Human-Centered Framework

Machine learning (ML) has become the dominant approach for network traffic classification, achieving very high predictive performance. However, a model is only valuable if it learns semantically meaningful and trustworthy patterns rather than exploiting spurious correlations. Conventional evaluation practices predominantly assess predictive performance. Consequently, whether the model relies on semantically meaningful patterns remains unknown. To address these challenges, we adapt the knowledge generation framework for network traffic classification. The adapted framework combines data, ML models, explainability, visualization, and expert reasoning to support the iterative exploration, verification, and refinement of model behavior and data preprocessing. The framework is grounded in findings from the literature, benchmark dataset analyses, practical experience with XAI-based traffic classification, and expert feedback, providing practical guidance for semantic model validation. By complementing predictive performance with semantic validation and human expertise, the proposed framework supports the development of network traffic classification models that are not only accurate but also robust and trustworthy.

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

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.

Running a business is a challenging form of intelligent work. Operators must infer opportunities from partial signals, commit capital under uncertainty, adapt to delayed outcomes in a changing market, and satisfy regulatory obligations before trading legally. Frontier LLM agents can increasingly complete complex workflows, yet business-related capabilities are rarely evaluated in existing agent benchmarks. We introduce \textbf{Business Arena}, a controlled environment where an AI agent runs a cross-border shop, buying from suppliers and selling to buyers over a long horizon. We ground the arena in real Alibaba.com sourcing data and market conditions calibrated from authoritative sources. Delayed and coupled consequences make individual business decisions difficult to judge, but their combined outcome is measurable through profit. Because profit alone cannot explain why an agent succeeds or fails, we compare agents with human-designed strategies to estimate available opportunity, use skill-level metrics to reveal underlying strengths and weaknesses, and trace realized gains and losses to the actions that produced them. We use mechanism ablations to establish that strong results reflect genuine business intelligence rather than neglect or simulator-specific shortcuts. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find a ninefold difference in mean final net worth. Even the best model falls behind human-designed strategies, indicating that business operation remains challenging for LLM agents. Skill-level analysis reveals operating styles, from margin-focused premium sellers to high-turnover wholesalers and customer-service specialists, while action-level attribution identifies the sourcing, pricing, and recovery decisions that create or destroy value. Together, Business Arena takes a first step toward a realistic and trustworthy testbed for evaluating end-to-end business agents.

Care robots are increasingly being introduced into healthcare settings, raising important questions about their acceptance and ethical implementation. To better understand these challenges, this study investigates caregivers' perceptions of four categories of care robots: delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility. We conducted a mixed-methods study employing a mixed-factorial design in which 298 caregivers from the United States, Mexico, and Chile evaluated all four robot categories. Quantitative measures integrated constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Cognitive-Affective-Normative model, and overall acceptance ratings. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using a literature-informed ethical framework. The results indicate that participants across countries generally evaluated care robots positively, particularly for logistical and physically demanding tasks rather than those requiring intensive interpersonal interaction. The qualitative findings provide further insight into stakeholders' views of the ethical implications of care robot use. Participants emphasized potential benefits such as reduced workload, lower risk, and greater patient autonomy, while also expressing concerns about dependability, the need for human oversight, and potential job displacement. Although many ethical concerns were shared across countries, participants differed in how they interpreted and prioritized them. These findings advance a context-sensitive and socially informed understanding of responsible design and implementation of care robots.

This work presents a human-centered collaborative framework that integrates Preference-Based Optimization (PBO) and Dynamic Movement Primitives (DMPs) to optimize robot-assisted tasks such as painting. The system allows the operator to perform the process while the robot adapts its behavior in real-time, dynamically adjusting the orientation of the piece in order to match the orientation of the operator's hand. The PBO framework leverages the GLISp algorithm to iteratively refine control parameters such as execution time, robot responsiveness, and rotation amplification through human feedback. Moreover, DMPs have been modified to enhance the reactive behavior of the robot and its adaptability to ergonomic requirements. The method was validated with a heterogeneous group of participants executing \rev{painting tasks}. The results show that our strategy effectively reduces operator effort while optimizing process outcomes.

