Human-Centered AI

As AI systems increasingly interact with people and make decisions about them, understanding human interpretations becomes an important part of developing human-centered AI. Conventional machine learning and AI systems are largely developed under the assumption that a single definitive ground truth exists, with variability in human annotations often resolved through aggregation or treated as noise. However, for many human-centered tasks, human interpretation is inherently ambiguous, and multiple interpretations of the same input may be simultaneously reasonable and valid. Reducing such ambiguity to a single target risks overlooking meaningful information about the diversity of human perception, judgment, and experience. In this position paper, we call for a shift towards modeling the interpretation space of plausible human judgments, while distinguishing meaningful ambiguity from annotation noise. We argue that this perspective should guide how AI systems are represented, learned, evaluated, deployed, and governed, supporting more human-centered AI that better reflects the diversity of human interpretation.

Research in data visualization of artificial intelligence (AI) models has historically focused on enhancing trust through visual explanations of AI. The trustworthiness line of work was built at least partially on an assumption that humans were critical users unlikely to adopt AI technology. It is increasingly clear that human trust levels in AI span, in fact, a wide range from critical to over-reliant. There is an urgent need to support both trust and healthy skepticism in AI solutions. We argue that it is healthy for humans to adopt a skeptical view both on the results of AI models and on the use of such AI models. We share our thoughts on the rising phenomenon of over-reliance on AI models, the risks and opportunities in using AI models, and the role of data visualization in over-reliance situations where humans are not motivated to engage in critical thinking.

While HCI increasingly examines AI-safety for youth, the literature lacks a comprehensive view of what risks have been identified, how they are addressed, and whether proposed protections work in-practice. We systematically reviewed 100 empirical HCI studies involving children and youth interacting with or exposed to AI across schools, homes, care settings, and public services. Using the YAIR taxonomy for risks and the MIT Mitigation Taxonomy for countermeasures, we map which risks have been identified, whether each risk is addressed by countermeasure(s), and whether each countermeasure for that risk is implemented and even evaluated. The risk-countermeasure mapping shows that most risks are matched only with proposed/ideated countermeasures; few countermeasures have been implemented, and fewer still evaluated; and existing evaluations often measure technical performance rather than protection from harm. We identify where coverage is absent, where safeguards remain untested, and propose concrete directions for HCI research to strengthen youth AI-safety.

Enterprise AI is transitioning from single-user, reactive tools toward proactive, multi-user 'teammates,' but our empirical understanding of this transition is limited. In this paper, we present an in-situ qualitative study of a persistent, proactive AI agent 'teammate' deployed across multiple teams in a large technology company. Our findings reveal the boundaries of the human-agent workplace are actively in flux, triggering breakdowns and negotiations across: 1) tacit rules of collaborative human workflows, 2) the relational boundaries of this new non-human actor, and 3) the redistribution of trust and human agency. We use these early micro-negotiations as signals to chart a new research, design, and organizational agenda that intentionally preserves human agency in a workplace shared with non-human organizational actors.

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.

AI systems can strengthen democracy by supporting deliberation at scale by addressing cognitive, social, platform-design, and market-driven frictions, while preserving human agency. Unlike proposals such as liquid democracy that restructure representation through vote delegation, in this position paper, we argue that AI-assisted deliberation offers a more promising path by lowering barriers to meaningful engagement without substituting machine judgment for human choice. Drawing on evidence from online deliberation platforms and experimental research, we identify four guiding principles: preserving agency and autonomy, encouraging mutual respect, promoting equality and inclusiveness, and augmenting rather than substituting active citizenship. We also address critical challenges, including alignment, sycophancy, training bias, and over-reliance on AI systems. We call on the machine learning community to develop deliberation-focused AI systems evaluated not on engagement metrics but on their capacity to facilitate informed, representative, and friction-robust discourse.

Computer-use agents increasingly operate software designed for people, but interfaces often leave actions or task state unclear to machine readers. We present Affora, a design system that supports both readers while preserving visual freedom and familiar human workflows. Three controlled studies examine component implementations, visual variation, and interaction-design principles. Their findings inform guidance from individual components to complete sites, supported by reusable implementations and executable checks. Agent performance depends on the interaction meaning available through its interface representation; substantial visual variation remains possible when that meaning is preserved. Evaluation on independently authored interfaces shows gains where Affora addresses existing deficits, but limited effects where those deficits are absent or outside its coverage. A workflow case provides preliminary evidence of reduced interaction cost. Affora connects user experience and agent experience through a shared interface rather than a separate agent-only surface.

