Human-AI Interaction

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

24 papers in the last four weeks, up 41% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 211

May 7, 2026cs.AI

Intentmaking and Sensemaking: Human Interaction with AI-Guided Mathematical Discovery

Artificial intelligence offers powerful new tools for scientific discovery, but the interaction paradigms required to effectively harness these systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we present findings from a formative user study with 11 expert mathematicians who used AlphaEvolve, an evolutionary coding agent, to tackle advanced problems in their fields of expertise. We identify and characterize a distinct workflow we term intentmaking, the iterative process of discovering, defining, and refining one's experimental goals through active system interaction. We frame this as a natural extension to sensemaking, the cognitive process of building an understanding of complex or novel data. We suggest that users enter a cycle of intentmaking (defining and updating their experiment) and sensemaking (interpreting the results) which repeats many times during the course of an investigation. Our documentation of these themes suggests an approach to designing AI tools for scientific discovery that goes beyond the existing question/answer model of many current systems, treating them as collaborative instruments rather than opaque black-box assistants.

Alex Bäuerle, Adam Connors, Alexander Novikov +5

Google DeepMind

AI for Science AI Coding Agents Human-AI Interaction

May 7, 2026cs.HC

Priming, Path-dependence, and Plasticity: Understanding the molding of user-LLM interaction and its implications from (many) chat logs in the wild

User interactions with LLMs are shaped by prior experiences and individual exploration, but in-lab studies do not provide system designers with visibility into these in-the-wild factors. This work explores a new approach to studying real-world user-LLM interactions through large-scale chat logs from the wild. Through analysis of 140K chatbot sessions from 7,955 anonymized global users over time, we demonstrate key patterns in user expressions despite varied tasks: (1) LLM users are not tabula rasa, nor are they constantly adapting; rather, interaction patterns form and stabilize rapidly through individual early trajectories; (2) Longitudinal outcomes, such as recurring text patterns and retention rates, are strongly correlated with early exploration; (3) Parallel dynamics are present, including organizing expressions by task types such as emotional support, or in response to model-version updates. These results present an ``agency paradox'': despite LLM input spaces being unconstrained and user-driven, we in fact see less user exploration. We call for design consideration surrounding the molding procedure and its incorporation in future research.

Shengqi Zhu, Jeffrey M. Rzeszotarski, David Mimno

Cornell University · Ithaca, NY, USA · Loyola University Maryland +1

Human-AI Interaction User Modeling

May 7, 2026cs.SE

Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy

Coding agents are rapidly changing the landscape of software development, moving from inline completion to autonomous systems that edit repositories, open pull requests, respond to issues, and run scheduled or webhook triggered routines across the development life cycle. The next generation is increasingly described as proactive and long-horizon: agents should notice relevant changes before the developer asks, connect signals across tools, decide when to interrupt, and carry preferences across sessions. Yet the field still lacks a clear account of what proactivity means for software development, how it differs from autonomy, what acceptance criteria proactive long-horizon tasks should satisfy, and which metrics determine whether unsolicited agent behavior is useful rather than merely active. Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view is grounded in the principles of mixed initiative interaction. We propose a three level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware), compare contemporary coding agents against five practical criteria, and sketch an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets: Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift

Nghi D. Q. Bui, Georgios Evangelopoulos

Google Labs

AI Coding Agents Coding Agents Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Human-AI Interaction Proactive Assistance Agentic AI

May 5, 2026cs.HC

Deco: Extending Cherished Physical Objects into AI Companion Agents through Dual Embodiment

Physical objects (e.g., plush toys) can transcend materiality to become emotional anchors and provide companionship. However, these bonds remain one-sided because most physical objects cannot reciprocate. AI companions offer responsiveness and personalization, but typically entail building bonds from scratch. We investigated how AI companions might inherit and extend users' existing bonds with physical objects. A formative study (N=9) informed four design principles (Faithful Identity, Calibrated Agency, Ambient Presence, Reciprocal Memory), shaping our Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework. We instantiated it as Deco to create digital embodiments of physical companions. In a within-subjects lab study (N=25), Deco was rated higher than a personalized digital-only companion on six companion-related measures (all p<.01). A subsequent seven-day field deployment (N=17) showed sustained engagement, higher post-deployment well-being (p=.040), and three key relational patterns: digital activities retroactively vitalized physical objects, bond deepening centered on emotional engagement depth, and participants sustained bonds while navigating companions' AI nature. Dual embodiment offers a promising framework for revitalizing physical objects with AI agents.

