Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Catholijn M. Jonker

Publications and source records attributed to Catholijn M. Jonker.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Reflecti-Mate: A Conversational Agent for Adaptive Decision-Making Support Through System 1 and System 2 Thinking

Making high-stakes personal decisions involves cognitive, emotional, and intuitive processes, and individuals differ in how they allocate attention across these modes. Integration of these processes has shown to benefit decision making. Yet, most current decision-support systems focus primarily on supporting cognitive aspects, rather than adapting to the individual's thinking profile to support integration of different types of thoughts. In this study, we investigate an agent designed to encourage integration by adapting to the individual user's thought patterns. We explore its effects on participants' perceptions of the agent and their reflective behavior, in comparison with unaided pre-reflection and a baseline agent. In a between-subjects study (N = 128), our agent, which fostered broad and elaborated thinking, enabled more personalized reflective trajectories, elicited more integrative reflective language, and was perceived as providing stronger support for holistic reflection. In contrast, the baseline agent produced homogenized profiles dominated by cognitive language across participants.

cs.HC↗

Seeking Information with RAG-Assistants: Does Model Size Matter in Human-AI Collaborations?

Much research on LLMs has focused on increasing benchmark performance. However, the evaluation of such models in real-world collaborative human-AI workflows has stayed behind. This work evaluates a chatbot-style assistant based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in a realistic multi-turn information-seeking scenario inspired by workplace settings where compliance with local legislation and secure handling of sensitive data are often key. Specifically, we examine the performance of humans (N=112) assisted by RAG-assistants compared to LLM-only or LLM+RAG baselines. In this setting, we investigate how underlying model size (3B, 8B, and 70B) shapes the human-AI collaborative dynamic and how it influences perceived usability and satisfaction. Results show that the performance gain of human-AI collaboration over the model-only baselines is significant, irrespective of model size, suggesting that hybrid systems are beneficial in information-seeking scenarios. Interestingly, however, perceived usability and satisfaction among participants showed little difference across model sizes. This demonstrates a nuanced trade-off between model size, performance, and user perception. Our work highlights the added value of evaluating AI applications in actual multi-turn interactions with human users, looking at usability and satisfaction besides accuracy, rather than focusing on benchmark performance only.

cs.IR↗

[COMP25] The Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC) 2025 Challenges and Results

This paper presents the primary research challenges and key findings from the 15th International Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2025), one of the official competitions of IJCAI 2025. We focus on two critical domains: multi-deal negotiations and the development of agents capable of concurrent negotiation within complex supply chain management environments. Furthermore, this work analyzes the results of the competition and outlines strategic directions for future iterations.

cs.MA↗

Reflection Before Action: Designing a Framework for Quantifying Thought Patterns for Increased Self-awareness in Personal Decision Making

When making significant life decisions, people increasingly turn to conversational AI tools, such as large language models (LLMs). However, LLMs often steer users toward solutions, limiting metacognitive awareness of their own decision-making. In this paper, we shift the focus in decision support from solution-orientation to reflective activity, coining the term pre-decision reflection (PDR). We introduce PROBE, the first framework that assesses pre-decision reflections along two dimensions: breadth (diversity of thought categories) and depth (elaborateness of reasoning). Coder agreement demonstrates PROBE's reliability in capturing how people engage in pre-decision reflection. Our study reveals substantial heterogeneity across participants and shows that people perceived their unassisted reflections as deeper and broader than PROBE's measures. By surfacing hidden thought patterns, PROBE opens opportunities for technologies that foster self-awareness and strengthen people's agency in choosing which thought patterns to rely on in decision-making.

cs.HC↗

Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments

Aggregating multiple annotations into a single ground truth label may hide valuable insights into annotator disagreement, particularly in tasks where subjectivity plays a crucial role. In this work, we explore methods for identifying subjectivity in recognizing the human values that motivate arguments. We evaluate two main approaches: inferring subjectivity through value prediction vs. directly identifying subjectivity. Our experiments show that direct subjectivity identification significantly improves the model performance of flagging subjective arguments. Furthermore, combining contrastive loss with binary cross-entropy loss does not improve performance but reduces the dependency on per-label subjectivity. Our proposed methods can help identify arguments that individuals may interpret differently, fostering a more nuanced annotation process.

cs.CL↗

The Emotion-Memory Link: Do Memorability Annotations Matter for Intelligent Systems?

