arXiv subjects

Justin D. Weisz

Publications and source records attributed to Justin D. Weisz.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AgentSCOPE: Evaluating Contextual Privacy Across Agentic Workflows

Agentic systems are increasingly acting on users' behalf, accessing calendars, email, and personal files to complete everyday tasks. Privacy evaluation for these systems has focused on the input and output boundaries, but each task involves several intermediate information flows, from agent queries to tool responses, that are not currently evaluated. We argue that every boundary in an agentic pipeline is a site of potential privacy violation and must be assessed independently. To support this, we introduce the Privacy Flow Graph, a Contextual Integrity-grounded framework that decomposes agentic execution into a sequence of information flows, each annotated with the five CI parameters, and traces violations to their point of origin. We present AgentSCOPE, a benchmark of 62 multi-tool scenarios across eight regulatory domains with ground truth at every pipeline stage. Our evaluation across seven state-of-the-art LLMs show that privacy violations in the pipeline occur in over 80% of scenarios, even when final outputs appear clean (24%), with most violations arising at the tool-response stage where APIs return sensitive data indiscriminately. These results indicate that output-level evaluation alone substantially underestimates the privacy risk of agentic systems.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Story Arena: A Multi-Agent Environment for Envisioning the Future of Software Engineering

What better way to understand the impact of AI on software engineering than to ask AI itself? We constructed Story Arena, a multi-agent "writer's room" in which multiple AI agents, independently imbued with a position statement on the future of software engineering, converse with each other to develop a shared vision. They then use this shared vision to collaboratively construct a design fiction that depicts this vision in narrative form. We present "The Code of Trust," a short fiction that investigates themes of human comprehension, trust, content ownership, augmentation vs. replacement, and uncertain futures in human-AI co-creation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Protecting Users From Themselves: Safeguarding Contextual Privacy in Interactions with Conversational Agents

Conversational agents are increasingly woven into individuals' personal lives, yet users often underestimate the privacy risks associated with them. The moment users share information with these agents-such as large language models (LLMs)-their private information becomes vulnerable to exposure. In this paper, we characterize the notion of contextual privacy for user interactions with LLM-based Conversational Agents (LCAs). It aims to minimize privacy risks by ensuring that users (sender) disclose only information that is both relevant and necessary for achieving their intended goals when interacting with LCAs (untrusted receivers). Through a formative design user study, we observe how even "privacy-conscious" users inadvertently reveal sensitive information through indirect disclosures. Based on insights from this study, we propose a locally deployable framework that operates between users and LCAs, identifying and reformulating out-of-context information in user prompts. Our evaluation using examples from ShareGPT shows that lightweight models can effectively implement this framework, achieving strong gains in contextual privacy while preserving the user's intended interaction goals. Notably, about 76% of participants in our human evaluation preferred the reformulated prompts over the original ones, validating the usability and effectiveness of contextual privacy in our proposed framework. We opensource the code at https://github.com/IBM/contextual-privacy-LLM.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Position: Theory of Mind Benchmarks are Broken for Large Language Models

Our paper argues that the majority of theory of mind benchmarks are broken because of their inability to directly test how large language models (LLMs) adapt to new partners. This problem stems from the fact that theory of mind benchmarks for LLMs are overwhelmingly inspired by the methods used to test theory of mind in humans and fall victim to a fallacy of attributing human-like qualities to AI agents. We expect that humans will engage in a consistent reasoning process across various questions about a situation, but this is known to not be the case for current LLMs. Most theory of mind benchmarks only measure what we call literal theory of mind: the ability to predict the behavior of others. However, this type of metric is only informative when agents exhibit self-consistent reasoning. Thus, we introduce the concept of functional theory of mind: the ability to adapt to agents in-context following a rational response to their behavior. We find that many open source LLMs are capable of displaying strong literal theory of mind capabilities, but seem to struggle with functional theory of mind -- even with exceedingly simple partner policies. Simply put, strong literal theory of mind performance does not necessarily imply strong functional theory of mind performance or vice versa. Achieving functional theory of mind, particularly over long interaction horizons with a partner, is a significant challenge deserving a prominent role in any meaningful LLM theory of mind evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Examining the Use and Impact of an AI Code Assistant on Developer Productivity and Experience in the Enterprise

AI assistants are being created to help software engineers conduct a variety of coding-related tasks, such as writing, documenting, and testing code. We describe the use of the watsonx Code Assistant (WCA), an LLM-powered coding assistant deployed internally within IBM. Through surveys of two user cohorts (N=669) and unmoderated usability testing (N=15), we examined developers' experiences with WCA and its impact on their productivity. We learned about their motivations for using (or not using) WCA, we examined their expectations of its speed and quality, and we identified new considerations regarding ownership of and responsibility for generated code. Our case study characterizes the impact of an LLM-powered assistant on developers' perceptions of productivity and it shows that although such tools do often provide net productivity increases, these benefits may not always be experienced by all users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation

