Human-Centered AI

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.

Organizational leaders are being asked to make high-stakes decisions about AI deployment without dependable evidence of what these systems actually do in the environments they oversee. The predominant AI evaluation ecosystem yields scalable but abstract metrics that reflect the priorities of model development. By smoothing over the heterogeneity of real-world use, these model-centric approaches obscure how behavior varies across users, workflows, and settings, and rarely show where risk and value accumulate in practice. More user-centric studies reveal rich contextual detail, yet are fragmented, small-scale and loosely coupled to the mechanisms that shape model behavior. The Forum for Real-World AI Measurement and Evaluation (FRAME) aims to address this gap by combining large-scale trials of AI systems with structured observation of how they are used in context, the outcomes they generate, and how those outcomes arise. By tracing the path from an AI system's output through its practical use and downstream effects, FRAME turns the heterogeneity of AI-in-use into a measurable signal rather than a trade-off for achieving scale. The Forum establishes two core assets to achieve this: a Testing Sandbox that captures AI-in-use under real workflows at scale and a Metrics Hub that translates those traces into actionable indicators.

This study proposes CIRCLE, a six-stage, lifecycle-based framework to bridge the reality gap between model-centric performance metrics and AI system outcomes in deployment. Current approaches such as MLOps frameworks and AI model benchmarks offer detailed insights into system stability and model capabilities, but they do not provide decision makers outside the AI stack with systematic evidence of how these systems actually behave in real world contexts or affect their organizations over time. CIRCLE operationalizes the Validation phase of TEVV (Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation) by translating priorities of stakeholders outside the stack into measurable signals. Unlike participatory design which often remains localized, or algorithmic audits which are often retrospective, CIRCLE provides a structured, prospective protocol for linking context sensitive qualitative insights to scalable quantitative metrics. By integrating methods such as field testing, red teaming, and longitudinal studies into a coordinated pipeline, CIRCLE produces systematic knowledge; evidence that is comparable across sites yet sensitive to local context. This can enable governance based on materialized downstream effects rather than theoretical capabilities.

Agentic AI increasingly intervenes proactively by inferring users' situations from contextual data yet often fails for lack of principled judgment about when, why, and whether to act. We address this gap by proposing a conceptual model that reframes behavior as an interpretive outcome integrating Scene (observable situation), Context (user-constructed meaning), and Human Behavior Factors (determinants shaping behavioral likelihood). Grounded in multidisciplinary perspectives across the humanities, social sciences, HCI, and engineering, the model separates what is observable from what is meaningful to the user and explains how the same scene can yield different behavioral meanings and outcomes. To translate this lens into design action, we derive five agent design principles (behavioral alignment, contextual sensitivity, temporal appropriateness, motivational calibration, and agency preservation) that guide intervention depth, timing, intensity, and restraint. Together, the model and principles provide a foundation for designing agentic AI systems that act with contextual sensitivity and judgment in interactions.

AI tools like ChatGPT and Be-My-AI are increasingly being used by blind individuals. Although prior work has explored their use in some Do-It-Yourself (DIY) tasks by blind individuals, little is known about how they use these tools and the available product-manual resources to assemble, operate, and troubleshoot physical or tangible products - tasks requiring spatial reasoning, structural understanding, and precise execution. We address this knowledge gap via an interview study and a usability study with blind participants, investigating how they leverage AI tools and product manuals for DIY tasks with physical products. Findings show that manuals are essential resources, but product-manual instructions are often inadequate for blind users. AI tools presently do not adequately address this insufficiency; in fact, we observed that they often exacerbate this issue with incomplete, incoherent, or misleading guidance. Lastly, we suggest improvements to AI tools for generating tailored instructions for blind users' DIY tasks involving tangible products.