Family caregivers of people living with dementia shoulder emotional and practical responsibilities, yet their own wellbeing often remains peripheral to dementia care. We built CareMirror, an envisioned caregiver wellbeing ecosystem with interconnected caregiver- and clinician-facing interfaces for longitudinal reflection, personalized support, and caregiver-controlled sharing with clinical care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 caregivers, using CareMirror as a design probe to examine how they perceived this ecosystem and what expectations, concerns, and boundaries emerged around clinical connection. Caregivers valued attention to their wellbeing, longitudinal awareness, context-sensitive support, and clinical visibility when it could lead to meaningful follow-up. However, repeated reflection could become burdensome or emotionally difficult, automatic clinical sharing could inhibit candid disclosure, and participants wanted control over what information entered clinical care. They also expected AI to support reflection and communication without replacing caregiver voice or clinician judgment. We contribute design considerations for proactive, clinically connected caregiver wellbeing support.

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.

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.

Proactive in-cabin agents can help passengers understand automated-vehicle (AV) behavior, but communicating every ride event may introduce unnecessary interruptions. We investigated how communication should adapt to event priority and passenger activity. In a mixed-methods within-subject study, 41 participants rode as passenger in a VR simulated fully-automated vehicle. We compared an event-triggered (ET) policy that communicated immediately at every event with a context-sensitive (CS) policy that selected \textit{Immediate}, \textit{Delayed}, or \textit{Silent} communications. CS increased communication appropriateness and substantially reduced perceived interruption. Perceived trust did not differ between policies, although baselines dispositional trust differentiated communication preferences. Findings highlight event consequence, passenger activity, continuing information value, and confirmation need as key considerations for selective in-cabin communication.

Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.

Short-form video platforms use recommender systems to maximize engagement through highly efficient personalized recommendations. However, the impact of these recommendations on users with ADHD compared to users without ADHD remains underexplored. Through this study, we introduce and operationalize the Engagement Trap, illustrating how recommender systems, while successfully optimizing for engagement, disproportionately disadvantage users with ADHD. This stratified study of 302 participants, recruited via the online platform Prolific, compares experiences between participants with and without ADHD. Our results show that while recommendations are perceived as relevant across groups, participants with ADHD report significantly higher levels of time blindness, post-usage regret, and emotional distress when consuming recommendations. Moreover, we collect feedback for several proof-of- concept, theoretical design interventions for neuro-inclusive design principles. These findings provide quantitative evidence of systemic differences in engagement-optimized recommender systems and highlight the unbalanced negative effects and interactions these systems create for participants with ADHD. We argue for neurodiversity-aware, human-centered design approaches that mitigate such algorithmic harms and support more equitable experiences.

The hype around generative AI seems to promise unprecedented productivity (and learning) gains. However, these technologies' increasing agentic features seem to push learners towards individualism (or individual isolation), over-reliance, and dependence on them. Human-centered design approaches (e.g., value-sensitive design) assume that, by unearthing human needs, preferences, and values, technology researchers/designers may avoid such dangers, which are driven by wider systemic factors like economic incentives or inherent human limitations (e.g., our tendency to seek, in the moment, the easiest path of action). Yet, so far these efforts seem insufficient to guide our design of educational technology that avoids the aforementioned dependency and isolation dangers, while finding widespread adoption. This paper presents an alternative, more emancipatory vision for future educational AI technology, oriented towards learner flourishing while considering the wider complex systems they inhabit, including tentative design principles and an overall design methodology. Yet, many open questions remain before this vision can be realized.

