MetaCues, a novel GenAI-based interactive tool for information seeking that delivers metacognitive cues alongside AI responses and a note-taking interface to guide users' search and associated learning. Through an online study (N = 146), we compared MetaCues to a baseline tool without cues, across two broad search topics that required participants to explore diverse perspectives in order to make informed judgments. Preliminary findings regarding participants' search behavior show that MetaCues leads to increased confidence in attitudinal judgments about the search topic as well as broader inquiry, with the latter effect emerging primarily for the topic that was less controversial and with which participants had relatively less familiarity. Accordingly, we outline directions for future qualitative exploration of search interactions and inquiry patterns.

Supporting users in protecting sensitive information when using conversational agents (CAs) is crucial, as users may undervalue privacy protection due to outdated, partial, or inaccurate knowledge about privacy in CAs. Although privacy knowledge can be developed through standalone resources, it may not readily translate into practice and may remain detached from real-time contexts of use. In this study, we investigate in-context, experiential learning by examining how interactions with privacy tools during chatbot use enhance users' privacy learning. We also explore interface design features that facilitate engagement with these tools and learning about privacy by simulating ChatGPT's interface which we integrated with a just-in-time privacy notice panel. The panel intercepts messages containing sensitive information, warns users about potential sensitivity, offers protective actions, and provides FAQs about privacy in CAs. Participants used versions of the chatbot with and without the privacy panel across two task sessions designed to approximate realistic chatbot use. We qualitatively analyzed participants' pre- and post-test survey responses and think-aloud transcripts and describe findings related to (a) participants' perceptions of privacy before and after the task sessions and (b) interface design features that supported or hindered user-led protection of sensitive information. Finally, we discuss future directions for designing user-facing privacy tools in CAs that promote privacy learning and user engagement in protecting privacy in CAs.

In this paper, we report our experience with TuringHotel'', a novel extension of the Turing Test based on interactions within mixed communities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and human participants. The classical one-to-one interaction of the Turing Test is reinterpreted in a group setting, where both human and artificial agents engage in time-bounded discussions and, interestingly, are both judges and respondents. This community is instantiated in the novel platform UNaIVERSE (https://unaiverse.io), creating a World'' which defines the roles and interaction dynamics, facilitated by the platform's built-in programming tools. All communication occurs over an authenticated peer-to-peer network, ensuring that no third parties can access the exchange. The platform also provides a unified interface for humans, accessible via both mobile devices and laptops, that was a key component of the experience in this paper. Results of our experimentation involving 17 human participants and 19 LLMs revealed that current models are still sometimes confused as humans. Interestingly, there are several unexpected mistakes, suggesting that human fingerprints are still identifiable but not fully unambiguous, despite the high-quality language skills of artificial participants. We argue that this is the first experiment conducted in such a distributed setting, and that similar initiatives could be of national interest to support ongoing experiments and competitions aimed at monitoring the evolution of large language models over time.

Natural language prompts often suffer from intent transmission loss: the gap between what users actually need and what they communicate to AI systems. We evaluate PPS (Prompt Protocol Specification), a 5W3H-based framework for structured intent representation in human-AI interaction. In a controlled three-condition study across 60 tasks in three domains (business, technical, and travel), three large language models (DeepSeek-V3, Qwen-Max, and Kimi), and three prompt conditions - (A) simple prompts, (B) raw PPS JSON, and (C) natural-language-rendered PPS - we collect 540 AI-generated outputs evaluated by an LLM judge. We introduce goal_alignment, a user-intent-centered evaluation dimension, and find that rendered PPS outperforms both simple prompts and raw JSON on this metric. PPS gains are task-dependent: gains are large in high-ambiguity business analysis tasks but reverse in low-ambiguity travel planning. We also identify a measurement asymmetry in standard LLM evaluation, where unconstrained prompts can inflate constraint adherence scores and mask the practical value of structured prompting. A preliminary retrospective survey (N = 20) further suggests a 66.1% reduction in follow-up prompts required, from 3.33 to 1.13 rounds. These findings suggest that structured intent representations can improve alignment and usability in human-AI interaction, especially in tasks where user intent is inherently ambiguous.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.