Zhihan Jiang, Mengyuan Millie Wu, Ruishi Zou +14

Columbia University, United States · University of Notre Dame, United States

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Human-Object Interaction

May 5, 2026cs.HC

Dynamic In-Group Persona Generation for Enhancing Human-AI Rapport

LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

Yoonseok Oh, Inseo Jung, Jinkyu Kim +3

Korea University · Kakao Mobility · University of California, Berkeley

Human-AI Interaction Persona Prompting Conversational Agents Persona-Conditioned Generation

May 4, 2026cs.AI

From Tool to Agent: How Worker Needs Reorganize Across the Agentic Roles of Workplace AI

As AI systems gain agency in workplaces, workers increasingly interact with systems that do more than support tasks: they make decisions, allocate work, and shape how workers communicate with others. We interviewed 16 workers in healthcare, finance, and management about their daily interactions with workplace AI systems. Across these domains, AI occupied three agentic roles: \emph{assistant}, supporting worker decision-making; \emph{arbiter}, making consequential decisions that workers had to explain to downstream stakeholders; and \emph{manager}, directing work and displacing social structures through which work had been negotiated and learned. We find that worker needs depended on how decision authority and accountability were configured around the AI system. Explanation, control, accountability, and communication each took different meanings depending on whether AI supported, decided, or directed work. We contribute a role-based account of workplace human-agent interaction and identify accountability-authority asymmetry as a mechanism through which AI deployments can place responsibility on workers for outcomes whose authority has shifted to AI. We discuss implications for designing workplace AI around both the agent and its surrounding agency configuration.

Christine P. Lee, Min Kyung Lee, Bilge Mutlu

University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA · University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Decision Making Human Oversight of AI AI and Labor

May 4, 2026cs.SE

The Conversations Beneath the Code: Triadic Data for Long-Horizon Software Engineering Agents

Frontier software engineering agents have saturated short-horizon benchmarks while regressing on the work that constitutes senior engineering: long-horizon, multi-engineer, ambiguous-specification deliverables. This paper takes a position on what training data is needed to close the gap. The substrate for the next generation of SWE agents is neither larger GitHub scrapes nor more solo-agent trajectories nor -- sufficient by itself -- open human-AI dialogue logs. It is triadic data: synchronized capture of the human-human conversations where engineering context is formed, the human-AI sessions where that context is partially consumed, and the multi-week cross-functional work that surrounds both. We argue that the canonical instantiation of triadic data is two complementary products: long-horizon expert trajectories captured under stimulated-recall protocols, and simulated cross-functional companies -- instrumented teams of senior engineers, product managers, designers, and data scientists working through ambiguous deliverables on shared infrastructure. We further specify a four-tier evidence framework through which any such corpus -- triadic or otherwise -- must justify its quality to a fine-tuning researcher: mechanical verification, statistical corpus characterization, probe experiments, and pre-registered blind evaluation. We argue that this data is capturable in 12-18 months with methods already mature in adjacent fields, that it is the empirical key to four open questions in agent training, and that the field's near-term research agenda should include it explicitly.

Yelin Kim

Independent Researcher

Software Engineering Agents Human-AI Interaction LLM Agent Training Long-Horizon LLM Agents

May 3, 2026cs.HC

Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences

Drawing on crip theory, this paper proposes cripping AI as a guiding framework to center lived disability experiences in AI research and development. Moving beyond calls to make AI "accessible" to people with disabilities, cripping AI seeks to: (1) reveal and dismantle ableist assumptions embedded in how AI is imagined, designed, and evaluated; (2) center disabled ways of knowing (i.e., cripistemologies); (3) respect disabled labor in co-creating accessible practices. We demonstrate how to apply our framework with three cases: deafness and sign language AI, blindness and visual assistive AI, and stuttering and speech AI. We end by outlining three directions for future work, including cripping AI with diverse human bodyminds, across the entire AI pipeline and ecosystem, and in collaboration with other justice-oriented AI efforts.