Human assistance in robotics spans around several tasks such as navigation, object manipulation, and placement, where a key challenge is selecting target destinations that align with human intentions or preferences. We focus on this challenge in the context of Virtual Placement (VP), the task of identifying all plausible target locations given scene context and human-centric constraints. This differs from traditional placement tasks that typically focus on a single, predefined target location. The VP problem is complex, as it requires both global and local reasoning about the scene's geometry, semantics, and plausibility. To address this gap, we introduce {\bf Assistant Placement Aria}, the first benchmark to explore diverse aspects of VP, including global, local, and human-centric constraints. It contains both synthetic and real indoor scenes annotated for three tasks: (i)~2D Panel Placement, (ii)~Sitting Suggestion, and (iii)~TV Placement. Each scene includes 2D images, a 3D point cloud, and a textual description of the objects within the scene. By contributing this benchmark, we aim to encourage further research in this underexplored and challenging field that is critically dependent on relevant data. We also evaluate several foundation models for object detection and segmentation on our benchmark.

Social appropriateness in human-robot interaction (HRI) is not universal: different people can judge the same robot action differently in the same situation. To capture this inter-subject variability, we reformulate socially appropriate action generation as a preference modelling problem inspired by recommender systems, treating annotators as users, contexts/scenes as items, and appropriateness scores over a set of candidate robot actions as targets. We propose StARS, a novel model-agnostic framework that integrates collaborative filtering with learnable scene representations to generate user-specific appropriateness scores over candidate robot actions. StARS is model-agnostic: it can be integrated with various scene encoders and backbones, enabling personalisation without redesigning the underlying model. We evaluate StARS on two socially aware robotics datasets, MannersDB+ and SocNav1, and analyse robustness under sparse preference feedback. Across datasets and backbones, StARS consistently improves performance and agreement with annotators, supporting personalised action selection aligned with user norms. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/Cambridge-AFAR/StARS.git.

Annotation quality is a major bottleneck in building reliable and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) systems for mental health research. In depression-related datasets, labels are often assigned without structured evidence, symptom-level justification, or traceable alignment with the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), limiting both transparency and downstream model interpretability. We propose a self-evolving, expert-in-the-loop annotation framework for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) that combines large language model (LLM)-assisted labeling with expert verification. The framework is intended to support the construction of explainable, DSM-5-TR-aligned datasets rather than to perform clinical diagnosis. It operates in three stages: candidate evidence selection from textual records, criterion-level DSM-5-TR analysis, and case-level synthesis that produces label-level diagnostic and severity annotations. A dual-memory architecture, composed of Example Memory and Reflection Memory, is designed to internalize expert feedback and iteratively improve future annotations without retraining. We describe this mechanism and leave its evaluation across multiple feedback cycles to future work. In addition to final labels, the framework exports clinical evidence, reasoning traces, and edit histories, enabling comprehensive auditability. In a pilot study using expert-reviewed samples, the proposed approach improves annotation consistency and explainability while reducing manual revision effort.

This paper proposes a human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) framework for AI-assisted lexicography. While generative AI offers significant opportunities to enhance lexicographic work, it also raises concerns regarding the future role of lexicographers and the preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity. Drawing on HCAI principles and previous applications in other language professions, the paper identifies four interrelated dimensions through which AI integration in lexicography can be understood and critically examined: the augmented lexicographer, the sociotechnical context of AI integration, bias, and the design of AI-powered lexicographic tools. The framework argues that AI should augment rather than replace lexicographers, combining automation with meaningful human control. It further emphasizes the importance of preserving professional agency, mitigating AI-generated biases, and designing tools around the needs of lexicographers. By doing so, the paper provides a foundation for future research and the beneficial integration of AI into lexicographic workflows.

