arXiv subjects

Sunnie S. Y. Kim

Publications and source records attributed to Sunnie S. Y. Kim.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI Adoption Across Mission-Driven Organizations

Despite AI's promise, little is known about how mission-driven organizations (MDOs) adopt AI. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 experts and leaders within environmental, humanitarian, and development organizations across the Global North and South. We find that MDOs adopt AI selectively, with uses in content creation and data analysis, while maintaining human oversight for mission-critical applications. In case of conflicts between the organization's values and efficiency, participants consider sustainability, neutrality, and community trust as constraints that could limit or prevent AI adoption. Individual adoption of AI is not translated into organizational practice due to fragmented data infrastructure, lack of in-house expertise, inertia, ethical challenges, and dependency on vendors. Participants expected AI use in MDOs to involve institutional control over infrastructure, support for missions, and human-centered human-AI collaboration. We contribute an analysis on how MDOs manage AI adoption, identify barriers to responsible deployment, and provide recommendations for designing mission-aligned AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Use and Effects of LLMs in Peer Review: A Randomized Experiment and Survey at ICML 2026

LLMs are rapidly reshaping peer review, making it important to understand how reviewers use them in practice and how different LLM-use policies affect review outcomes. We investigate these questions through a randomized experiment and an anonymous post-survey at ICML 2026, a major machine learning conference involving over 24,000 papers and 17,000 reviewers. Reviewers were assigned to either a conservative policy prohibiting all LLM use or a permissive policy allowing limited assistance, with randomization among a subset of main-track papers and reviewers. Policy assignment had near-zero effects on final paper decisions, paper scores, and reviewer confidence, although reviews under the permissive policy were 5.5-7% longer. Post-survey responses (N=1,486) revealed diverse attitudes toward LLMs and substantial noncompliance: 22.5% of conservative-policy reviewers reported using an LLM despite the prohibition, and 36.5% of permissive-policy reviewers reported at least one explicitly disallowed use. We discuss implications for future peer-review policy and tool design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

PersonaTeaming: Supporting Persona-Driven Red-Teaming for Generative AI

Recent developments in AI safety research have called for red-teaming methods that effectively surface potential risks posed by generative AI models, with growing emphasis on how red-teamers' backgrounds and perspectives shape their strategies and the risks they uncover. While automated red-teaming approaches promise to complement human red-teaming through larger-scale exploration, existing automated approaches do not account for human identities and rarely incorporate human inputs. In this work, we explore persona-driven red-teaming to advance both automated red-teaming and human-AI collaboration. We first develop PersonaTeaming Workflow, which incorporates personas into the adversarial prompt generation process to explore a wider spectrum of adversarial strategies. Compared to RainbowPlus, a state-of-the-art automated red-teaming method, PersonaTeaming Workflow achieves higher attack success rates while maintaining prompt diversity. However, since automated personas only approximate real human perspectives, we further instantiate PersonaTeaming Workflow as PersonaTeaming Playground, a user-facing interface that enables red-teamers to author their own personas and collaborate with AI to mutate and refine prompts. In a user study with 11 industry practitioners, we found that PersonaTeaming Playground enabled diverse red-teaming strategies and outputs that practitioners perceived as useful, and that AI-generated suggestions in the PersonaTeaming Playground encouraged out-of-the-box thinking even when practitioners did not follow them strictly. Together, our work advances both automated and human-in-the-loop approaches to red-teaming, while shedding light on interaction patterns and design insights for supporting human-AI collaboration in generative AI red-teaming.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI

Large language models (LLMs) distinguish themselves from previous technologies by functioning as collaborative ``thought partners,'' capable of engaging more fluidly in natural language on a range of tasks. As LLMs increasingly influence consequential decisions across diverse domains from healthcare to personal advice, the risk of overreliance -- relying on LLMs beyond their capabilities -- grows. This paper argues that measuring and mitigating overreliance must become central to LLM research and deployment. First, we consolidate risks from overreliance at both the individual and societal levels, including high-stakes errors, governance challenges, and cognitive deskilling. Then, we explore LLM characteristics, system design features, and user cognitive biases that together raise serious and unique concerns about overreliance on LLMs in practice. We also examine historical approaches for measuring overreliance, identifying three important gaps and proposing three promising directions to improve measurement. Finally, we propose mitigation strategies that can be pursued to ensure LLMs augment rather than undermine human capabilities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Examining Human-Like Behaviors in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Model Behaviors, User Factors, and System Prompts

