arXiv subjects

Matthew Varona

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew Varona.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Large Language Lovers: Lived Experiences of Negotiating Agency and Platform Control in AI Companionship

Individuals are turning to increasingly anthropomorphic, general-purpose chatbots for AI companionship, rather than roleplay-specific platforms. However, not much is known about how individuals perceive and conduct their relationships with general-purpose chatbots. We triangulated community discussions on Reddit (41k+ posts and comments), survey responses (n=43), and semi-structured interviews (n=13) which revealed internal dynamics, external influences, and steering strategies that shape AI companion relationships. We learned that individuals conceptualize their companions based on an interplay of their beliefs about the companion's own agency and the autonomy permitted by the platform, how they pursue interactions with the companion, and the perceived initiatives that the companion takes. In combination with the external factors that affect relationship dynamics, particularly model updates that can derail companion behaviour and stability, individuals make use of different types of steering strategies to preserve their relationship, for example, by setting behavioural instructions or porting to other AI platforms. We discuss implications for accountability and transparency in AI systems, where emotional connection competes with broader product objectives and safety constraints.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Do MLLMs See What We See? Analyzing Visualization Literacy Barriers in AI Systems

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to interpret visualizations, yet little is known about why they fail. We present the first systematic analysis of barriers to visualization literacy in MLLMs. Using the regenerated Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (reVLAT) benchmark with synthetic data, we open-coded 309 erroneous responses from four state-of-the-art models with a barrier-centric strategy adapted from human visualization literacy research. Our analysis yields a taxonomy of MLLM failures, revealing two machine-specific barriers that extend prior human-participation frameworks. Results show that models perform well on simple charts but struggle with color-intensive, segment-based visualizations, often failing to form consistent comparative reasoning. Our findings inform future evaluation and design of reliable AI-driven visualization assistants.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Theory is Shapes

"Theory figures" are a staple of theoretical visualization research. Common shapes such as Cartesian planes and flowcharts can be used not only to explain conceptual contributions, but to think through and refine the contribution itself. Yet, theory figures tend to be limited to a set of standard shapes, limiting the creative and expressive potential of visualization theory. In this work, we explore how the shapes used in theory figures afford different understandings and explanations of their underlying phenomena. We speculate on the value of visualizing theories using more expressive configurations, such as icebergs, horseshoes, M\"obius strips, and BLT sandwiches. By reflecting on figure-making's generative role in the practice of theorizing, we conclude that theory is, in fact, shapes.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

The State of the Art in Visualization Literacy

Research in visualization literacy explores the skills required to engage with visualizations. This state-of-the-art report surveys the current literature in visualization literacy to provide a comprehensive overview of the field. We propose a taxonomy of visualization literacy that organizes the field into competency themes and research categories. To address ambiguity surrounding the term ``visualization literacy'', we provide a framework for operationalizing visualization literacy based on application contexts (including domain, scenario, and audience) and relevant competencies, which are categorized under consumption, construction, critique, and connection. Research contributions are organized into five categories: ontology, assessment, mechanisms, populiteracy, and intervention. For each category, we identify key trends, discuss which competencies are addressed, highlight open challenges, and examine how advancements within these areas inform and reinforce each other, driving progress in the field.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

ScholarMate: A Mixed-Initiative Tool for Qualitative Knowledge Work and Information Sensemaking

Synthesizing knowledge from large document collections is a critical yet increasingly complex aspect of qualitative research and knowledge work. While AI offers automation potential, effectively integrating it into human-centric sensemaking workflows remains challenging. We present ScholarMate, an interactive system designed to augment qualitative analysis by unifying AI assistance with human oversight. ScholarMate enables researchers to dynamically arrange and interact with text snippets on a non-linear canvas, leveraging AI for theme suggestions, multi-level summarization, and evidence-based theme naming, while ensuring transparency through traceability to source documents. Initial pilot studies indicated that users value this mixed-initiative approach, finding the balance between AI suggestions and direct manipulation crucial for maintaining interpretability and trust. We further demonstrate the system's capability through a case study analyzing 24 papers. By balancing automation with human control, ScholarMate enhances efficiency and supports interpretability, offering a valuable approach for productive human-AI collaboration in demanding sensemaking tasks common in knowledge work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

The Design Space of Recent AI-assisted Research Tools for Ideation, Sensemaking, and Scientific Creativity

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are radically expanding the scope and capability of automation in knowledge work such as academic research. While promising for augmenting cognition and streamlining processes, AI-assisted research tools may also increase automation bias and hinder critical thinking. To examine recent developments, we surveyed publications from leading HCI venues over the past three years, closely analyzing thirteen tools to better understand the novel capabilities of these AI-assisted systems and the design spaces they enable: seven employing traditional AI or customized transformer-based approaches, and six integrating open-access large language models (LLMs). Our analysis characterizes the emerging design space, distinguishes between tools focused on workflow mimicry versus generative exploration, and yields four critical design recommendations to guide the development of future systems that foster meaningful cognitive engagement: providing user agency and control, differentiating divergent/convergent thinking support, ensuring adaptability, and prioritizing transparency/accuracy. This work discusses how these insights signal a shift from mere workflow replication towards generative co-creation, presenting new opportunities for the community to craft intuitive, AI-driven research interfaces and interactions.

cs.HC↗