The emergence of agentic AI and LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) presents unprecedented opportunities for automating complex tasks, while simultaneously raising critical concerns about the preservation of fundamental human-centered values, such as privacy, fairness, and safety. Although software engineering has traditionally focused on functional correctness, the adoption of LLMs and AI agents into complex socio-technical systems has intensified the need for responsible software engineering and robust value alignment. In MAS, architectural design decisions, such as coordination mechanisms, communication protocols, and system topologies, play a central role in shaping system behavior and the outcomes they produce. This paper argues that architectural choices influence not only the functionality and performance of MAS but can also promote value-oriented system behavior. Therefore, we investigate how different architectural designs support different human-centered values, discussing the following value-preserving architectural patterns: (i) a privacy-aware architecture with a federated topology, (ii) a distributed architecture to promote pluralism and diversity, and (iii) a guard-agent architecture to detect and mitigate unfairness. Finally, we introduce representative use cases to illustrate the proposed architectures in real-world scenarios. By linking architectural design with human-centered values, this work lays the foundation for a unified set of architectural patterns and guidelines towards the design of trustworthy MAS.

Large language models are powerful, but their interfaces often devolve into a type $\rightarrow$ read $\rightarrow$ retype loop, creating conversational AI fatigue, cognitive load, and eventual task abandonment. To mitigate this, we present RecalibrateGPT, a system introducing five cross-turn operators (Anchor, Replay, Delta, Scope, and Steer) that each target a distinct fatigue type, recalibrating LLM responses through a structured panel by acting on the full conversation history with a single click. Users invoke these operators through the AssistiveButton in one of three operator palette layouts: Vertical, Arc, or Tablet. We conducted two pilot studies with the same 12 advanced LLM users. An initial formative qualitative study identifies a taxonomy of four fatigue types (retyping, scanning, decision paralysis, and context drift) and derives two design objectives for RecalibrateGPT. A follow-up quantitative evaluation finds it reduces perceived cognitive workload by half (NASA-TLX = 2.7) at high perceived usability (SUS = 86.5), suggesting AI fatigue is not just a model-quality issue but an interaction-flow cost that interfaces can remove.

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on \textit{traces} (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define \textit{strong} equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.

IT service management (ITSM) systems accumulate large volumes of heterogeneous ticket data that are difficult for sales and executive stakeholders to convert into actionable intelligence. This paper presents a sociotechnical AI pipeline, designed and evaluated following design science research principles, that transforms raw ITSM exports into a multilevel decision-support artifact. The pipeline combines LLM-based schema normalization, HDBSCAN sub-topic clustering, and hierarchical agglomerative clustering to generate executive-facing Main-topics and granular Sub-topics. A stakeholder evaluation across six artifacts and five raters from Sales Engineering and customer success roles shows that all four decision-support metrics, interpretability, actionability, trust, and likelihood of use, on average exceed 4.0 out of 5.0, with trust as the most consistent signal. The findings position ITSM analytics as an Information Systems (IS) problem of transformation, abstraction, and human-centered design.

After an older adult misses a medication dose, a software agent can send another reminder and an embodied agent can bring the medication. Yet neither explains whether the person forgot, is confused, has side effects, or deliberately refused, nor what support is appropriate. This reveals a structural gap in Agentic AI: Digital Agents primarily transform software states, while Embodied Agents transform physical states; neither makes a person's evolving state and agency the primary object of modeling, intervention, and evaluation. We introduce Combodied Agents, a human-centered paradigm that perceives, models, predicts, and supports individual human-state trajectories over time, using software tools, sensors, wearables, robots, and human services as action channels rather than end goals. We unify fragmented capabilities across personal assistants, health agents, AI companions, and adaptive human--AI systems into a closed loop: event-based multimodal perception reconstructs meaningful personal events; longitudinal, correctable memory provides temporal context; Personal World Models estimate future personal states and outcomes under alternative decisions and interventions; and an admissible intervention policy selects proportionate support under consent, uncertainty, safety, reversibility, and user control. Feedback from the person and environment updates the loop. Rather than requiring an exhaustive Human Digital Twin, the framework uses purpose-bounded, uncertainty-aware, user-correctable representations. We organize the design space by human-state targets, relational contexts, and agent roles, and propose scenario-centered evaluation, agency-preservation metrics, benchmark requirements, edge-native personal models, and governance directions. Combodied Agents shift Agentic AI from external task completion toward sustained human benefit.