Dataset documentation is widely recognized as essential for the responsible development of automated systems. Despite growing efforts to support documentation through different kinds of artifacts, little is known about the motivations shaping documentation tool design or the factors hindering their adoption. We present a systematic review supported by mixed-methods analysis of 59 dataset documentation publications to examine the motivations behind building documentation tools, how authors conceptualize documentation practices, and how these tools connect to existing systems, regulations, and cultural norms. Our analysis shows four persistent patterns in dataset documentation conceptualization that potentially impede adoption and standardization: unclear operationalizations of documentation's value, decontextualized designs, unaddressed labor demands, and a tendency to treat integration as future work. Building on these findings, we propose a shift in Responsible AI tool design toward institutional rather than individual solutions, and outline actions the HCI community can take to enable sustainable documentation practices.

Generative AI agents equate understanding with resolving explicit queries, an assumption that confines interaction to what users can articulate. This assumption breaks down when users themselves lack awareness of what is missing, risky, or worth considering. In such conditions, proactivity is not merely an efficiency enhancement, but an epistemic necessity. We refer to this condition as epistemic incompleteness: where progress depends on engaging with unknown unknowns for effective partnership. Existing approaches to proactivity remain narrowly anticipatory, extrapolating from past behavior and presuming that goals are already well defined, thereby failing to support users meaningfully. However, surfacing possibilities beyond a user's current awareness is not inherently beneficial. Unconstrained proactive interventions can misdirect attention, overwhelm users, or introduce harm. Proactive agents, therefore, require behavioral grounding: principled constraints on when, how, and to what extent an agent should intervene. We advance the position that generative proactivity must be grounded both epistemically and behaviorally. Drawing on the philosophy of ignorance and research on proactive behavior, we argue that these theories offer critical guidance for designing agents that can engage responsibly and foster meaningful partnerships.

Generative social agents (GSAs) use artificial intelligence to autonomously communicate with human users in a natural and adaptive manner. Currently, there is a lack of theorizing regarding interactions with GSAs, and likewise, few guidelines exist for studying how they influence user attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, we propose the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM) as a novel theoretical framework. According to the KPM, a GSA's self-, user-, and context-knowledge drives its persuasive behavior, which in turn shapes attitudes and behaviors of a responding human user. Building on existing research, the model offers a structured approach to studying interactions with GSAs, supporting the development of agents that motivate rather than manipulate human users. Accordingly, the KPM encourages the integration of responsible GSAs that adhere to social norms and ethical standards with the goal of increasing user wellbeing. A preliminary evaluation study, as well as implications of the KPM for research and application domains such as healthcare and education are discussed.

Generative AI is likely to transform terminology work by creating new opportunities for automation. At the same time, it raises concerns about the future of terminologists and terminological resources, as efficiency pressures may encourage excessive automation based on the perception that human expertise can be replaced by AI. However, large language models remain unreliable for terminological purposes due to errors, hallucinations, and various forms of bias, making terminologists indispensable for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of terminological data. This paper argues that human-centered AI, an approach that emphasizes that AI's primary goal should be to contribute to human well-being, provides a framework for maximizing the benefits of generative AI while mitigating its risks. It contends that high levels of automation and meaningful human control are compatible and desirable, and that AI should enhance terminologists' capabilities while preserving their agency and decision-making authority. The implications of AI-assisted terminology work are examined through three interrelated dimensions: the augmented terminologist, ethical AI, and human-centered design. In particular, the paper examines how AI integration reshapes the role of the terminologist, affects professional values and working conditions, requires the management of AI-generated bias, and calls for the design of AI tools around the terminologist's needs. The paper concludes that a human-centered orientation is necessary to ensure that AI strengthens, rather than undermines, the essential role of terminology work in supporting specialized communication and the accurate transmission of knowledge across languages and cultures.