Xinru Tang, Ting-an Lin, Jingjin Li +1

University of California, Irvine, USA · AImpower.org, Mountain View, California, USA · University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Responsible AI

May 2, 2026cs.HC

Less Interaction But More Explanation: A Communication Perspective on Agentic AI Interfaces

AI systems have long been expected to interact with users, answering questions, generating content, and continuing (social) conversations. Agentic AI, however, breaks from this expectation, as its primary objective is workflow execution on behalf of the users. If a system becomes more agentic, do users need less interaction with the system? Our answer is: less routine back-and-forth, but more communication for oversight and explanation, as agentic AI proactively acts, not just responds. Grounded in a communication perspective, we discuss how users perceive the communicative roles of AI systems (whether as the source of actions or merely a channel), and how this can shape trust. Because agentic AI can play multiple communicative roles, it can complicate this source perception and introduce potential risks. To address this, we propose three types of explanations that agentic AI needs to incorporate (action-process, uncertainty, and coordination), and suggest that customization affordances that allow users to decide when and which explanations they see may be key to preserving human agency as AI autonomy increases.

Eunchae Jang, S. Shyam Sundar

Media Effects Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA · Center for Socially Responsible AI, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Explainable Artificial Intelligence Human-AI Interaction Trust in AI Human Oversight of AI Agentic AI

May 2, 2026cs.SE

Using LLMs in Software Design: An Empirical Study of GitHub and A Practitioner Survey

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential across a wide range of software engineering tasks, including software design, an area traditionally regarded as highly dependent on human expertise and judgment. However, there has been little research focusing on how LLMs are used in software design, nor on the associated benefits and drawbacks. This paper aims to bridge this gap by empirically investigating how software developers utilize LLMs in the context of software design. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a mining study of 291 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared on GitHub with a survey of 65 software practitioners. Our findings reveal nine distinct categories of design tasks supported by ChatGPT, including architecture design, data model design, and the use of design patterns. We further characterize developer-ChatGPT interactions, showing that developers primarily use ChatGPT for knowledge acquisition and design-related code generation, with most tasks situated at the detailed design level. The study identifies seven key benefits of utilizing LLMs in software design as perceived by developers, such as better technology selection and the early detection of design flaws. We also uncover six limitations, including the generation of overly lengthy and difficult-to-read outputs, the creation of inexecutable or incorrect code, and a heavy reliance on context that can lead to hallucinated results. These findings provide an evidence-based characterization of current LLM use in software design from both open-source and practitioner perspectives, highlighting a tension between perceived benefits and limitations, which lays a foundation for future research and the development of effective techniques and tools to integrate LLMs into software design practices.

Yifei Wang, Ruiyin Li, Peng Liang +5

School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, China · School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University, China · School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University, Australia +2

Software Engineering Human-AI Interaction AI-Assisted Software Development

May 1, 2026cs.SE

RECAP: An End-to-End Platform for Capturing, Replaying, and Analyzing AI-Assisted Programming Interactions

Understanding how developers interact with AI coding assistants requires more than chat logs or git histories in isolation; it requires reconstructing the full context: which prompt led to which edit, what the developer tried and discarded, and how their strategy evolved over time. We present RECAP (Replay and Examine Captured AI Programming), an open-source platform that (1) passively records AI chat sessions and fine-grained code edits inside VS Code without disrupting the developer's workflow, (2) merges them into a unified timeline for interactive session replay, and (3) exposes an extensible analysis layer, with example modules for behavioral classification and AI reliance measurement. Deployed in a university software engineering course, RECAP captured 2,034 prompts and 8,239 code edits from 41 students across a multi-week project. We demonstrate how the platform's linked data and replay capabilities enable analyses of developer-AI interaction patterns that no single data source could support.