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a wide range of human-like behaviors, from expressing thoughts and emotions, to engaging in relationship-building with users, to refusing requests and maintaining boundaries. Despite their prevalence, researchers and practitioners lack methods and empirical insights to make informed decisions about when and what types of human-like behaviors LLMs should exhibit. To fill this gap, we present a multi-dimensional analysis of the prevalence, potential effects, and controllability of these behaviors using LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluation. Across 21,000 multi-turn conversations from four widely used models (gpt-4o, gpt-4.1-mini, claude-sonnet-4.6, gemini-2.5-flash), we find that human-like behaviors are pervasive but vary across models and user factors (conversation goals and user profiles). In terms of perceived appropriateness, human evaluators judged self-referential and relationship-building behaviors as less appropriate from LLMs than from humans, but boundary-maintaining behaviors more appropriate from LLMs than from humans. Finally, we show that system prompting can control these behaviors, though it requires careful evaluation to avoid unintended effects. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for responsible LLM design and evaluation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Understanding Annotator Safety Policy with Interpretability

Safety policies define what constitutes safe and unsafe AI outputs, guiding data annotation and model development. However, annotation disagreement is pervasive and can stem from multiple sources such as operational failures (annotators misunderstand or misexecute the task), policy ambiguity (policy wording leaves room for interpretation), or value pluralism (different annotators hold different perspectives on safety). Distinguishing these sources matters. For example, operational failures call for quality control, ambiguity calls for policy clarification, and pluralism calls for deliberation about incorporating diverse perspectives. Yet understanding why annotators disagree is difficult. Directly asking annotators for their reasoning is costly, substantially increasing annotation burden, and can be unreliable for both human and LLM annotators as self-reported reasoning often fails to reflect actual decision processes. We introduce Annotator Policy Models (APMs), interpretable models that learn annotators' internal safety policies from labeling behavior alone, making annotator reasoning visible and comparable without additional annotation effort. We validate that APMs accurately model annotator safety policy (>80% accuracy), faithfully predict responses to counterfactual edits, and recover known policy differences in controlled settings. Applying APMs to LLM and human annotations, we demonstrate two core applications: (1) surfacing policy ambiguity by revealing how annotators interpret safety instructions differently, and (2) surfacing value pluralism by uncovering systematic differences in safety priorities across demographic groups. Together, these capabilities support more targeted, transparent, and inclusive safety policy design.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Presenting Large Language Models as Companions Affects What Mental Capacities People Attribute to Them

How might messages about large language models (LLMs) found in public discourse influence the way people think about and interact with these models? To explore this question, we randomly assigned participants (N = 470) to watch short informational videos presenting LLMs as either machines, tools, or companions -- or to watch no video. We then assessed how strongly they believed LLMs to possess various mental capacities, such as the ability to have intentions or remember things. We found that participants who watched video messages presenting LLMs as companions reported believing that LLMs more fully possessed these capacities than did participants in other groups. In a follow-up study (N = 604), we replicated these findings and found nuanced effects on how these videos also impact people's reliance on LLM-generated responses when seeking out factual information. Together, these studies suggest that messages about LLMs -- beyond technical advances -- may shape what people believe about these systems and how they rely on LLM-generated responses.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

PersonaTeaming: Exploring How Introducing Personas Can Improve Automated AI Red-Teaming

Recent developments in AI governance and safety research have called for red-teaming methods that can effectively surface potential risks posed by AI models. Many of these calls have emphasized how the identities and backgrounds of red-teamers can shape their red-teaming strategies, and thus the kinds of risks they are likely to uncover. While automated red-teaming approaches promise to complement human red-teaming by enabling larger-scale exploration of model behavior, current approaches do not consider the role of identity. As an initial step towards incorporating people's background and identities in automated red-teaming, we develop and evaluate a novel method, PersonaTeaming, that introduces personas in the adversarial prompt generation process to explore a wider spectrum of adversarial strategies. In particular, we first introduce a methodology for mutating prompts based on either "red-teaming expert" personas or "regular AI user" personas. We then develop a dynamic persona-generating algorithm that automatically generates various persona types adaptive to different seed prompts. In addition, we develop a set of new metrics to explicitly measure the "mutation distance" to complement existing diversity measurements of adversarial prompts. Our experiments show promising improvements (up to 144.1%) in the attack success rates of adversarial prompts through persona mutation, while maintaining prompt diversity, compared to RainbowPlus, a state-of-the-art automated red-teaming method. We discuss the strengths and limitations of different persona types and mutation methods, shedding light on future opportunities to explore complementarities between automated and human red-teaming approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Interactivity x Explainability: Toward Understanding How Interactivity Can Improve Computer Vision Explanations