Humans have a selective memory, remembering relevant episodes and forgetting the less relevant information. Possessing awareness of event memorability for a user could help intelligent systems in more accurate user modelling, especially for such applications as meeting support systems, memory augmentation, and meeting summarisation. Emotion recognition has been widely studied, since emotions are thought to signal moments of high personal relevance to users. The emotional experience of situations and their memorability have traditionally been considered to be closely tied to one another: moments that are experienced as highly emotional are considered to also be highly memorable. This relationship suggests that emotional annotations could serve as proxies for memorability. However, existing emotion recognition systems rely heavily on third-party annotations, which may not accurately represent the first-person experience of emotional relevance and memorability. This is why, in this study, we empirically examine the relationship between perceived group emotions (Pleasure-Arousal) and group memorability in the context of conversational interactions. Our investigation involves continuous time-based annotations of both emotions and memorability in dynamic, unstructured group settings, approximating conditions of real-world conversational AI applications such as online meeting support systems. Our results show that the observed relationship between affect and memorability annotations cannot be reliably distinguished from what might be expected under random chance. We discuss the implications of this surprising finding for the development and applications of Affective Computing technology. In addition, we contextualise our findings in broader discourses in the Affective Computing and point out important targets for future research efforts.

cs.HC↗

"Even explanations will not help in trusting [this] fundamentally biased system": A Predictive Policing Case-Study

In today's society, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gained a vital role, concerns regarding user's trust have garnered significant attention. The use of AI systems in high-risk domains have often led users to either under-trust it, potentially causing inadequate reliance or over-trust it, resulting in over-compliance. Therefore, users must maintain an appropriate level of trust. Past research has indicated that explanations provided by AI systems can enhance user understanding of when to trust or not trust the system. However, the utility of presentation of different explanations forms still remains to be explored especially in high-risk domains. Therefore, this study explores the impact of different explanation types (text, visual, and hybrid) and user expertise (retired police officers and lay users) on establishing appropriate trust in AI-based predictive policing. While we observed that the hybrid form of explanations increased the subjective trust in AI for expert users, it did not led to better decision-making. Furthermore, no form of explanations helped build appropriate trust. The findings of our study emphasize the importance of re-evaluating the use of explanations to build [appropriate] trust in AI based systems especially when the system's use is questionable. Finally, we synthesize potential challenges and policy recommendations based on our results to design for appropriate trust in high-risk based AI-based systems.

cs.HC↗

Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory Systems

Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value preferences estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that combines Natural Language Processing and Active Learning to address the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.

cs.AI↗

Introducing MeMo: A Multimodal Dataset for Memory Modelling in Multiparty Conversations

Conversational memory is the process by which humans encode, retain and retrieve verbal, non-verbal and contextual information from a conversation. Since human memory is selective, differing recollections of the same events can lead to misunderstandings and misalignments within a group. Yet, conversational facilitation systems, aimed at advancing the quality of group interactions, usually focus on tracking users' states within an individual session, ignoring what remains in each participant's memory after the interaction. Understanding conversational memory can be used as a source of information on the long-term development of social connections within a group. This paper introduces the MeMo corpus, the first conversational dataset annotated with participants' memory retention reports, aimed at facilitating computational modelling of human conversational memory. The MeMo corpus includes 31 hours of small-group discussions on Covid-19, repeated 3 times over the term of 2 weeks. It integrates validated behavioural and perceptual measures, audio, video, and multimodal annotations, offering a valuable resource for studying and modelling conversational memory and group dynamics. By introducing the MeMo corpus, analysing its validity, and demonstrating its usefulness for future research, this paper aims to pave the way for future research in conversational memory modelling for intelligent system development.

cs.CL↗

A Hybrid Intelligence Method for Argument Mining

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

cs.AI↗

Towards General Negotiation Strategies with End-to-End Reinforcement Learning

The research field of automated negotiation has a long history of designing agents that can negotiate with other agents. Such negotiation strategies are traditionally based on manual design and heuristics. More recently, reinforcement learning approaches have also been used to train agents to negotiate. However, negotiation problems are diverse, causing observation and action dimensions to change, which cannot be handled by default linear policy networks. Previous work on this topic has circumvented this issue either by fixing the negotiation problem, causing policies to be non-transferable between negotiation problems or by abstracting the observations and actions into fixed-size representations, causing loss of information and expressiveness due to feature design. We developed an end-to-end reinforcement learning method for diverse negotiation problems by representing observations and actions as a graph and applying graph neural networks in the policy. With empirical evaluations, we show that our method is effective and that we can learn to negotiate with other agents on never-before-seen negotiation problems. Our result opens up new opportunities for reinforcement learning in negotiation agents.