AI code assistants are transforming software development, but their implications for software security remain a major concern, particularly in the context of security APIs. These APIs are critical for safeguarding software systems, yet their complexity often leads to incorrect use and serious vulnerabilities. Developing an evidence-based understanding of how AI assistants influence developers' use of these APIs is therefore essential for informing effective mitigation strategies. While a few user studies have examined the broader impact of AI assistants on software vulnerabilities, the use of security APIs remains unexplored from a developer-centered perspective. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first empirical investigation into how AI code assistants affect professional developers' use of security APIs. We conducted a study with 44 developers who completed security API programming tasks with and without GitHub Copilot assistance. Our findings show that, while Copilot improves functional correctness and marginally reduces certain insecure patterns, it does not significantly improve secure API usage. We also found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure. Finally, we offer recommendations for enhancing security awareness among developers and propose future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse areas of human activity-ranging from everyday tasks to safety-critical applications-aims to enhance decision-making effectiveness with minimal human feedback. Concurrently, it seeks to align decisions with human expectations, preferences, and needs while mitigating risks associated with AI non-determinism. However, humans frequently over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, and current AI systems remain poorly calibrated to human expectations. To address these challenges, we introduce a human-AI collaborative decision-making framework designed to augment human capabilities and align AI agents with human preferences and expectations. Specifically, this paper (a) formulates the collaborative decision-making task as a stochastic game between an AI agent and a human player, and (b) proposes the Human-Centric Reflective Architecture (HCRA), which integrates human-calibrated models with reinforcement learning agents that leverage linguistic feedback in an iterative, reflective process. Evaluation results demonstrate that HCRA enhances decision-making effectiveness and delivers high-quality recommendations.

The last few years have seen a significant rise in interest in highly autonomous and proactive systems, fueled by advances in AI. Systems that anticipate user needs, take initiative, and act without explicit user input. Such systems span a wide range of applications, from smart lighting that adapts to user activity to assistive robots that plan actions in advance to intelligent thermostats that learn routines and adjust environments proactively. Despite this breadth, the concept of proactivity remains loosely defined and inconsistently applied across research and practice. Current usage of the term often conflates fundamentally different system behaviors. For instance, simple reminders or recommendation systems are frequently labeled as proactive, even though underlying mechanisms and intentions differ significantly. This conceptual ambiguity limits our ability to systematically design, compare, and evaluate proactive systems. Moreover, existing methodologies for design and evaluation are largely rooted in reactive interaction paradigms, failing to address the unique challenges posed by proactive behavior, including timing, appropriateness, user control, transparency, and trust. This multidisciplinary workshop aims to establish a clearer and more rigorous foundation for understanding proactive systems. We bring together researchers and practitioners from Human-Computer Interaction, AI, and related fields to (1) develop a shared conceptualization of proactivity, (2) identify gaps and limitations in current design and evaluation approaches, and (3) co-create human-centered guidelines and research directions for future systems. Through interactive discussions and collaborative activities, the workshop seeks to map key challenges and opportunities, ultimately advancing robust and consistent frameworks for designing and evaluating proactive technologies.

Demand for older-adult and patient care is growing rapidly as populations age worldwide. Foundation models are increasingly being integrated into robots and interactive agents, with the promise of more flexible communication and personalized assistance. However, care settings require reliable and workflow-compatible systems with accountable human oversight, and it remains unclear whether current embodied systems can translate technical advances into clinical impact. This Perspective synthesizes foundation model-based care robots across three areas: design features, user experience, and evidence for care-related outcomes. Current systems most commonly use foundation models as conversational and reasoning layers within voice-centered socially assistive embodiments, while multimodal grounding and physical autonomy remain limited. Empirical evaluations report positive usability and engagement benefits, but reliability failures persist across the interaction pipeline such as hallucinations and conversational breakdowns. Evidence for care impact remains concentrated in proximal outcomes such as cognitive engagement and participation, with limited evidence for validated clinical or care-related changes. We argue that future research should transition toward care-specific evaluation standards, accountable autonomy, and integration into care workflows to support more responsive and responsible care technologies.