Recent incidents have highlighted alarming cases where human-AI interactions led to negative psychological outcomes, including mental health crises and even user harm. As LLMs serve as sources of guidance, emotional support, and even informal therapy, these risks are poised to escalate. However, studying the mechanisms underlying harmful human-AI interactions presents significant methodological challenges, where organic harmful interactions typically develop over sustained engagement, requiring extensive conversational context that are difficult to simulate in controlled settings. To address this gap, we developed a Multi-Trait Subspace Steering (MultiTraitsss) framework that leverages established crisis-associated traits and novel subspace steering framework to generate Dark models that exhibits cumulative harmful behavioral patterns. Single-turn and multi-turn evaluations show that our dark models consistently produce harmful interaction and outcomes. Using our Dark models, we propose protective measure to reduce harmful outcomes in Human-AI interactions.

AI systems fail silently far more often than they fail visibly. In an analysis of 100K human-AI interactions from the WildChat dataset, we find that 79% of AI failures are invisible: something went wrong but the user gave no overt indication that there was a problem. These invisible failures cluster into eight archetypes that help us characterize where and how AI systems are failing to meet users' needs. In addition, the archetypes show systematic co-occurrence patterns indicating higher-level failure types. To address the question of whether these archetypes will remain relevant as AI systems become more capable, we also created and annotated a counterfactual dataset in which WildChat's 2024-era responses are replaced by those from three present-day frontier LMs. This analysis indicates that failure rates have dropped substantially, but that the vast majority of failures remain invisible in our sense, and the distribution of failure archetypes seems stable. Finally, we illustrate how the archetypes help us to identify systematic and variable AI limitations across different usage domains. Overall, we argue that our invisible failure taxonomy can be a key component in reliable failure monitoring for product developers, scientists, and policy makers. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-invisible-failure-archetypes

Over-reliance on AI systems can undermine users' critical thinking and promote complacency, a risk intensified by the emergence of agentic AI systems that operate with minimal human involvement. In software engineering, agentic coding assistants (ACAs) are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday development workflows. Since software engineers (SEs) create systems deployed across diverse and high-stakes real-world contexts, these assistants must function not merely as autonomous task performers but as Tools for Thought that actively support human reasoning and sensemaking. We conducted a formative study examining software engineers' cognitive engagement and sensemaking processes when working with an ACA. Our findings reveal that cognitive engagement consistently declines as tasks progress, and that current ACA designs provide limited affordances for reflection, verification, and meaning-making. Based on these findings, we identify concrete design opportunities leveraging richer interaction modalities and cognitive-forcing mechanisms to sustain engagement and promote deeper thinking in AI-assisted programming.

In hybrid populations where humans delegate strategic decision-making to autonomous agents, understanding when and how cooperative behaviors can emerge remains a key challenge. We study this problem in the context of energy load management: consumer agents schedule their appliance use under demand-dependent pricing. This structure can create a social dilemma where everybody would benefit from coordination, but in equilibrium agents often choose to incur the congestion costs that cooperative turn-taking would avoid. To address the problem of coordination, we introduce artificial agents that use globally observable signals to increase coordination. Using evolutionary dynamics, and reinforcement learning experiments, we show that artificial agents can shift the learning dynamics to favour coordination outcomes. An often neglected problem is partial adoption: what happens when the technology of artificial agents is in the early adoption stages? We analyze mixed populations of adopters and non-adopters, demonstrating that unilateral entry is feasible: adopters are not structurally penalized, and partial adoption can still improve aggregate outcomes. However, in some parameter regimes, non-adopters may benefit disproportionately from the cooperation induced by adopters. This asymmetry, while not precluding beneficial entry, warrants consideration in deployment, and highlights strategic issues around the adoption of AI technology in multiagent settings.