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

Edge Artificial Intelligence (Edge AI) enables the deployment of AI models directly on local edge devices, while such deployments are subject to strict resource constraints, particularly in clinical applications requiring local and timely inference. In such contexts, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) can serve as a human-AI interface intended to support healthcare professionals' and patients' understanding of model predictions and informed decision-making. To fulfill this role, XAI method selection for TinyML deployments can be formulated as a human-centered multi-objective design problem that jointly considers qualitative stakeholder preferences, explanation quality, and proxy-based deployment cost. We propose a framework that integrates a large language model (LLM)-guided design interface that maps qualitative stakeholder preferences to candidate XAI methods, followed by deterministic feasibility filtering and Pareto-based optimization. The framework exposes trade-offs among explanation fidelity, stability, and proxy-based deployment cost while characterizing their implications for explanation quality and estimated deployment feasibility. A proof-of-concept evaluation on a skin lesion classification task illustrates how the framework systematically compares candidate XAI methods and identifies Pareto-efficient trade-offs. The present evaluation covers the computational selection stages, while physical MCU deployment and empirical human-expert validation remain outside the scope of this study.

Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.

The life sciences and health research have started to benefit from artificial intelligence, which raises ethical concerns that are real but, we argue, not special. Any science should be governed by values that rest on how the human brain is built and socialised rather than anything distinct to artificial intelligence. Importantly, the human brain has a different, much less costly computational architecture than these machines. This is achieved through the orchestration of a global neuronal workspace, and through reward best described not as a quantity to be maximised but as a continuous cycle of wanting, liking and satiety. As such, this creates the deep tension running through the ethics of the human person, between the universality of ethical judgement and the diversity of morals. The brain networks of the global workspace and emotion are universally shared, but the diversity of content is shaped by epigenetic appropriation of the particulars of the physical, social and cultural world, which makes every person unique. Still, if we were to build machines on these principles rather than the present unaffordable reward maximisers, the question of their governance would change from restraint to upbringing. We set out the institutions such a future would require, together with the questions that remain open.

Current evaluation frameworks for artificial intelligence focus mainly on capability, safety, and proxies such as adoption, engagement, efficiency, productivity, and financial return. These criteria are necessary but insufficient because they do not establish whether increasingly powerful systems improve or degrade human and planetary well-being. Through an integrative conceptual synthesis, we argue that human flourishing should serve as a primary success criterion for artificial intelligence, the global race to develop increasingly capable AI systems, and prospective post-AGI economic systems. We make three contributions. First, Flourishing Metrics provides an extensible framework spanning physical, emotional, financial, relational, spiritual, and planetary well-being, combining validated subjective measures with representative behavioural, organisational, community, and environmental indicators. Second, Return on Flourishing (RoF) extends return on investment by evaluating the counterfactual contribution of interventions, policies, and AI systems to flourishing relative to their resources, risks, and opportunity costs. Third, we develop distribution-sensitive safeguards and show how RoF could guide AI-enabled work redesign, institutional appraisal, assurance, and post-deployment monitoring through business pilots. We formalise flourishing as a dynamic system variable while emphasising the need for democratic specification, empirical calibration, independent validation, and protection against unacceptable losses within particular dimensions or stakeholder groups. RoF is proposed not as a universal reward function, but as a value-accounting and decision architecture for assessing whether intelligence, automation, and economic transformation generate durable human and planetary progress.

Eliciting explainable AI (XAI) requirements from stroke survivors presents a methodological challenge with direct implications for the design of trustworthy brain-computer interfaces for rehabilitation. How can patients and caregivers articulate preferences about algorithmic transparency when they lack conceptual frameworks for explainability, and when standard elicitation approaches are structurally inadequate for users with acquired communication disorders? We present a video-based scaffolding protocol for XAI requirements elicitation, developed and piloted in a rehabilitation context. In a formative study with three stroke survivors (two with moderate-to-severe aphasia) and three caregivers, facilitators employed four scaffolding approaches alongside the videos: 1) analogical bridging mapping AI states to familiar systems, 2) projective personas depersonalising sensitive topics, 3) binary forcing reducing cognitive load, and 4) extended response time. These approaches successfully surfaced heterogeneous, sometimes conflicting XAI needs across participants. Reflexive analysis additionally revealed three systematic facilitation biases, namely, normative bias, hypothesis confirmation bias, and presence effect, where scaffolding inadvertently shaped responses. We present these as protocol risk guidelines for practitioners. Together, the protocol and guidelines constitute a reusable methodological contribution for eliciting patient-facing XAI requirements in rehabilitation, arguing that such elicitation is a necessary prerequisite for trustworthy human-machine systems design, not an optional preliminary.