cs.MA↗

An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

cs.CL↗

Enabling the Digital Democratic Revival: A Research Program for Digital Democracy

This white paper outlines a long-term scientific vision for the development of digital-democracy technology. We contend that if digital democracy is to meet the ambition of enabling a participatory renewal in our societies, then a comprehensive multi-methods research effort is required that could, over the years, support its development in a democratically principled, empirically and computationally informed way. The paper is co-authored by an international and interdisciplinary team of researchers and arose from the Lorentz Center Workshop on ``Algorithmic Technology for Democracy'' (Leiden, October 2022).

cs.CY↗

A Systematic Review on Fostering Appropriate Trust in Human-AI Interaction

Appropriate Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has rapidly become an important area of focus for both researchers and practitioners. Various approaches have been used to achieve it, such as confidence scores, explanations, trustworthiness cues, or uncertainty communication. However, a comprehensive understanding of the field is lacking due to the diversity of perspectives arising from various backgrounds that influence it and the lack of a single definition for appropriate trust. To investigate this topic, this paper presents a systematic review to identify current practices in building appropriate trust, different ways to measure it, types of tasks used, and potential challenges associated with it. We also propose a Belief, Intentions, and Actions (BIA) mapping to study commonalities and differences in the concepts related to appropriate trust by (a) describing the existing disagreements on defining appropriate trust, and (b) providing an overview of the concepts and definitions related to appropriate trust in AI from the existing literature. Finally, the challenges identified in studying appropriate trust are discussed, and observations are summarized as current trends, potential gaps, and research opportunities for future work. Overall, the paper provides insights into the complex concept of appropriate trust in human-AI interaction and presents research opportunities to advance our understanding on this topic.

cs.HC↗

Do Differences in Values Influence Disagreements in Online Discussions?

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

cs.CL↗

AI Alignment Dialogues: An Interactive Approach to AI Alignment in Support Agents

AI alignment is about ensuring AI systems only pursue goals and activities that are beneficial to humans. Most of the current approach to AI alignment is to learn what humans value from their behavioural data. This paper proposes a different way of looking at the notion of alignment, namely by introducing AI Alignment Dialogues: dialogues with which users and agents try to achieve and maintain alignment via interaction. We argue that alignment dialogues have a number of advantages in comparison to data-driven approaches, especially for behaviour support agents, which aim to support users in achieving their desired future behaviours rather than their current behaviours. The advantages of alignment dialogues include allowing the users to directly convey higher-level concepts to the agent, and making the agent more transparent and trustworthy. In this paper we outline the concept and high-level structure of alignment dialogues. Moreover, we conducted a qualitative focus group user study from which we developed a model that describes how alignment dialogues affect users, and created design suggestions for AI alignment dialogues. Through this we establish foundations for AI alignment dialogues and shed light on what requires further development and research.

cs.AI↗

Reflective Hybrid Intelligence for Meaningful Human Control in Decision-Support Systems

With the growing capabilities and pervasiveness of AI systems, societies must collectively choose between reduced human autonomy, endangered democracies and limited human rights, and AI that is aligned to human and social values, nurturing collaboration, resilience, knowledge and ethical behaviour. In this chapter, we introduce the notion of self-reflective AI systems for meaningful human control over AI systems. Focusing on decision support systems, we propose a framework that integrates knowledge from psychology and philosophy with formal reasoning methods and machine learning approaches to create AI systems responsive to human values and social norms. We also propose a possible research approach to design and develop self-reflective capability in AI systems. Finally, we argue that self-reflective AI systems can lead to self-reflective hybrid systems (human + AI), thus increasing meaningful human control and empowering human moral reasoning by providing comprehensible information and insights on possible human moral blind spots.

cs.AI↗

Registered Report : Perception of Other's Musical Preferences Based on Their Personal Values

The present work is part of a research line seeking to uncover the mysteries of what lies behind people's musical preferences in order to provide better music recommendations. More specifically, it takes the angle of personal values. Personal values are what we as people strive for, and are a popular tool in marketing research to understand customer preferences for certain types of product. Therefore, it makes sense to explore their usefulness in the music domain. Based on a previous qualitative work using the Means-End theory, we designed a survey in an attempt to more quantitatively approach the relationship between personal values and musical preferences. We support our approach with a simulation study as a tool to improve the experimental procedure and decisions.

cs.MM↗