AI systems powered by large language models can act as capable assistants for writing and editing. In these tasks, the AI system acts as a co-creative partner, making novel contributions to an artifact-under-creation alongside its human partner(s). One question that arises in these scenarios is the extent to which AI should be credited for its contributions. We examined knowledge workers' views of attribution through a survey study (N=155) and found that they assigned different levels of credit across different contribution types, amounts, and initiative. Compared to a human partner, we observed a consistent pattern in which AI was assigned less credit for equivalent contributions. Participants felt that disclosing AI involvement was important and used a variety of criteria to make attribution judgments, including the quality of contributions, personal values, and technology considerations. Our results motivate and inform new approaches for crediting AI contributions to co-created work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Controlling AI Agent Participation in Group Conversations: A Human-Centered Approach

Conversational AI agents are commonly applied within single-user, turn-taking scenarios. The interaction mechanics of these scenarios are trivial: when the user enters a message, the AI agent produces a response. However, the interaction dynamics are more complex within group settings. How should an agent behave in these settings? We report on two experiments aimed at uncovering users' experiences of an AI agent's participation within a group, in the context of group ideation (brainstorming). In the first study, participants benefited from and preferred having the AI agent in the group, but participants disliked when the agent seemed to dominate the conversation and they desired various controls over its interactive behaviors. In the second study, we created functional controls over the agent's behavior, operable by group members, to validate their utility and probe for additional requirements. Integrating our findings across both studies, we developed a taxonomy of controls for when, what, and where a conversational AI agent in a group should respond, who can control its behavior, and how those controls are specified and implemented. Our taxonomy is intended to aid AI creators to think through important considerations in the design of mixed-initiative conversational agents.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Scopes of Alignment

Much of the research focus on AI alignment seeks to align large language models and other foundation models to the context-less and generic values of helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. Frontier model providers also strive to align their models with these values. In this paper, we motivate why we need to move beyond such a limited conception and propose three dimensions for doing so. The first scope of alignment is competence: knowledge, skills, or behaviors the model must possess to be useful for its intended purpose. The second scope of alignment is transience: either semantic or episodic depending on the context of use. The third scope of alignment is audience: either mass, public, small-group, or dyadic. At the end of the paper, we use the proposed framework to position some technologies and workflows that go beyond prevailing notions of alignment.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Expedient Assistance and Consequential Misunderstanding: Envisioning an Operationalized Mutual Theory of Mind

Design fictions allow us to prototype the future. They enable us to interrogate emerging or non-existent technologies and examine their implications. We present three design fictions that probe the potential consequences of operationalizing a mutual theory of mind (MToM) between human users and one (or more) AI agents. We use these fictions to explore many aspects of MToM, including how models of the other party are shaped through interaction, how discrepancies between these models lead to breakdowns, and how models of a human's knowledge and skills enable AI agents to act in their stead. We examine these aspects through two lenses: a utopian lens in which MToM enhances human-human interactions and leads to synergistic human-AI collaborations, and a dystopian lens in which a faulty or misaligned MToM leads to problematic outcomes. Our work provides an aspirational vision for human-centered MToM research while simultaneously warning of the consequences when implemented incorrectly.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions

While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Design Principles for Generative AI Applications

Generative AI applications present unique design challenges. As generative AI technologies are increasingly being incorporated into mainstream applications, there is an urgent need for guidance on how to design user experiences that foster effective and safe use. We present six principles for the design of generative AI applications that address unique characteristics of generative AI UX and offer new interpretations and extensions of known issues in the design of AI applications. Each principle is coupled with a set of design strategies for implementing that principle via UX capabilities or through the design process. The principles and strategies were developed through an iterative process involving literature review, feedback from design practitioners, validation against real-world generative AI applications, and incorporation into the design process of two generative AI applications. We anticipate the principles to usefully inform the design of generative AI applications by driving actionable design recommendations.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

The Programmer's Assistant: Conversational Interaction with a Large Language Model for Software Development

