arXiv subjects

Harmanpreet Kaur

Publications and source records attributed to Harmanpreet Kaur.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Keeping an Eye on AI: A Framework for Effective Human Oversight of AI Systems

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk, decision-making scenarios presents technical, safety, and normative challenges; problems that may only be ameliorated by human oversight. However, notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding: oversight architectures are not well defined, the roles involved remain unclear, and implementation steps are opaque. Hence, researchers and practitioners struggle to determine how to design, implement, and evaluate systems that enable effective human oversight. This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems, based on a cross-disciplinary perspective that draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law. The core contributions are: (1) a foundational framework, with a working definition, architecture and processes for effective human oversight of AI systems; (2) an initial template for documenting oversight architectures and processes, applied to diverse domains; and (3) a synthesis of open research challenges that need to be considered in the emerging field of effective human oversight of AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

PaperTrail: A Claim-Evidence Interface for Grounding Provenance in LLM-based Scholarly Q&A

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scholarly question-answering (QA) systems to help researchers synthesize vast amounts of literature. However, these systems often produce subtle errors (e.g., unsupported claims, errors of omission), and current provenance mechanisms like source citations are not granular enough for the rigorous verification that scholarly domain requires. To address this, we introduce PaperTrail, a novel interface that decomposes both LLM answers and source documents into discrete claims and evidence, mapping them to reveal supported assertions, unsupported claims, and information omitted from the source texts. We evaluated PaperTrail in a within-subjects study with 26 researchers who performed two scholarly editing tasks using PaperTrail and a baseline interface. Our results show that PaperTrail significantly lowered participants' trust compared to the baseline. However, this increased caution did not translate to behavioral changes, as people continued to rely on LLM-generated scholarly edits to avoid a cognitively burdensome task. We discuss the value of claim-evidence matching for understanding LLM trustworthiness in scholarly settings, and present design implications for cognition-friendly communication of provenance information.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming scholarly tasks like search and summarization, but their reliability remains uncertain. Current evaluation metrics for testing LLM reliability are primarily automated approaches that prioritize efficiency and scalability, but lack contextual nuance and fail to reflect how scientific domain experts assess LLM outputs in practice. We developed and validated a schema for evaluating LLM errors in scholarly question-answering systems that reflects the assessment strategies of practicing scientists. In collaboration with domain experts, we identified 20 error patterns across seven categories through thematic analysis of 68 question-answer pairs. We validated this schema through contextual inquiries with 10 additional scientists, which showed not only which errors experts naturally identify but also how structured evaluation schemas can help them detect previously overlooked issues. Domain experts use systematic assessment strategies, including technical precision testing, value-based evaluation, and meta-evaluation of their own practices. We discuss implications for supporting expert evaluation of LLM outputs, including opportunities for personalized, schema-driven tools that adapt to individual evaluation patterns and expertise levels.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Unraveling Entangled Feeds: Rethinking Social Media Design to Enhance User Well-being

Social media platforms have rapidly adopted algorithmic curation with little consideration for the potential harm to users' mental well-being. We present findings from design workshops with 21 participants diagnosed with mental illness about their interactions with social media platforms. We find that users develop cause-and-effect explanations, or folk theories, to understand their experiences with algorithmic curation. These folk theories highlight a breakdown in algorithmic design that we explain using the framework of entanglement, a phenomenon where there is a disconnect between users' actions and platform outcomes on an emotional level. Participants' designs to address entanglement and mitigate harms centered on contextualizing their engagement and restoring explicit user control on social media. The conceptualization of entanglement and the resulting design recommendations have implications for social computing and recommender systems research, particularly in evaluating and designing social media platforms that support users' mental well-being.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Opportunities and Barriers for AI Feedback on Meeting Inclusion in Socioorganizational Teams

Inclusion is important for meeting effectiveness, which is in turn central to organizational functioning. One way of improving inclusion in meetings is through feedback, but social dynamics make giving feedback difficult. We propose that AI agents can facilitate feedback exchange by being psychologically safer recipients, and we test this through a meeting system with an AI agent feedback mediator. When delivering feedback, the agent uses the Induced Hypocrisy Procedure, a social psychological technique that prompts behavior change by highlighting value-behavior inconsistencies. In a within-subjects lab study ($n=28$), the agent made speaking times more balanced and improved meeting quality. However, a field study at a small consulting firm ($n=10$) revealed organizational barriers that led to its use for personal reflection rather than feedback exchange. We contribute a novel sociotechnical system for feedback exchange in groups, and empirical findings demonstrating the importance of considering organizational barriers in designing AI tools for organizations.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Wisdom of the Crowd, Without the Crowd: A Socratic LLM for Asynchronous Deliberation on Perspectivist Data