Ableist microaggressions remain pervasive in everyday interactions, yet interventions to help people recognize them are limited. We present an experiment testing how AI-mediated dialogue influences recognition of ableism. 160 participants completed a pre-test, intervention, and a post-test across four conditions: AI nudges toward bias (Bias-Directed), inclusion (Neutral-Directed), unguided dialogue (Self-Directed), and a text-only non-dialogue (Reading). Participants rated scenarios on standardness of social experience and emotional impact; those in dialogue-based conditions also provided qualitative reflections. Quantitative results showed dialogue-based conditions produced stronger recognition than Reading, though trajectories diverged: biased nudges improved differentiation of bias from neutrality but increased overall negativity. Inclusive or no nudges remained more balanced, while Reading participants showed weaker gains and even declines. Qualitative findings revealed biased nudges were often rejected, while inclusive nudges were adopted as scaffolding. We contribute a validated vignette corpus, an AI-mediated intervention platform, and design implications highlighting trade-offs conversational systems face when integrating bias-related nudges.

The rapid adoption of generative AI (GenAI) chatbots has reshaped access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information, particularly following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as individuals assigned female at birth increasingly turn to online sources. However, existing research remains largely model-centered, paying limited attention to user privacy and safety. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 U.S.-based participants from both restrictive and non-restrictive states who had used GenAI chatbots to seek SRH information. Adoption was influenced by perceived utility, usability, credibility, accessibility, and anthropomorphism, and many participants disclosed sensitive personal SRH details. Participants identified multiple privacy risks, including excessive data collection, government surveillance, profiling, model training, and data commodification. While most participants accepted these risks in exchange for perceived utility, abortion-related queries elicited heightened safety concerns. Few participants employed protective strategies beyond minimizing disclosures or deleting data. Based on these findings, we offer design and policy recommendations, such as health-specific features and stronger moderation practices, to enhance privacy and safety in GenAI-supported SRH information seeking.

As social virtual reality (VR) grows more popular, addressing accessibility for blind and low vision (BLV) users is increasingly critical. Researchers have proposed an AI "sighted guide" to help users navigate VR and answer their questions, but it has not been studied with users. To address this gap, we developed a large language model (LLM)-powered guide and studied its use with 16 BLV participants in virtual environments with confederates posing as other users. We found that when alone, participants treated the guide as a tool, but treated it companionably around others, giving it nicknames, rationalizing its mistakes with its appearance, and encouraging confederate-guide interaction. Our work furthers understanding of guides as a versatile method for VR accessibility and presents design recommendations for future guides.

LLMs offer new creative possibilities for writers but also raise concerns about authenticity and reader trust, particularly when AI involvement is disclosed. Prior research has largely framed this as an issue of transparency and provenance, emphasizing the disclosure of human-AI interaction traces that account for how much the AI wrote and what the human did. Yet such audit-oriented disclosures may risk reducing creative collaboration to quantification and surveillance. In this position paper, we argue for a different lens by exploring how human-AI interaction traces might instead function as expressive artifacts that foreground the meaning-making inherent in human-AI collaboration. Drawing inspiration from blackout poetry, we frame AI-generated text as found material through which writers' acts of curation and reinterpretation become inscribed atop the AI's original output. In this way, we suggest that designing interaction traces as aesthetic artifacts may help readers better appreciate and trust writers' creative contributions in AI-assisted writing.

The "gender" of intelligent agents, virtual characters, social robots, and other agentic machines has emerged as a fundamental topic in studies of people's interactions with computers. Perceptions of agent gender can help explain user attitudes and behaviours -- from preferences to toxicity to stereotyping -- across a variety of systems and contexts of use. Yet, standards in capturing perceptions of agent gender do not exist. A scoping review was conducted to clarify how agent gender has been operationalized -- labelled, defined, and measured -- as a perceptual variable. One-third of studies manipulated but did not measure agent gender. Norms in operationalizations remain obscure, limiting comprehension of results, congruity in measurement, and comparability for meta-analyses. The dominance of the gender binary model and latent anthropocentrism have placed arbitrary limits on knowledge generation and reified the status quo. We contribute a systematically-developed and theory-driven meta-level framework that offers operational clarity and practical guidance for greater rigour and inclusivity.

