arXiv subjects

Aakriti Kumar

Publications and source records attributed to Aakriti Kumar.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Practicing with Language Models Cultivates Human Empathic Communication

Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. We built a conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM expressing realistic troubles and conducted a randomized experiment collecting 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners. We find participants report feeling empathy but systematically fail to express it, but an LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on effective empathic communication significantly boosts it without homogenizing participants' responses. Moreover, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogues across personal and workplace trouble scenarios. These results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

When Large Language Models are Reliable for Judging Empathic Communication

Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating empathic responses in text-based conversations. But, how reliably do they judge the nuances of empathic communication? We investigate this question by comparing how experts, crowdworkers, and LLMs annotate empathic communication across four evaluative frameworks drawn from psychology, natural language processing, and communications applied to 200 real-world conversations where one speaker shares a personal problem and the other offers support. Drawing on 3,150 expert annotations, 2,844 crowd annotations, and 3,150 LLM annotations, we assess inter-rater reliability between these three annotator groups. We find that expert agreement is high but varies across the frameworks' sub-components depending on their clarity, complexity, and subjectivity. We show that expert agreement offers a more informative benchmark for contextualizing LLM performance than standard classification metrics. Across all four frameworks, LLMs consistently approach this expert level benchmark and exceed the reliability of crowdworkers. These results demonstrate how LLMs, when validated on specific tasks with appropriate benchmarks, can support transparency and oversight in emotionally sensitive applications including their use as conversational companions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Characterizing Photorealism and Artifacts in Diffusion Model-Generated Images

Diffusion model-generated images can appear indistinguishable from authentic photographs, but these images often contain artifacts and implausibilities that reveal their AI-generated provenance. Given the challenge to public trust in media posed by photorealistic AI-generated images, we conducted a large-scale experiment measuring human detection accuracy on 450 diffusion-model generated images and 149 real images. Based on collecting 749,828 observations and 34,675 comments from 50,444 participants, we find that scene complexity of an image, artifact types within an image, display time of an image, and human curation of AI-generated images all play significant roles in how accurately people distinguish real from AI-generated images. Additionally, we propose a taxonomy characterizing artifacts often appearing in images generated by diffusion models. Our empirical observations and taxonomy offer nuanced insights into the capabilities and limitations of diffusion models to generate photorealistic images in 2024.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), become increasingly integrated into decision-making processes, the ability to trust their outputs is crucial. To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated such that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct. Whereas recent work has focused on LLMs' internal confidence, less is understood about how effectively they convey uncertainty to users. Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers. Our experiments with multiple-choice and short-answer questions reveal that users tend to overestimate the accuracy of LLM responses when provided with default explanations. Moreover, longer explanations increased user confidence, even when the extra length did not improve answer accuracy. By adjusting LLM explanations to better reflect the models' internal confidence, both the calibration gap and the discrimination gap narrowed, significantly improving user perception of LLM accuracy. These findings underscore the importance of accurate uncertainty communication and highlight the effect of explanation length in influencing user trust in AI-assisted decision-making environments. Code and Data can be found at https://osf.io/y7pr6/ . Journal publication can be found on Nature Machine Intelligence at https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00976-7 .

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Capturing Humans' Mental Models of AI: An Item Response Theory Approach

Improving our understanding of how humans perceive AI teammates is an important foundation for our general understanding of human-AI teams. Extending relevant work from cognitive science, we propose a framework based on item response theory for modeling these perceptions. We apply this framework to real-world experiments, in which each participant works alongside another person or an AI agent in a question-answering setting, repeatedly assessing their teammate's performance. Using this experimental data, we demonstrate the use of our framework for testing research questions about people's perceptions of both AI agents and other people. We contrast mental models of AI teammates with those of human teammates as we characterize the dimensionality of these mental models, their development over time, and the influence of the participants' own self-perception. Our results indicate that people expect AI agents' performance to be significantly better on average than the performance of other humans, with less variation across different types of problems. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for human-AI interaction.

cs.LG↗