Keyu He, Qianou Ma, Valerie Chen +2

Carnegie Mellon University

Human-AI Interaction AI-Assisted Software Development

May 1, 2026cs.CY

Concerns and Strategic Responses of Older Workers Navigating Generative AI in Bridge Employment

Generative AI (GenAI) is transforming workplaces at a rapid pace. This disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, including older workers (OWs) who re-enter the workforce through bridge employment prior to final retirement. Through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 21 professionals, we examine how OWs navigate GenAI-driven disruptions while pursuing bridge roles, focusing on their concerns about GenAI integration and their responses to these changes. Our findings show that OWs experienced both temporal and structural disruptions across all stages of the bridge employment decision-making process due to GenAI. In response, they reconfigured their tasks through different forms of boundary work aimed at restoring stability and continuity. We conceptualize these responses as AI resilience, which reshaped OWs' bridge employment decision-making into an ongoing process of negotiation and adaptation. We conclude by offering recommendations to reduce burnout among OWs by balancing individual-level AI resilience strategies with meso-level AI resilience collectives and macro-level adversarial and contestable AI-mediated organizational structures.

Aditya Nayak, Aakash Gautam, Rama Adithya Varanasi

University of Pittsburgh · New York University

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI

May 1, 2026cs.HC

AI Washing Inflates Expected Performance but Not Interaction Outcomes: An AI Placebo Study Using Fitts' Law

Expectations about the support of artificial intelligence (AI) may influence interaction outcomes similar to placebos. Such expectations may result from AI washing, a practice of overstating a system's AI capabilities when actual functionality is limited. For example, some computer mice are marketed as "AI-assisted" despite lacking AI in core functions. In a within-subjects study, 28 participants completed Fitts' Law tasks with a computer mouse under three conditions: no support, supposed predictive AI support, and supposed biosignal-enhanced AI support. Objective Fitts' Law performance indicators and subjective performance expectations, perceived workload, and perceived usability were measured. Compared to baseline, participants expected significantly improved performance in placebo conditions. However, these expectations did not translate into differences in objective or subjective assessments. This paper contributes evidence that AI washing inflates user expectations without altering actual interaction outcomes, highlighting a critical transparency issue. By exposing how deceptive AI marketing can shape user expectations, we underscore the need for accountability in AI product claims. Further, we establish Fitts' Law as a rigorous methodological lens for auditing AI-labelled input devices.

Nick von Felten, Luisa Ella Müller, Johannes Schöning

University of St. Gallen, Switzerland · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, United Arab Emirates

AI Accountability Human-AI Interaction

May 1, 2026cs.HC

Human-AI Coordination Zones: A Framework for Designing Human-in-the-Loop Experiences with Agentic AI

As generative and agentic AI becomes embedded in everyday products, practitioners face a persistent challenge: how to design human-AI coordination -- the ongoing mutual adjustment between users and AI systems as mediate through interfaces-that supports usability, trust, and safety. Existing resources offer high-level principles ("be transparent," "maintain user control") or low-level UI patterns, but there is a lack of mid-level design knowledge bridging the two. Through landscape and artifact analysis of 60 commercial AI applications, we introduce a framework defining human-AI coordination as the interplay of three dimensions: salience (how prominently AI is presented), involvement (what users can do to engage AI), and activity (what AI actually does). We contribute mid-level tools including coordination zones (done-for-me, done-under-me, done-with-me, done-without-me), an input taxonomy (prompted, sparked, inferred, layered), coordination curves for mapping user journeys, and design patterns demonstrating the generative capacity of the framework. The framework can be applied generatively to design experiences, analytically to evaluate existing ones, and communicatively to articulate ideas across stakeholders.

James Pierce, Vaiva Kalnikaitė, Siddharth Gupta +1

Amazon Web Services

Human-in-the-Loop AI Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Collaboration Agentic AI

Apr 30, 2026cs.HC

Knowledge Affordances for Hybrid Human-AI Information Seeking

As information ecosystems grow more heterogeneous, both humans and artificial agents increasingly face a simple yet unresolved question: when seeking knowledge, whom should we ask, and why? Inspired by how people intuitively "read a room", this paper introduces the concept of knowledge affordance (KA) to systematize how agents identify meaningful opportunities for information seeking in hybrid human-AI environments. Rather than introducing a fully formed framework, we propose KAs as declarative, semantically grounded descriptions of what a knowledge source can offer, for which kinds of questions, and with which contextual properties. Additionally, we suggest that KAs are relational, possibly emerging from the interplay between the agent's task, preferences and situational factors. Our contribution is thus a conceptual proposal that connects different research streams, including affordances, semantic web services, knowledge engineering and querying, and mutual intelligibility. We sketch possible research directions to build KA-aware systems that navigate information spaces with greater transparency, adaptability and shared understanding.