Current mobile health platforms are predominantly individual-centric and lack the support for coordinated, auditable multi-actor workflows. However, in many settings worldwide, health decisions are enacted through multi-actor coordination rather than individual users. We present JEEVHITAA, a cross-platform mobile system enabling role-aware sharing and verifiable information flows within permissioned care circles. JEEVHITAA ingests platform and device data, builds layered profiles from sensors and tiered onboarding, and enforces fine-grained, time-bounded access control across care graphs. Data stays secure both within the application and the cloud. Integrated retrieval-augmented Large Language Models produce structured, role-targeted summaries and action plans, offer evidence-grounded verification with provenance and confidence scores, and support advanced insights on reports. We describe the architecture, connector abstractions, and security primitives, and report robustness evaluations using synthetic, ontology-driven data and findings from a feasibility study with real-life care circles across 9-14 weeks. We outline plans for larger multi-site evaluations focusing on operational alignment, longitudinal trust & literacy impact, and relational friction & efforts to sink into the daily infrastructure.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly shape consequential decisions, creating value but also potential harms for individuals, social groups, and society. This has prompted calls for proactive approaches that anticipate harms early in the AI lifecycle. Although prior research identifies AI biases as sources of harm, the associations between particular lifecycle biases and harms remain insufficiently understood. We introduce ECHO, a systematic, context-sensitive, and participatory framework that anchors early harm anticipation in lifecycle biases and elicits their perceived associations with potential harms.ECHO identifies domain-specific stakeholders, instantiates biases through vignettes, collects harm judgements from human participants and a large language model (LLM), and organises them into descriptive and inferential ethical matrices. Applied to disease diagnosis and hiring, ECHO surfaced non-uniform, context-sensitive bias--harm patterns indicating which harms were perceived as plausible consequences of particular AI biases. The theoretical interpretability of these patterns and the inferential support for specific associations strengthen the plausibility of the mappings. By linking stakeholder-specific anticipated harms to lifecycle biases, ECHO supports source-level harm anticipation and provides structured input to subsequent AI governance actions

Personal AI agents are increasingly deployed in shared environments, where their actions affect not just the primary user they are assisting, but bystanders who never consented to being affected by the system. We show that a well-meaning AI assistant optimizing for one user's benefit can unintentionally erode a bystander's agency, a phenomenon we formalize as bystander disempowerment. We theoretically characterize the conditions under which disempowerment arises, showing it emerges when an assistant systematically selects actions that increase user empowerment at the bystander's expense. We empirically demonstrate this in Disempower-Grid, a parameterized suite of multi-agent gridworld environments, finding that between 27-96% of procedurally generated environments exhibit disempowerment, and that the presence of disempowerment depends strongly on assistant objective and capability, not just environmental structure.

AI is changing work and decision making faster than many institutions can adapt their operating practices. We argue that this adaptation gap makes human resilience a core capability for the AI era. We define resilience as the capacity to absorb disruption while preserving effective action and human agency around core purposes. The framework operates at three interacting levels. Psychological resilience keeps a person goal-directed under stress. Social resilience makes trusted support and correction available across a group. Organizational resilience turns detected problems into learning and recovery. We connect established resilience and technostress research with direct AI-in-the-loop experiments. General resilience is trainable, while AI-specific causal evidence is still emerging. Direct AI studies show that assistance can raise productivity and spread expertise. Other experiments show improved expressed empathy and more calibrated reliance. We translate these findings into a practical agenda for AI education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation. The central proposal is socio-technical: structural safeguards define the operating boundary, while resilient people and institutions provide adaptive capacity when conditions change.

As human-AI interactions increasingly reshape social and research landscapes, the risks of overreliance, cognitive offloading, and the nuanced degradation of human agency have become more apparent. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a novel conceptual framework based on the psychological triad: cognition, behavior, and emotion. Through a comprehensive survey of recent research, we observe that while AI can substantially enhance outcomes such as memory, creativity, and engagement, it simultaneously introduces systemic risks, including diminished critical thinking, skill erosion, and increased anxiety. Emotional outcomes are shown to be similarly mixed, with AI systems offering support and stress reduction while raising critical concerns regarding dependency, inappropriate attachments, and ethical oversight. By synthesizing these findings into the TRIAD model, a recursive framework of appraisal, execution, and regulation, this paper moves beyond isolated metrics toward a systems-level understanding of how AI shapes cognitive depth, behavioral patterns, and emotional development over time. The proposed model underscores the need for responsible, context-aware AI integration and establishes a grounded evaluation framework capable of capturing the complex, human-centered trade-offs inherent in modern technological advancement.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping educational practice, challenging long held assumptions about teaching and learning. This article integrates conceptual perspectives from recent books (Genesis by Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger and Craig Mundie, CoIntelligence by Ethan Mollick, and The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly) with empirical insights from popular AI podcasts and Anthropic public releases. We examine seven key domains: emotional support, creativity, contextual understanding, student engagement, problem solving, ethics and morality, and collaboration. For each domain, we explore AI capabilities, opportunities for transformative change, and emerging best practices, drawing equally from theoretical analysis and real world observations. Overall, we find that AI, when used thoughtfully, can complement and enhance human educators in fostering richer learning experiences across cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions. We emphasize an optimistic yet responsible outlook: educators and students should actively shape AI integration to amplify human potential in creativity, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and beyond, while maintaining a focus on human centric values.