There is no 'ordinary' when it comes to AI. The human-AI experience is extraordinarily complex and specific to each person, yet dominant measures such as usability scales and engagement metrics flatten away nuance. We argue for AI phenomenology: a research stance that asks "How did it feel?" beyond the standard questions of "How well did it perform?" when interacting with AI systems. AI phenomenology acts as a paradigm for bidirectional human-AI alignment as it foregrounds users' first-person perceptions and interpretations of AI systems over time. We motivate AI phenomenology as a framework that captures how alignment is experienced, negotiated, and updated between users and AI systems. Tracing a lineage from Husserl through postphenomenology to Actor-Network Theory, and grounding our argument in three studies-two longitudinal studies with "Day", an AI companion, and a multi-method study of agentic AI in software engineering-we contribute a set of replicable methodological toolkits for conducting AI phenomenology research: instruments for capturing lived experience across personal and professional contexts, three design concepts (translucent design, agency-aware value alignment, temporal co-evolution tracking), and a concrete research agenda. We offer this toolkit not as a new paradigm but as a practical scaffold that researchers can adapt as AI systems-and the humans who live alongside them-continue to co-evolve.

Human-AI romantic relationships are increasingly common, yet little is understood about how public discourse around them emerges and shifts over time. Prior research has examined user experiences and ethical concerns, but lacks longitudinal analyses of user-initiated public discussions. We address this gap by analyzing a high-precision dataset of 3,383 self-disclosed romantic companion AI posts from Reddit (2017-2025), using topic modeling and temporal statistical analysis to identify dominant themes and their evolution over time. We find significant topic drift, with discussions moving away from positive intimate relationships toward platform governance, technical issues, and real-world consequences. These shifts highlight a transition in how human-AI romance is framed-moving from private experiences to technical mediation and regulation-with implications for the design and governance of companion AI systems.

The rapid emergence of open-source, locally hosted intelligent agents marks a critical inflection point in human-computer interaction. Systems such as OpenClaw demonstrate that Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents can autonomously operate local computing environments, orchestrate workflows, and integrate external tools. However, within the current paradigm, these agents remain conventional applications running on legacy operating systems originally designed for Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) or Command Line Interfaces (CLIs). This architectural mismatch leads to fragmented interaction models, poorly structured permission management (often described as "Shadow AI"), and severe context fragmentation. This paper proposes a new paradigm: a Personal Agent Operating System (AgentOS). In AgentOS, traditional GUI desktops are replaced by a Natural User Interface (NUI) centered on a unified natural language or voice portal. The system core becomes an Agent Kernel that interprets user intent, decomposes tasks, and coordinates multiple agents, while traditional applications evolve into modular Skills-as-Modules enabling users to compose software through natural language rules. We argue that realizing AgentOS fundamentally becomes a Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) problem. The Agent Kernel must operate as a real-time engine for intent mining and knowledge discovery. Viewed through this lens, the operating system becomes a continuous data mining pipeline involving sequential pattern mining for workflow automation, recommender systems for skill retrieval, and dynamically evolving personal knowledge graphs. These challenges define a new research agenda for the KDD community in building the next generation of intelligent computing systems.

We analyze over 500,000 de-identified health-related conversations with Microsoft Copilot from January 2026 to characterize what people ask conversational AI about health. We develop a hierarchical intent taxonomy of 12 primary categories using privacy-preserving LLM-based classification validated against expert human annotation, and apply LLM-driven topic-clustering for prevalent themes within each intent. Using this taxonomy, we characterize the intents and topics behind health queries, identify who these queries are about, and analyze how usage varies by device and time of day. Five findings stand out. First, nearly one in five conversations involve personal symptom assessment or condition discussion, and even the dominant general information category (40%) is concentrated on specific treatments and conditions, suggesting that this is a lower bound on personal health intent. Second, one in seven of these personal health queries concern someone other than the user, such as a child, a parent, a partner, suggesting that conversational AI can be a caregiving tool, not just a personal one. Third, personal queries about symptoms and emotional health queries increase markedly in the evening and nighttime hours, when traditional healthcare is most limited. Fourth, usage diverges sharply by device: mobile concentrates on personal health concerns, while desktop is dominated by professional and academic work. Fifth, a substantial share of queries focuses on navigating healthcare systems such as finding providers, and understanding insurance, highlighting friction in the delivery of existing healthcare. These patterns have direct implications for platform-specific design, safety considerations, and the responsible development of health AI.