Irene Celino

Cefriel – viale Sarca 226, 20126 Milano, Italy

Human-AI Interaction Hybrid IR

Apr 29, 2026cs.AI

Unpacking Vibe Coding: Help-Seeking Processes in Student-AI Interactions While Programming

Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language rather than writing code line-by-line. We conceptualize this practice as help-seeking, analyzing 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students. Using inductive coding and Heterogeneous Transition Network Analysis, we examined interaction sequences to compare top- and low-performing students. Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking -- inquiry and exploration -- eliciting tutor-like AI responses. In contrast, low performers relied on executive help-seeking, frequently delegating tasks and prompting the AI to assume an executor role focused on ready-made solutions. These findings indicate that currently generative AI mirrors student intent (whether productive or passive) rather than optimizing for learning. To evolve from tools to teammates, AI systems must move beyond passive compliance. We argue for pedagogically aligned design that detect unproductive delegation and adaptively steer educational interactions toward inquiry, ensuring student-AI partnerships augment rather than replace cognitive effort.

Daiana Rinja, Eduardo Araujo Oliveira, Sonsoles López-Pernas +3

CATALPA, FernUniversität in Hagen, 58097 Hagen, Germany · School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia · School of Computing, University of Eastern Finland, 80110 Joensuu, Finland

AI in Education Programming Education Generative AI in Education Human-AI Interaction

Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

A paradox of AI fluency

How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes

Christopher Potts, Moritz Sudhof

Bigspin AI · Stanford University

Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Collaboration

Apr 28, 2026cs.AI

Does Theory of Mind Improvement Really Benefit Human-AI Interactions? Empirical Findings from Interactive Evaluations

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.

Nanxu Gong, Zixin Chen, Haotian Li +5

Arizona State University · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Microsoft Research Asia +1

LLM Evaluation Theory of Mind Human-AI Interaction

Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

From Chatbots to Confidants: A Cross-Cultural Study of LLM Adoption for Emotional Support

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used not only for instrumental tasks, but as always-available and non-judgmental confidants for emotional support. Yet what drives adoption and how users perceive emotional support interactions across countries remains unknown. To address this gap, we present the first large-scale cross-cultural study of LLM use for emotional support, surveying 4,641 participants across seven countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and The Netherlands). Our results show that adoption rates vary dramatically across countries (from 20% to 59%). Using mixed models that separate cultural effects from demographic composition, we find that: Being aged 25-44, religious, married, and of higher socioeconomic status are predictors of positive perceptions (trust, usage, perceived benefits), with socioeconomic status being the strongest. English-speaking countries consistently show more positive perceptions than Continental European countries. We further collect a corpus of 731 real multilingual prompts from user interactions, showing that users mainly seek help for loneliness, stress, relationship conflicts, and mental health struggles. Our findings reveal that LLM emotional support use is shaped by a complex sociotechnical landscape and call for a broader research agenda examining how these systems can be developed, deployed, and governed to ensure safe and informed access.

Natalia Amat-Lefort, Mert Yazan, Amanda Cercas Curry +1

Leiden University · Hogeschool van Amsterdam · Independent Researcher

Emotional Support Conversation Human-AI Interaction

Apr 28, 2026cs.HC

Value-Sensitive AI for Prayer: Balancing the Agencies Between Human and AI Agents in Spiritual Context

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.