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied in software engineering to perform tasks such as translating code between programming languages, generating code from natural language, and autocompleting code as it is being written. When used within development tools, these systems typically treat each model invocation independently from all previous invocations, and only a specific limited functionality is exposed within the user interface. This approach to user interaction misses an opportunity for users to more deeply engage with the model by having the context of their previous interactions, as well as the context of their code, inform the model's responses. We developed a prototype system -- the Programmer's Assistant -- in order to explore the utility of conversational interactions grounded in code, as well as software engineers' receptiveness to the idea of conversing with, rather than invoking, a code-fluent LLM. Through an evaluation with 42 participants with varied levels of programming experience, we found that our system was capable of conducting extended, multi-turn discussions, and that it enabled additional knowledge and capabilities beyond code generation to emerge from the LLM. Despite skeptical initial expectations for conversational programming assistance, participants were impressed by the breadth of the assistant's capabilities, the quality of its responses, and its potential for improving their productivity. Our work demonstrates the unique potential of conversational interactions with LLMs for co-creative processes like software development.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Toward General Design Principles for Generative AI Applications

Generative AI technologies are growing in power, utility, and use. As generative technologies are being incorporated into mainstream applications, there is a need for guidance on how to design those applications to foster productive and safe use. Based on recent research on human-AI co-creation within the HCI and AI communities, we present a set of seven principles for the design of generative AI applications. These principles are grounded in an environment of generative variability. Six principles are focused on designing for characteristics of generative AI: multiple outcomes & imperfection; exploration & control; and mental models & explanations. In addition, we urge designers to design against potential harms that may be caused by a generative model's hazardous output, misuse, or potential for human displacement. We anticipate these principles to usefully inform design decisions made in the creation of novel human-AI applications, and we invite the community to apply, revise, and extend these principles to their own work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

A Case Study in Engineering a Conversational Programming Assistant's Persona

The Programmer's Assistant is an experimental prototype software development environment that integrates a chatbot with a code editor. Conversational capability was achieved by using an existing code-fluent Large Language Model and providing it with a prompt that establishes a conversational interaction pattern, a set of conventions, and a style of interaction appropriate for the application. A discussion of the evolution of the prompt provides a case study in how to coax an existing foundation model to behave in a desirable manner for a particular application.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Documentation Matters: Human-Centered AI System to Assist Data Science Code Documentation in Computational Notebooks

Computational notebooks allow data scientists to express their ideas through a combination of code and documentation. However, data scientists often pay attention only to the code, and neglect creating or updating their documentation during quick iterations. Inspired by human documentation practices learned from 80 highly-voted Kaggle notebooks, we design and implement Themisto, an automated documentation generation system to explore how human-centered AI systems can support human data scientists in the machine learning code documentation scenario. Themisto facilitates the creation of documentation via three approaches: a deep-learning-based approach to generate documentation for source code, a query-based approach to retrieve online API documentation for source code, and a user prompt approach to nudge users to write documentation. We evaluated Themisto in a within-subjects experiment with 24 data science practitioners, and found that automated documentation generation techniques reduced the time for writing documentation, reminded participants to document code they would have ignored, and improved participants' satisfaction with their computational notebook.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Better Together? An Evaluation of AI-Supported Code Translation

Generative machine learning models have recently been applied to source code, for use cases including translating code between programming languages, creating documentation from code, and auto-completing methods. Yet, state-of-the-art models often produce code that is erroneous or incomplete. In a controlled study with 32 software engineers, we examined whether such imperfect outputs are helpful in the context of Java-to-Python code translation. When aided by the outputs of a code translation model, participants produced code with fewer errors than when working alone. We also examined how the quality and quantity of AI translations affected the work process and quality of outcomes, and observed that providing multiple translations had a larger impact on the translation process than varying the quality of provided translations. Our results tell a complex, nuanced story about the benefits of generative code models and the challenges software engineers face when working with their outputs. Our work motivates the need for intelligent user interfaces that help software engineers effectively work with generative code models in order to understand and evaluate their outputs and achieve superior outcomes to working alone.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design

What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users' explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users' explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Using Document Similarity Methods to create Parallel Datasets for Code Translation

Translating source code from one programming language to another is a critical, time-consuming task in modernizing legacy applications and codebases. Recent work in this space has drawn inspiration from the software naturalness hypothesis by applying natural language processing techniques towards automating the code translation task. However, due to the paucity of parallel data in this domain, supervised techniques have only been applied to a limited set of popular programming languages. To bypass this limitation, unsupervised neural machine translation techniques have been proposed to learn code translation using only monolingual corpora. In this work, we propose to use document similarity methods to create noisy parallel datasets of code, thus enabling supervised techniques to be applied for automated code translation without having to rely on the availability or expensive curation of parallel code datasets. We explore the noise tolerance of models trained on such automatically-created datasets and show that these models perform comparably to models trained on ground truth for reasonable levels of noise. Finally, we exhibit the practical utility of the proposed method by creating parallel datasets for languages beyond the ones explored in prior work, thus expanding the set of programming languages for automated code translation.

cs.CL↗