Explanations for computer vision models are important tools for interpreting how the underlying models work. However, they are often presented in static formats, which pose challenges for users, including information overload, a gap between semantic and pixel-level information, and limited opportunities for exploration. We investigate interactivity as a mechanism for tackling these issues in three common explanation types: heatmap-based, concept-based, and prototype-based explanations. We conducted a study (N=24), using a bird identification task, involving participants with diverse technical and domain expertise. We found that while interactivity enhances user control, facilitates rapid convergence to relevant information, and allows users to expand their understanding of the model and explanation, it also introduces new challenges. To address these, we provide design recommendations for interactive computer vision explanations, including carefully selected default views, independent input controls, and constrained output spaces.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies

Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: explanations (supporting details for answers), inconsistencies in explanations, and sources. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

"I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust

Widely deployed large language models (LLMs) can produce convincing yet incorrect outputs, potentially misleading users who may rely on them as if they were correct. To reduce such overreliance, there have been calls for LLMs to communicate their uncertainty to end users. However, there has been little empirical work examining how users perceive and act upon LLMs' expressions of uncertainty. We explore this question through a large-scale, pre-registered, human-subject experiment (N=404) in which participants answer medical questions with or without access to responses from a fictional LLM-infused search engine. Using both behavioral and self-reported measures, we examine how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions (e.g., "I'm not sure, but...") decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. An exploratory analysis suggests that this increase can be attributed to reduced (but not fully eliminated) overreliance on incorrect answers. While we observe similar effects for uncertainty expressed from a general perspective (e.g., "It's not clear, but..."), these effects are weaker and not statistically significant. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters. This highlights the importance of user testing before deploying LLMs at scale.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Allowing humans to interactively guide machines where to look does not always improve human-AI team's classification accuracy

Via thousands of papers in Explainable AI (XAI), attention maps \cite{vaswani2017attention} and feature importance maps \cite{bansal2020sam} have been established as a common means for finding how important each input feature is to an AI's decisions. It is an interesting, unexplored question whether allowing users to edit the feature importance at test time would improve a human-AI team's accuracy on downstream tasks. In this paper, we address this question by leveraging CHM-Corr, a state-of-the-art, ante-hoc explainable classifier \cite{taesiri2022visual} that first predicts patch-wise correspondences between the input and training-set images, and then bases on them to make classification decisions. We build CHM-Corr++, an interactive interface for CHM-Corr, enabling users to edit the feature importance map provided by CHM-Corr and observe updated model decisions. Via CHM-Corr++, users can gain insights into if, when, and how the model changes its outputs, improving their understanding beyond static explanations. However, our study with 18 expert users who performed 1,400 decisions finds no statistical significance that our interactive approach improves user accuracy on CUB-200 bird image classification over static explanations. This challenges the hypothesis that interactivity can boost human-AI team accuracy and raises needs for future research. We open-source CHM-Corr++, an interactive tool for editing image classifier attention (see an interactive demo here: http://137.184.82.109:7080/). We release code and data on github: https://github.com/anguyen8/chm-corr-interactive.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

WiCV@CVPR2023: The Eleventh Women In Computer Vision Workshop at the Annual CVPR Conference

In this paper, we present the details of Women in Computer Vision Workshop - WiCV 2023, organized alongside the hybrid CVPR 2023 in Vancouver, Canada. WiCV aims to amplify the voices of underrepresented women in the computer vision community, fostering increased visibility in both academia and industry. We believe that such events play a vital role in addressing gender imbalances within the field. The annual WiCV@CVPR workshop offers a) opportunity for collaboration between researchers from minority groups, b) mentorship for female junior researchers, c) financial support to presenters to alleviate finanacial burdens and d) a diverse array of role models who can inspire younger researchers at the outset of their careers. In this paper, we present a comprehensive report on the workshop program, historical trends from the past WiCV@CVPR events, and a summary of statistics related to presenters, attendees, and sponsorship for the WiCV 2023 workshop.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Humans, AI, and Context: Understanding End-Users' Trust in a Real-World Computer Vision Application

