arXiv subjects

Khanh Chi Le

Publications and source records attributed to Khanh Chi Le.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

SERUM: State Extraction and Refinement for User Modeling

Agentic assistants capable of proactive, personalized interactions require structured models of user intent and workflow. However, building these models from raw, unstructured screen activity remains an open challenge. We present SERUM, a multi-pass framework that extracts finite-state behavioral models directly from unstructured egocentric video using hierarchical VLM annotation. Processing screen recordings through a sliding window, SERUM alternates between activity-recognition and intent-inference passes, with each pass refining labels using accumulated prior context to reduce hallucination and temporal conflation seen in single-pass annotation. Synonymous states are then merged via sentence embeddings and human-calibrated thresholds into a compact, coherent taxonomy. We evaluate behavioral structure by fitting first-order Markov models over the resulting label sequences (both actions and intents) and measuring predictive accuracy against frequency baselines. Across 61 egocentric videos in four domains (coding, cooking, physical activities, and daily life), we find: (1) iterative label refinement converges to a stable state vocabulary, which we term schematic equilibrium, after several passes; (2) normalized Markov models achieve substantially lower perplexity and higher action predictions than frequency baselines, with the largest gains on structured tasks like coding; and (3) human annotators rate final-pass labels as accurate and meaningfully improved over first-pass labels. To our knowledge, SERUM is the first system to produce interpretable process models from unstructured egocentric screen video without manual annotation, opening a scalable pathway for user modeling and behavioral understanding in the wild. Our demo, code, and results are publicly available

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

ScholaWrite: A Dataset of End-to-End Scholarly Writing Process

Writing is a cognitively demanding activity that requires constant decision-making, heavy reliance on working memory, and frequent shifts between tasks of different goals. To build writing assistants that truly align with writers' cognition, we must capture and decode the complete thought process behind how writers transform ideas into final texts. We present ScholaWrite, the first dataset of end-to-end scholarly writing, tracing the multi-month journey from initial drafts to final manuscripts. We contribute three key advances: (1) a Chrome extension that unobtrusively records keystrokes on Overleaf, enabling the collection of realistic, in-situ writing data; (2) a novel corpus of full scholarly manuscripts, enriched with fine-grained annotations of cognitive writing intentions. The dataset includes \LaTeX-based edits from five computer science preprints, capturing nearly 62K text changes over four months; and (3) analyses and insights into the micro-dynamics of scholarly writing, highlighting gaps between human writing processes and the current capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in providing meaningful assistance. ScholaWrite underscores the value of capturing end-to-end writing data to develop future writing assistants that support, not replace, the cognitive work of scientists.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Strong Memory, Weak Control: An Empirical Study of Executive Functioning in LLMs

Working memory, or the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind, is a critical component of human intelligence and executive functioning. It is correlated with performance on various cognitive tasks, including measures of fluid intelligence, which encompasses reasoning and problem solving. We use a comprehensive set of classic working memory tasks to estimate the working memory capacity of large language models (LLMs). We find that in most cases, LLMs exceed normative human scores. However, we do not find that the increased capacity of working memory is associated with higher performance on other executive functioning tasks or problem solving benchmarks. These results suggest that LLMs may have deficits in attentional control and cognitive flexibility, which result in difficulties with inhibiting automatic responses and adapting to shifting information. Our findings suggest that current reasoning models have mixed results in compensating for these deficits.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Tracing How Annotators Think: Augmenting Preference Judgments with Reading Processes

We propose an annotation approach that captures not only labels but also the reading process underlying annotators' decisions, e.g., what parts of the text they focus on, re-read or skim. Using this framework, we conduct a case study on the preference annotation task, creating a dataset PreferRead that contains fine-grained annotator reading behaviors obtained from mouse tracking. PreferRead enables detailed analysis of how annotators navigate between a prompt and two candidate responses before selecting their preference. We find that annotators re-read a response in roughly half of all trials, most often revisiting the option they ultimately choose, and rarely revisit the prompt. Reading behaviors are also significantly related to annotation outcomes: re-reading is associated with higher inter-annotator agreement, whereas long reading paths and times are associated with lower agreement. These results demonstrate that reading processes provide a complementary cognitive dimension for understanding annotator reliability, decision-making and disagreement in complex, subjective NLP tasks. Our code and data are publicly available.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

LawFlow: Collecting and Simulating Lawyers' Thought Processes on Business Formation Case Studies

Legal practitioners, particularly those early in their careers, face complex, high-stakes tasks that require adaptive, context-sensitive reasoning. While AI holds promise in supporting legal work, current datasets and models are narrowly focused on isolated subtasks and fail to capture the end-to-end decision-making required in real-world practice. To address this gap, we introduce LawFlow, a dataset of complete end-to-end legal workflows collected from trained law students, grounded in real-world business entity formation scenarios. Unlike prior datasets focused on input-output pairs or linear chains of thought, LawFlow captures dynamic, modular, and iterative reasoning processes that reflect the ambiguity, revision, and client-adaptive strategies of legal practice. Using LawFlow, we compare human and LLM-generated workflows, revealing systematic differences in structure, reasoning flexibility, and plan execution. Human workflows tend to be modular and adaptive, while LLM workflows are more sequential, exhaustive, and less sensitive to downstream implications. Our findings also suggest that legal professionals prefer AI to carry out supportive roles, such as brainstorming, identifying blind spots, and surfacing alternatives, rather than executing complex workflows end-to-end. Our results highlight both the current limitations of LLMs in supporting complex legal workflows and opportunities for developing more collaborative, reasoning-aware legal AI systems. All data and code are available on our project page (https://minnesotanlp.github.io/LawFlow-website/).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question. In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner. Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives. These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding. Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

cs.CL↗