Gaze and speech are promising interaction modalities for individuals with motor impairments, yet robust intent recognition in multi-object environments remains challenging due to micro-saccades, semantic ambiguity, and viewpoint changes. This paper presents a multimodal interaction framework for assistive robotic manipulation. We propose a sticky-glance algorithm that stabilizes gaze-based intent by jointly accumulating geometric distance and directional evidence, enabling robust real-time target selection and switching. We further introduce Glance-Say, a gaze-speech interaction paradigm in which gaze specifies objects and speech specifies actions, together with a continuous shared-control scheme that provides high-readiness robot motion and human-in-the-loop feedback. Experiments demonstrate a tracking rate of 0.92 for moving targets, selection accuracy of 0.97 for static targets, and reduced task duration. These results indicate improved robustness, efficiency, and usability over representative interaction paradigms.

User feedback is essential for the success of mobile apps, yet what users report and what developers need often diverge. Research shows that users often submit vague feedback and omit essential contextual details. This leads to incomplete reports and time-consuming clarification discussions. To overcome this challenge, we propose FeedAIde, a context-aware, interactive feedback approach that supports users during the reporting process by leveraging the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models. FeedAIde captures contextual information, such as the screenshot where the issue emerges, and uses it for adaptive follow-up questions to collaboratively refine with the user a rich feedback report that contains information relevant to developers. We implemented an iOS framework of FeedAIde and evaluated it on a gym's app with its users. Compared to the app's simple feedback form, participants rated FeedAIde as easier and more helpful for reporting feedback. An assessment by two industry experts of the resulting 54 reports showed that FeedAIde improved the quality of both bug reports and feature requests, particularly in terms of completeness. The findings of our study demonstrate the potential of context-aware, GenAI-powered feedback reporting to enhance the experience for users and increase the information value for developers.

The rapid advancement of AI is transforming human-centered systems, with profound implications for human-AI interaction, human-data interaction, and visual analytics. In the AI era, data analysis increasingly involves large-scale, heterogeneous, and multimodal data that is predominantly unstructured, as well as foundation models such as LLMs and VLMs, which introduce additional uncertainty into analytical processes. These shifts expose persistent challenges for human-data interactive systems, including perceptually misaligned latency, scalability constraints, limitations of existing interaction and exploration paradigms, and growing uncertainty regarding the reliability and interpretability of AI-generated insights. Responding to these challenges requires moving beyond conventional efficiency and scalability metrics, redefining the roles of humans and machines in analytical workflows, and incorporating cognitive, perceptual, and design principles into every level of the human-data interaction stack. This paper investigates the challenges introduced by recent advances in AI and examines how these developments are reshaping the ways users engage with data, while outlining limitations and open research directions for building human-centered AI systems for interactive data analysis in the AI era.

This paper studies how parents want to moderate children's interactions with Generative AI chatbots, with the goal of informing the design of future GenAI parental control tools. We first used an LLM to generate synthetic child-GenAI chatbot interaction scenarios and worked with four parents to validate their realism. From this dataset, we carefully selected 12 diverse examples that evoked varying levels of concern and were rated the most realistic. Each example included a prompt and a GenAI chatbot response. We presented these to parents (N=24) and asked whether they found them concerning, why, and how they would prefer the responses to be modified and communicated. Our findings reveal three key insights: (1) parents express concern about interactions that current GenAI chatbot parental controls neglect; (2) parents want fine-grained transparency and moderation at the conversation level; and (3) parents need personalized controls that adapt to their desired strategies and children's ages.

Design is a non-linear, reflective process in which practitioners engage with visual, semantic, and other expressive materials to explore, iterate, and refine ideas. As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes integrated into professional design practice, traditional interaction approaches focusing on prompts or whole-image manipulation can misalign AI output with designers' intent, forcing visual thinkers into verbal reasoning or post-hoc adjustments. We present three interaction approaches from DesignPrompt, FusAIn, and DesignTrace that distribute control across intent, input, and process, enabling designers to guide AI alignment at different stages of interaction. We further argue that alignment is a dynamic negotiation, with AI adopting proactive or reactive roles according to designers' instrumental and inspirational needs and the creative stage.