Data annotation underpins the success of modern AI, but the aggregation of crowd-collected datasets can harm the preservation of diverse perspectives in data. Difficult and ambiguous tasks cannot easily be collapsed into unitary labels. Prior work has shown that deliberation and discussion improve data quality and preserve diverse perspectives -- however, synchronous deliberation through crowdsourcing platforms is time-intensive and costly. In this work, we create a Socratic dialog system using Large Language Models (LLMs) to act as a deliberation partner in place of other crowdworkers. Against a benchmark of synchronous deliberation on two tasks (Sarcasm and Relation detection), our Socratic LLM encouraged participants to consider alternate annotation perspectives, update their labels as needed (with higher confidence), and resulted in higher annotation accuracy (for the Relation task where ground truth is available). Qualitative findings show that our agent's Socratic approach was effective at encouraging reasoned arguments from our participants, and that the intervention was well-received. Our methodology lays the groundwork for building scalable systems that preserve individual perspectives in generating more representative datasets.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

FeedLens: Polymorphic Lenses for Personalizing Exploratory Search over Knowledge Graphs

The vast scale and open-ended nature of knowledge graphs (KGs) make exploratory search over them cognitively demanding for users. We introduce a new technique, polymorphic lenses, that improves exploratory search over a KG by obtaining new leverage from the existing preference models that KG-based systems maintain for recommending content. The approach is based on a simple but powerful observation: in a KG, preference models can be re-targeted to recommend not only entities of a single base entity type (e.g., papers in the scientific literature KG, products in an e-commerce KG), but also all other types (e.g., authors, conferences, institutions; sellers, buyers). We implement our technique in a novel system, FeedLens, which is built over Semantic Scholar, a production system for navigating the scientific literature KG. FeedLens reuses the existing preference models on Semantic Scholar -- people's curated research feeds -- as lenses for exploratory search. Semantic Scholar users can curate multiple feeds/lenses for different topics of interest, e.g., one for human-centered AI and another for document embeddings. Although these lenses are defined in terms of papers, FeedLens re-purposes them to also guide search over authors, institutions, venues, etc. Our system design is based on feedback from intended users via two pilot surveys (n=17 and n=13, respectively). We compare FeedLens and Semantic Scholar via a third (within-subjects) user study (n=15) and find that FeedLens increases user engagement while reducing the cognitive effort required to complete a short literature review task. Our qualitative results also highlight people's preference for this more effective exploratory search experience enabled by FeedLens.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability using Sensemaking Theory

Understanding how ML models work is a prerequisite for responsibly designing, deploying, and using ML-based systems. With interpretability approaches, ML can now offer explanations for its outputs to aid human understanding. Though these approaches rely on guidelines for how humans explain things to each other, they ultimately solve for improving the artifact -- an explanation. In this paper, we propose an alternate framework for interpretability grounded in Weick's sensemaking theory, which focuses on who the explanation is intended for. Recent work has advocated for the importance of understanding stakeholders' needs -- we build on this by providing concrete properties (e.g., identity, social context, environmental cues, etc.) that shape human understanding. We use an application of sensemaking in organizations as a template for discussing design guidelines for Sensible AI, AI that factors in the nuances of human cognition when trying to explain itself.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

From Human Explanation to Model Interpretability: A Framework Based on Weight of Evidence

We take inspiration from the study of human explanation to inform the design and evaluation of interpretability methods in machine learning. First, we survey the literature on human explanation in philosophy, cognitive science, and the social sciences, and propose a list of design principles for machine-generated explanations that are meaningful to humans. Using the concept of weight of evidence from information theory, we develop a method for generating explanations that adhere to these principles. We show that this method can be adapted to handle high-dimensional, multi-class settings, yielding a flexible framework for generating explanations. We demonstrate that these explanations can be estimated accurately from finite samples and are robust to small perturbations of the inputs. We also evaluate our method through a qualitative user study with machine learning practitioners, where we observe that the resulting explanations are usable despite some participants struggling with background concepts like prior class probabilities. Finally, we conclude by surfacing~design~implications for interpretability tools in general.

cs.AI↗