Robots operating in human environments must not only ensure physical safety but also exhibit behaviors that are understandable, fluent, and acceptable to human partners. This paper investigates motion generation strategies that combine safety guarantees with interaction quality considerations, such as motion smoothness and human comfort. While the design of robots capable of ensuring safety in shared human-robot environments has enabled closer and more advanced forms of interaction, these new proximity-based tasks require moving beyond purely technical considerations. In particular, robot behavior must also be addressed from psycho-cognitive and social perspectives. In this context, we argue for the relevance of integrating social-aware motion control into robotic systems. First, we identify the motion parameters that influence human perception and operator experience. Then, we implement a Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework that generates four distinct socially-informed robot behaviors. Finally, we conduct a user study to evaluate and validate these behaviors and assess their social impact on non-expert participants. The results demonstrate that variations in robot behavior significantly affect the perceived social acceptability of the system. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating human-centered considerations into motion generation strategies for robots operating in shared environments.

Traditional Video Quality Assessment (VQA) focuses narrowly on aesthetic fidelity, overlooking the complex social dynamics that define quality in User-Generated Content (UGC). In this work, we propose a paradigm shift from signal-centric metrics to human-centric resonance assessment. We introduce CASTER (Community-Aware Assessment of Social Textual Engagement and Resonance), a new task that evaluates whether a UGC item achieves positive community resonance based on its multimodal attributes rather than visual quality alone. To address this, we present MEDEA (Multimodal Engagement-Driven Evaluation Architecture), which introduces a novel Social Chain-of-Thought (Social-CoT) mechanism. Unlike traditional logical CoT, Social-CoT performs multimodal perspective-taking, instantiating diverse viewer personas to simulate collective cognitive and emotional reactions (i.e., the "community mind") before deriving a quality judgment. MEDEA is trained via a two-stage approach involving supervised fine-tuning and process-supervised reinforcement learning with Social Alignment Reward to ensure reasoning paths are grounded in authentic human social cognition. To support this task, we release CASTER-Bench, a comprehensive human-annotated benchmark covering diverse UGC categories. Experiments demonstrate that MEDEA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on CASTER-Bench while providing interpretable and empathetic reasoning paths that align with real community feedback.

Mobile robots operating in human-centered environments must generate not only collision-free paths but also trajectories that follow local behavioral conventions. Conventional costmap-based navigation emphasizes geometric feasibility and often overlooks such requirements, which can result in socially inappropriate behaviors. This paper presents NORM-Nav, a zero-shot framework that integrates natural language behavioral constraints into costmap-based planning. An LLM parses each instruction into structured constraints and grounds them using real-time vision--LiDAR perception. These constraints are encoded as multi-layer costmaps that represent geometric, semantic, directional, and velocity cues and are directly compatible with standard grid-based planners. Simulation and real-world experiments indicate that NORM-Nav improves task success rates and produces trajectories closer to human references than representative baselines. The project website is available at https://ei-nav.github.io/NORM-Nav.

Some claim that AI agents will free workers from the boring parts of their jobs, yet little is known about how workers themselves identify which tasks should be automated. Prior research focuses on occupations, overlooking that workers experience varying levels of meaning across tasks within the same role. We address this gap with a task-level analysis grounded in Graeber's theory of bullshit jobs. Using ratings from 202 workers on 171 workplace tasks, we (1) validate a five-item scale of perceived bullshitness, (2) show that perceived bullshitness strongly predicts desire for AI delegation, and (3) find that such tasks are also seen as requiring less human oversight. Together, these findings suggest that tasks perceived as bullshit are natural candidates for AI delegation, aligning worker preferences with perceived feasibility.