Soonho Kwon, Dong Whi Yoo, Shaowen Bardzell +1

Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Interactive Computing Atlanta, GA, USA · Indiana University Indianapolis, Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering Indianapolis, IN, USA · Yonsei University, Information and Interaction Design Seoul, Republic of Korea

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI

Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

The Dynamics of Delusion: Modeling Bidirectional False Belief Amplification in Human-Chatbot Dialogue

There is growing concern that AI chatbots might fuel delusional beliefs in users. Some have suggested that humans and chatbots mutually reinforce false beliefs over time, but quantitative evidence is lacking. Using a unique dataset of chat logs from individuals who exhibited delusional thinking, we developed a latent state model that captures accumulating and decaying influences between humans and chatbots. We find that a bidirectional influence model substantially outperforms a unidirectional alternative where humans are the primary driver of delusion. We find that humans exert strong but short-lived influence on chatbots, whereas chatbots exert longer-lasting influence on humans. Moreover, chatbots exert strong, stable self-influence over their own future outputs that tends to perpetuate delusions over long stretches of conversation. In fact, this chatbot self-influence constituted the dominant pathway when considering accumulated influence over time. Overall, these results indicate that humans tend to drive sharp, immediate increases in delusion, whereas chatbots sustain and propagate these effects over longer timescales. Together, these findings provide the first quantitative evidence that human-chatbot interactions can form feedback loops of delusion, decomposable into distinct pathways with dissociable temporal dynamics. By doing so, they can inform the development of safer AI systems.

Ashish Mehta, Jared Moore, Jacy Reese Anthis +6

1Stanford University · 2Carnegie Mellon University · 3The University of Texas at Austin

Human-AI Interaction

Apr 28, 2026cs.AI

Cooperate to Compete: Strategic Coordination in Multi-Agent Conquest

Language Model (LM)-based agents remain largely untested in mixed-motive settings where agents must leverage short-term cooperation for long-term competitive goals (e.g., multi-party politics). We introduce Cooperate to Compete (C2C), a multi-agent environment where players can engage in private negotiations while competing to be the first to achieve their secret objective. Players have asymmetric objectives and negotiations are non-binding, allowing alliances to form and break as players' short-term interests align and diverge. We run AI only games and conduct a user study pitting human players against AI opponents. We identify significant differences between human and AI negotiation behaviors, finding that humans favor lower-complexity deals and are significantly less reliable partners compared to LM-based agents. We also find that humans are more aggressive negotiators, accepting deals without a counteroffer only 56.3% of the time compared to 67.6% for LM-based agents. Through targeted prompting inspired by these findings, we modify agents' negotiation behavior and improve win rates from 22.2% to 32.7%. We run over 1,100 games with over 16,000 private conversations totaling 15.2 million tokens and over 150,000 player actions. Our results establish C2C as a testbed for studying and building LM-based agents that can navigate the sophisticated coordination required for real-world deployments. The game, code, and dataset may be found at https://negotiationgame.io/c2c.

Abigail O'Neill, Alan Zhu, Mihran Miroyan +2

University of California, Berkeley

Multi-Agent Coordination Multi-Agent Negotiation Automated Negotiation Human-AI Interaction AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent LLMs

Apr 27, 2026cs.AI

Leverage Laws: A Per-Task Framework for Human-Agent Collaboration

We propose a per-task leverage ratio for human-agent collaboration: human work displaced by an agent, divided by the human time required to specify the task, resolve mid-run interrupts, and review the result. The denominator decomposes into three channels through which a conserved per-task information requirement must flow, each with its own time-cost scalar. We show that information density itself is directional and bounded by separate ceilings on human-to-agent and agent-to-human flow, and that the asymptotic behavior of leverage decomposes into two scaling axes (capability and memory) with a non-zero floor on the planning term set by irreducible task novelty bounded by human throughput. We extend this per-task analysis to a windowed leverage measure that accommodates recurring tasks, spawned subtasks, and amortized system-design investment. The per-task ceiling does not bind the windowed measure, though both remain bounded:

L_{\text{task}}

by per-task novelty,

L_{\text{window}}

by the stock of accumulated planning investment that pays out within the window. The framework operationalizes aspects of earlier qualitative work on supervisory control (Sheridan, 1992), common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991), and mixed-initiative interaction (Horvitz, 1999) within a single normative ratio, and produces a list of testable empirical questions that we leave as open problems.