As conversational AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential effects on user well-being require ongoing attention. While consumer-facing generalist models can provide benefits, including improved access to information, learning, productivity, self-reflection, and companionship, they also introduce risks, such as emotional entanglement, unhealthy dependence, and the amplification of psychological vulnerabilities. Drawing on prior research and empirical observations of AI chatbot behavior, we propose a set of aspirational directions for guiding the behavior of general-purpose AI systems in ways that may reduce potential psychological harms and support user well-being. We acknowledge the difficulty of systematically assessing the long-term impacts of AI chatbot use and frame these directions as hypotheses for studying how AI behavior may influence users across general interactions, role-playing scenarios, and contexts that could be characterized as providing psychological support. While some proposed directions are supported by existing research and expert insights, others identify open questions and areas requiring deeper study. We hope that this formulation and these hypotheses encourage further discussion, empirical investigation, and exploration of interactive design approaches aimed at better accommodating users' psychological needs and promoting their well-being.

More than a million people in the UK suffer from frailty or dementia, which severely compromise their ability to travel in urban environments. This paper presents SafeStep, an AI-driven travel system that assists elderly users with their journeys. At the core of SafeStep is a novel travel graph representation, which integrates route planning with predictive modelling. For each stage of a journey, the system (i) generates personalized failure scenarios using a combi-nation of LLMs and the Anticip8 behavioral prediction engine, (ii) proposes targeted interventions, and (iii) estimates the impact of interventions on out-come probabilities. This enables SafeStep to select interventions that maximize the likelihood of the person reaching their destination. SafeStep was evaluated through experiments on travel graph generation and a field study involving 26 real-world journeys. Results showed that combining Anticip8 for failure pre-diction with GPT-based models for intervention evaluation yields the most re-liable performance. User feedback indicated that SafeStep improves confidence and perceived safety during travel, although interface usability needs to be im-proved for the target demographic. In the future, we would like to improve and release SafeStep. The AI system that was developed for SafeStep could be ap-plied in other areas, such as mental health, career coaching and addiction treatment.

We examine whether richer visual representations yield more human-aligned measures of urban engagement, using 61 first-person city-walk videos from YouTube segmented into over 50,000 ten-second clips and represented across four modalities: spatiotemporal video features, temporally averaged images (TAIs), audio embeddings, and text-based semantic descriptions. Spearman correlation analysis reveals the expected ordering along the temporal-richness continuum, with video features showing the strongest continuous alignment. However, this ordering breaks down under binary classification of high- versus low-engagement moments (the paradigm most commonly used to train perceptual scoring models), where TAIs consistently match or outperform video across most classifiers and quantile thresholds. An independent two-alternative forced-choice study on Amazon Mechanical Turk confirms that this parity reflects human judgment: participants identified engaging moments with comparable accuracy from TAIs and full video clips, while text performed substantially worse and audio remained near chance. Gap analysis reveals a functional dissociation: video features are advantaged in activity-driven scenes with dynamic content, whereas TAIs better align with human judgments in composition-driven scenes dominated by stable spatial structure. These findings challenge the assumption that richer representations are inherently more human-aligned, and suggest that perceptually grounded temporal compression can be a principled alternative to full video encoding.

As AI agents become integral to business workflows, establishing guiding user experience (UX) principles is crucial for ensuring user trust and successful adoption. To address this, our study uses a multi-method approach - combining participatory design workshop, paper-and-pencil, expert review, meta-analysis, and in-depth interviews - to identify and validate a design framework of eight core UX principles for human-AI agent interaction in the workplace. Together with their underlying criteria, these principles provide actionable guardrails for designers and software engineers, creating a foundation for developing effective and human-centered AI agent interactions. This study contributes to a structured foundation for future empirical studies on agentic AI in enterprise settings.