As AI agents transition from research prototypes to enterprise production systems, the tool interfaces they consume remain rooted in human-oriented CRUD paradigms. This paper identifies five fundamental architectural mismatches between conventional APIs and autonomous agent requirements: exact-identifier dependence, rendering-oriented responses, single-shot interaction assumptions, user-equivalent authorization, and opaque error semantics. We propose the Agent-First Tool API paradigm, comprising three integrated mechanisms: (1) a Six-Verb Semantic Protocol that decomposes tool interactions into search, resolve, preview, execute, verify, and recover phases; (2) a Normalized Tool Contract (NTC) providing structured decision-support metadata including confidence scores, evidence chains, and suggested next actions; and (3) a dual-layer governance pipeline combining static capability policies with dynamic risk escalation. The paradigm is implemented and validated in a production multi-tenant SaaS platform serving 85 registered tools across 6 business domains. Comparative experiments on 50 real operational tasks demonstrate that Agent-First APIs achieve 88% end-to-end task success rate versus 64% for optimized CRUD baselines (+37.5%), while reducing required human interventions by 72.7% and improving autonomous error recovery by 5.8x. We establish that the paradigm is orthogonal and complementary to transport-layer standards such as MCP, operating as the semantic application layer above existing tool discovery and invocation protocols.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping the private and professional lives of users, with numerous applications in business, education, finance, healthcare, law, and science. With this rise in global influence comes greater urgency to build, evaluate, and deploy these systems in a manner that prioritizes not only technical capabilities but also human priorities. This work presents a framework for developing Human-Centered Large Language Models (HCLLMs), which integrates perspectives from Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and responsible AI. Considering the ethics, economics, and technical objectives of language modeling, we argue that model developers need to address human concerns, preferences, values, and goals, not only during a cursory post-training stage, but rather with rigor and care at every stage of the pipeline. This paper offers human-centered insights and recommendations for developers at each stage, from system design to data sourcing, model training, evaluation, and responsible deployment. Then we conclude with a case study, applying these insights to understand the future of work with HCLLMs.

Ethical deliberation is often misunderstood as a search for single right or wrong answers, creating difficulties for non-ethically trained personnel who must address ethically laden challenges. We developed EeVA, an agentic-like LLM-based workflow designed to support comparative ethical reflection rather than deliver definitive ethical answers. EeVA was programmed in n8n using three interconnected workflows: starter, worker, and emitter. It evaluated uploaded use cases against 10 ethical frameworks through evaluator and synthesis prompts. Proof-of-concept testing used three published cases from urban mobility, peer-to-peer energy trading, and social-service resource allocation. Across all cases, EeVA produced consistently structured framework-specific evaluations and integrated syntheses. Outputs differentiated between frameworks, identified convergences and divergences, recommended modifications to increase alignment, and highlighted persistent ethical tensions. Syntheses were readable for non-specialists and shifted attention away from simplistic answers toward design conditions, safeguards, and areas where full cross-framework agreement was unlikely. The findings suggest that LLMs can be organised into usable workflows that preserve ethical plurality while helping bridge the communicative gap between ethicists and non-ethically trained personnel. EeVA's value lies not in replacing ethicists or resolving moral disagreement, but in scaffolding structured ethical deliberation. EeVA offers a promising proof of concept for supporting ethical reflection where access to ethics expertise is limited. Further work is needed on reproducibility, human evaluation, user testing, and efficiency before it can be considered a mature tool.

What shapes a consequential decision when human and artificial intelligence work on it together? The answer is becoming harder to see. A decision may look human-led after AI has set the frame, or appear automated while human judgment still carries decisive force. This paper offers a leadership-facing spectrum to see those relationships within a bounded mandate: Pure Human, Centaur (human-dominant, with AI in the loop), Co-equal, Minotaur (AI-dominant, with humans in the loop), and Pure AI. The spectrum asks where leadership work occurs: who frames the problem, who redirects the work, and who can answer for what follows. The five positions are landmarks that help leaders recognize configurations as they layer, drift, or change in a single decision. The central risk is misrecognition: leaders may keep a human-centered story in place after decision-shaping authority has shifted elsewhere. They may believe oversight remains meaningful when it has become ceremonial, or keep humans in the loop when their involvement could make the decision worse. The framework introduces co-adaptability, the capacity of a configuration to improve as human and non-human participants adjust together, and places it within heterogeneous teaming, where participants may vary by number, substrate, model architecture, capability, speed, memory, and form of participation. The aim is practical: to help strategic leaders and those designing or deploying AI systems recognize the configuration at work, notice when it shifts, and judge whether it fits the decision before them. These configurations will shape how power, responsibility, and trust are distributed in organizational life. Whether the futures they help create remain governable and worth inhabiting will depend on leaders who can see, early enough, where and how consequential decisions are actually being shaped.