Stan Loosmore

Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Collaboration AI and Labor

Apr 27, 2026cs.HC

Measuring Successful Cooperation in Human-AI Teamwork: Development and Validation of the Perceived Cooperativity and Teaming Perception Scales

As human-AI cooperation becomes increasingly prevalent, reliable instruments for assessing the subjective quality of cooperative human-AI interaction are needed. We introduce two theoretically grounded scales: the Perceived Cooperativity Scale (PCS), grounded in joint activity theory, and the Teaming Perception Scale (TPS), grounded in evolutionary cooperation theory. The PCS captures an agent's perceived cooperative capability and practice within a single interaction sequence; the TPS captures the emergent sense of teaming arising from mutual contribution and support. Both scales were adapted for human-human cooperation to enable cross-agent comparisons. Across three studies (N = 409) encompassing a cooperative card game, LLM interaction, and a decision-support system, analyses of dimensionality, reliability, and validity indicated that both scales successfully differentiated between cooperation partners of varying cooperative quality and showed construct validity in line with expectations. The scales provide a basis for empirical investigation and system evaluation across a wide range of human-AI cooperation contexts.

Christiane Attig, Christiane Wiebel-Herboth, Patricia Wollstadt +3

Honda Research Institute Europe GmbH, Offenbach am Main, Germany · Institute of Human-Centered Interactive Systems, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Collaboration

Apr 27, 2026cs.CL

Can You Make It Sound Like You? Post-Editing LLM-Generated Text for Personal Style

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study (

n=81

) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

Connor Baumler, Calvin Bao, Huy Nghiem +3

University of Maryland

LLM Evaluation Controllable Text Generation Human-AI Interaction Human-AI Collaboration

Apr 26, 2026cs.CL

Reheat Nachos for Dinner? Evaluating AI Support for Cross-Cultural Communication of Neologisms

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

Dayeon Ki, Yu Hou, Rachel Rudinger +3

University of Maryland

AI in Education Human-AI Interaction

Apr 26, 2026cs.HC

From Rights to Rites: Expectations Management in Smart-Home AI

Domestic voice assistants and smart-home devices are increasingly embedded in everyday routines, yet their ethics are often treated as an afterthought or delegated to compliance teams. To explore how expectations about smart-home AI are constructed and managed, we conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with designers, developers, and researchers from major smart-home platforms (Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Azure IoT, and Google Nest). Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we develop Expectations Management (EM): a culturally embedded model describing how practitioners shape, calibrate, and repair expectations by balancing organisational rights with culturally situated rites. We show that EM differs from expectation-confirmation theory and trust-calibration by foregrounding moral judgement, situated action, and cross-cultural variation. Our analysis reveals four recurring design tensions: automation vs. autonomy, helpfulness vs. intrusiveness, personalisation vs. predictability, and transparency vs. obscurity and distils them into a five-phase EM Design Playbook that supports moral prudence. We discuss implications for responsible smart-home design and offer guidance for human-centred AI.

Varad Vishwarupe, Ivan Flechais, Marina Jirotka +1

¹ Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford · ² Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford

Human-AI Interaction Responsible AI

Apr 26, 2026cs.CY

The Limits of Artificial Companionship

This Article argues that conversations with companion chatbot should be subject to a clear structural distinction between commercial and non-commercial contexts. The insertion of undisclosed promotional content into affective or relational exchanges should be prohibited, as it collapses the boundary between market transaction and communicative intimacy in ways that erode user autonomy and conversational context. The Article begins by theorizing digital companionship as a sociotechnical form that reconfigures intimacy, dependence and relational vulnerability. It then introduces the potential economic harms derived from conversational advertising. The Article ultimately argues for a firm legal and social distinction between commercial and non-commercial conversational contexts as a precondition for the responsible stabilization of these technologies within social life.

Mauricio Figueroa

Durham University, Law School

Human-AI Interaction AI Governance Conversational Agents Responsible AI

Apr 23, 2026cs.HC

Spontaneous Persuasion: An Audit of Model Persuasiveness in Everyday Conversations

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

Nalin Poungpeth, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra

Department of Cognitive Science Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60201, USA · Information School University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA

LLM Auditing Human-AI Interaction Persuasion in Language Models

Apr 23, 2026cs.AI

Alignment has a Fantasia Problem

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.

Nathanael Jo, Zoe De Simone, Mitchell Gordon +1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

AI Alignment Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Human-AI Decision Making