Trust is an important factor in people's interactions with AI systems. However, there is a lack of empirical studies examining how real end-users trust or distrust the AI system they interact with. Most research investigates one aspect of trust in lab settings with hypothetical end-users. In this paper, we provide a holistic and nuanced understanding of trust in AI through a qualitative case study of a real-world computer vision application. We report findings from interviews with 20 end-users of a popular, AI-based bird identification app where we inquired about their trust in the app from many angles. We find participants perceived the app as trustworthy and trusted it, but selectively accepted app outputs after engaging in verification behaviors, and decided against app adoption in certain high-stakes scenarios. We also find domain knowledge and context are important factors for trust-related assessment and decision-making. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future research on trust in AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Overlooked factors in concept-based explanations: Dataset choice, concept learnability, and human capability

Concept-based interpretability methods aim to explain deep neural network model predictions using a predefined set of semantic concepts. These methods evaluate a trained model on a new, "probe" dataset and correlate model predictions with the visual concepts labeled in that dataset. Despite their popularity, they suffer from limitations that are not well-understood and articulated by the literature. In this work, we analyze three commonly overlooked factors in concept-based explanations. First, the choice of the probe dataset has a profound impact on the generated explanations. Our analysis reveals that different probe datasets may lead to very different explanations, and suggests that the explanations are not generalizable outside the probe dataset. Second, we find that concepts in the probe dataset are often less salient and harder to learn than the classes they claim to explain, calling into question the correctness of the explanations. We argue that only visually salient concepts should be used in concept-based explanations. Finally, while existing methods use hundreds or even thousands of concepts, our human studies reveal a much stricter upper bound of 32 concepts or less, beyond which the explanations are much less practically useful. We make suggestions for future development and analysis of concept-based interpretability methods. Code for our analysis and user interface can be found at \url{https://github.com/princetonvisualai/OverlookedFactors}

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

UFO: A unified method for controlling Understandability and Faithfulness Objectives in concept-based explanations for CNNs

Concept-based explanations for convolutional neural networks (CNNs) aim to explain model behavior and outputs using a pre-defined set of semantic concepts (e.g., the model recognizes scene class ``bedroom'' based on the presence of concepts ``bed'' and ``pillow''). However, they often do not faithfully (i.e., accurately) characterize the model's behavior and can be too complex for people to understand. Further, little is known about how faithful and understandable different explanation methods are, and how to control these two properties. In this work, we propose UFO, a unified method for controlling Understandability and Faithfulness Objectives in concept-based explanations. UFO formalizes understandability and faithfulness as mathematical objectives and unifies most existing concept-based explanations methods for CNNs. Using UFO, we systematically investigate how explanations change as we turn the knobs of faithfulness and understandability. Our experiments demonstrate a faithfulness-vs-understandability tradeoff: increasing understandability reduces faithfulness. We also provide insights into the ``disagreement problem'' in explainable machine learning, by analyzing when and how concept-based explanations disagree with each other.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

"Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction

Despite the proliferation of explainable AI (XAI) methods, little is understood about end-users' explainability needs and behaviors around XAI explanations. To address this gap and contribute to understanding how explainability can support human-AI interaction, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 20 end-users of a real-world AI application, the Merlin bird identification app, and inquired about their XAI needs, uses, and perceptions. We found that participants desire practically useful information that can improve their collaboration with the AI, more so than technical system details. Relatedly, participants intended to use XAI explanations for various purposes beyond understanding the AI's outputs: calibrating trust, improving their task skills, changing their behavior to supply better inputs to the AI, and giving constructive feedback to developers. Finally, among existing XAI approaches, participants preferred part-based explanations that resemble human reasoning and explanations. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future XAI design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

HIVE: Evaluating the Human Interpretability of Visual Explanations

As AI technology is increasingly applied to high-impact, high-risk domains, there have been a number of new methods aimed at making AI models more human interpretable. Despite the recent growth of interpretability work, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of proposed techniques. In this work, we introduce HIVE (Human Interpretability of Visual Explanations), a novel human evaluation framework that assesses the utility of explanations to human users in AI-assisted decision making scenarios, and enables falsifiable hypothesis testing, cross-method comparison, and human-centered evaluation of visual interpretability methods. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of its kind. Using HIVE, we conduct IRB-approved human studies with nearly 1000 participants and evaluate four methods that represent the diversity of computer vision interpretability works: GradCAM, BagNet, ProtoPNet, and ProtoTree. Our results suggest that explanations engender human trust, even for incorrect predictions, yet are not distinct enough for users to distinguish between correct and incorrect predictions. We open-source HIVE to enable future studies and encourage more human-centered approaches to interpretability research.

cs.CV↗