In remote and hybrid work contexts, the integration of physical and digital environments is revolutionizing spatial experiences, collaboration, and interpersonal interactions. This study examines three fundamental spatial conditions: the physical environment, characterized by material and sensory attributes; the virtual environment, influenced by immersive technologies; and their fusion into hybrid environments where digital and physical components interact dynamically. The increasing number of AI tools in contemporary society, extensively utilized in both professional and personal spheres, has led to a varied landscape of developing technologies. For instance, ChatGPT has emerged as one of the most downloaded applications, a statistically substantiated fact that demonstrates the swift incorporation of language-based AI into daily life. It also underscores the function of large language models (LLMs) as meaningful bridges between concepts at reading emotional and behavioral signals via natural language. These models provide real-time modifications such as altering illumination, acoustics, or interface configurations, converting static settings into dynamic, emotionally receptive environments. We investigate the integration of language models into professional settings and their potential to enhance user experience by promoting focus, well-being, and engagement. The study investigates ethical concerns, including privacy, emotional tracking, and user agency, emphasizing the importance of inclusive and transparent design. This research formulates a framework for creating co-adaptive environments that merge technological innovation with human-centered experiences, offering a fresh viewpoint on responsive and supportive hybrid workspaces.

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.

The rapid advancement of robotics is reshaping what it means for humans and robots to coexist -- through expanded capabilities, more intuitive interactions, and deeper integration into real-world workflows. Beyond sharing physical space, this coexistence is increasingly characterized by organizational embeddedness, temporal evolution, social situatedness, and open-ended uncertainty. Because such coexistence extends beyond a single encounter, understanding healthcare robots requires looking beyond initial acceptance to how stakeholders' perceptions evolve through continued engagement. Yet, prior work has largely relied on single-point snapshots of attitudes and acceptance, offering limited insight into coexistence as a long-term, dynamic process. We address these gaps through in-depth follow-up interviews with nine participants from a 14-week co-design study on healthcare robots. We identify the human perception space, which includes four interpretive dimensions (i.e., degree of decomposition, source of evidence, scope of reasoning, and temporal orientation). We enrich the conceptual framework of human-robot coexistence by conceptualizing the mutual relationship between the human perception space and the robot design space as a co-evolving loop, in which human needs, design decisions, situated interpretations, and social mediation continuously reshape one another over time. Building on this, we propose considerate human-robot coexistence, arguing that humans act not only as design contributors but also as interpreters and mediators who actively shape how robots are understood and integrated across deployment stages. Our related prior work and supplementary materials, including the interview protocol, are available at https://byc-sophie.github.io/considerate-human-robot-coexistence/

Although recent large multimodal models (LMMs) show impressive progress on vision language tasks, their alignment with human centered (HC) principles such as fairness, ethics, inclusivity, empathy, and robustness is often overlooked. Existing LMM benchmarks are largely accuracy-agnostic. We present HumaniBench, a unified framework for characterizing HC alignment across realistic, socially grounded visual contexts. It contains 32,000 expert-verified image-question pairs from real-world news imagery, each mapped to one or more HC principles through explicit metrics. Comparing 15 state of the art LMMs reveals consistent trade -offs: proprietary systems lead on ethics, reasoning, and empathy, while open-source models show superior visual grounding and resilience. All models show persistent gaps in fairness and multilingual inclusivity. Chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling yield 8to 12 % gains on several HC dimensions. HumaniBench enables fine-grained analysis of alignment trade-offs not captured by conventional multimodal benchmarks. https://vectorinstitute.github.io/humanibench/