arXiv subjects

Katelyn Xiaoying Mei

Publications and source records attributed to Katelyn Xiaoying Mei.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Illusions of the Gold Standard: A Large-scale Analysis of Human Evaluation Protocols for Long-form Text Generation

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Addressing Pitfalls in Auditing Practices of Automatic Speech Recognition Technologies: A Case Study of People with Aphasia

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems' growing use warrants robust auditing approaches to ensure equitable transcription quality, especially for people with speech disorders like aphasia who disproportionately depend on ASR. While academic and industry audits have revealed performance disparities across user populations, standard auditing practices often overlook nuances that risk masking harm to marginalized groups. We identify three common pitfalls in standard ASR audits: (1) adhering to one method of text standardization, which can mask variance in ASR performance and ignore the standardization preferences of marginalized communities; (2) displaying high-level demographic findings without considering performance disparities by nuanced intersectional subgroups, or conditioning on relevant acoustic properties; and (3) reporting only one gold-standard metric (Word Error Rate), which inadequately quantifies common generative AI errors like hallucinations. We propose a holistic auditing framework addressing these pitfalls, and in a case study of six popular ASR systems, find consistently worse ASR performance for speakers with aphasia relative to a control group. We call on practitioners to implement these robust, community-driven ASR auditing practices better suited for the rapidly changing ASR landscape.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Grok in the Wild: Characterizing the Roles and Uses of Large Language Models on Social Media

xAI's large language model, Grok, is called by millions of people each week on the social media platform X. Prior work characterizing how large language models are used has focused on private, one-on-one interactions. Grok's deployment on X represents a major departure from this setting, with interactions occurring in a public social space. In this paper, we systematically sample three months of interaction data to investigate how, when, and to what effect Grok is used on X. At the platform level, we find that Grok responds to 62% of requests, that the majority (51%) are in English, and that engagement is low, with half of Grok's responses receiving 20 or fewer views after 48 hours. We also inductively build a taxonomy of 10 roles that LLMs play in mediating social interactions and use these roles to analyze 41,735 interactions with Grok on X. We find that Grok most often serves as an information provider but, in contrast to LLM use in private one-on-one settings, also takes on roles related to dispute management, such as truth arbiter, advocate, and adversary. Finally, we characterize the population of X users who prompted Grok and find that their self-expressed interests are closely related to the roles the model assumes in the corresponding interactions. Our findings provide an initial quantitative description of human-AI interactions on X, and a broader understanding of the diverse roles that large language models might play in our online social spaces.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Passing the Buck to AI: How Individuals' Decision-Making Patterns Affect Reliance on AI

Psychological research has identified different patterns individuals have while making decisions, such as vigilance (making decisions after thorough information gathering), hypervigilance (rushed and anxious decision-making), and buckpassing (deferring decisions to others). We examine whether these decision-making patterns shape peoples' likelihood of seeking out or relying on AI. In an online experiment with 810 participants tasked with distinguishing food facts from myths, we found that a higher buckpassing tendency was positively correlated with both seeking out and relying on AI suggestions, while being negatively correlated with the time spent reading AI explanations. In contrast, the higher a participant tended towards vigilance, the more carefully they scrutinized the AI's information, as indicated by an increased time spent looking through the AI's explanations. These findings suggest that a person's decision-making pattern plays a significant role in their adoption and reliance on AI, which provides a new understanding of individual differences in AI-assisted decision-making.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Designing AI Systems that Augment Human Performed vs. Demonstrated Critical Thinking

The recent rapid advancement of LLM-based AI systems has accelerated our search and production of information. While the advantages brought by these systems seemingly improve the performance or efficiency of human activities, they do not necessarily enhance human capabilities. Recent research has started to examine the impact of generative AI on individuals' cognitive abilities, especially critical thinking. Based on definitions of critical thinking across psychology and education, this position paper proposes the distinction between demonstrated and performed critical thinking in the era of generative AI and discusses the implication of this distinction in research and development of AI systems that aim to augment human critical thinking.

cs.HC↗