Autonomy, from the Greek autos (self) and nomos (law), refers to the capacity to operate according to internal rules without external control. Autonomous vehicles (AuVs) are therefore understood as vehicular systems that perceive their environment and execute tasks with minimal human intervention, consistent with the direction indicated by the SAE levels of automated driving. However, recent research and deployments increasingly showcase vehicular capabilities that, while not contradicting autonomy, are not entailed by it, including ambiguous goal handling, purposeful social engagement, external tool use, proactive problem solving, continuous learning, and context-sensitive reasoning in unseen and ethically salient situations, enabled in part by multimodal language models. These developments reveal a gap between technical autonomy and the broader social cognitive functions required for human-centered mobility, which are more precisely captured by the notion of agency. Therefore, rather than adding increasingly elaborate modifiers to "autonomous," we introduce agentic vehicles (AgVs) and suggest that autonomy and agency are intertwined but conceptually distinct: if autonomy concerns what to do and how to do it (task executions under internal rules), agency pertains to why to do it and what else can be done (goal-directed, adaptive actions). We present autonomy and agency as orthogonal yet synergistic dimensions with co-development implications. Vehicle agency marks a novel dimension of mobility service intelligence, heralding vehicles as purposeful actors in society.

Peer support plays a vital role in expanding access to mental health care by providing empathetic, community-based support outside formal clinical systems. As digital platforms increasingly mediate such support, the design and impact of these technologies remain under-examined, particularly in Asian contexts. This paper presents findings from an interview study with 20 peer supporters in Singapore, who operate across diverse online, offline, and hybrid environments. Through a thematic analysis, we unpack how participants start, conduct, and sustain peer support, highlighting their motivations, emotional labour, and the sociocultural dimensions shaping their practices. Building on this grounded understanding, we surface design directions for culturally responsive digital tools that scaffold rather than supplant relational care. Drawing insights from qualitative accounts, we offer a situated perspective on how AI might responsibly augment peer support. This research contributes to human-centred computing by articulating the lived realities of peer supporters and proposing design implications for trustworthy and context-sensitive AI in mental health.

The rising prevalence of chronic wounds, especially in aging populations, presents a significant healthcare challenge due to prolonged hospitalizations, elevated costs, and reduced patient quality of life. Traditional wound care is resource-intensive, requiring frequent in-person visits that strain both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Thus, we present WoundAIssist, a patient-centered, AI-driven mobile application supporting telemedical wound care. WoundAIssist enables patients to document wounds at home via photographs and questionnaires, while physicians remain engaged in the care process through remote monitoring and video consultations. A distinguishing feature is an integrated lightweight deep learning model for on-device wound segmentation, guiding users during image capture. Combined with patient-reported data and server-side AI analysis, this enables continuous monitoring of wound healing progression. Developed through an iterative, user-centered process involving patients and domain experts, WoundAIssist prioritizes an user-friendly design, particularly for elderly patients. A conclusive usability study with patients and dermatologists reported excellent usability, good app quality, and favorable perceptions of the AI-driven wound recognition. Our main contribution is two-fold: (I) the development and (II) evaluation of WoundAIssist, an easy-to-use yet comprehensive telehealth solution designed to bridge the gap between patients and HCPs. Additionally, we synthesize design insights for remote patient monitoring apps, derived from over three years of interdisciplinary research, that may inform the development of similar digital health tools across clinical domains.