arXiv subjects

Tal August

Publications and source records attributed to Tal August.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Who Plays Which Role When? Communication Role Dynamics for Peer Recognition and Team Performance Prediction

Team roles offer an interpretable lens on collaboration, yet computational studies of roles often rely on domain-specific personas or data-driven clustering rather than theory-grounded taxonomies. We operationalize a taxonomy of eight communication roles grounded in education literature and annotate a corpus of 6,307 Slack messages from 55 students across 18 teams in a semester-long computer science course project. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate expert labels, enabling scalable, taxonomy-driven role annotation. Using these role labels, we characterize role dynamics over teams' lifecycles, finding that different roles peak at different moments and that students enact a more diverse set of roles as projects progress. To evaluate the utility of our role constructs, we use them to predict peer recognition, outperforming lexical, conversational, and LLM-prompting baselines. To assess generalizability beyond the educational context, we apply the same role constructs to a public dataset (DeliData) to predict team performance improvement after deliberation, again exceeding prior performance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Explain Like I'm 5 or Whatever I Choose: Evaluating the Interactive Potential of Language Model Responses

Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) in scientific information seeking tasks have become increasingly use-centric, such as conducting live or multi-turn evaluations with real users. These evaluations still assume a single, static chat interface, but as models are integrated into new interfaces, evaluations must shift to incorporate interface-specific criteria. We propose a new evaluation framework based on a formative study with $16$ participants that tests models' ability to generate multiple responses to one query that differ along an interpretable axis of language (language complexity), inspired by direct manipulation interfaces from human-centered design literature. We evaluate GPT-5.1, GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5 + Thinking, and DeepSeek-V3.1 by generating 5 responses at different levels of language complexity for $98$ scientific queries. While models vary complexity across responses, most changes remain inconsistent, with the best performing model (Claude Sonnet 4.5) only shifting reliable complexity measures in the correct direction $46\%$ of the time. Our findings hold with increased sample size and alternative complexity levels.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FOXGLOVE: Understanding Goal-Oriented and Anchored Writing Feedback from Experts and LLMs on Argumentative Essays

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Re-Centering Humans in LLM Personalization

Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Words to Widgets for Controllable LLM Generation

Natural language remains the predominant way people interact with large language models (LLMs). However, users often struggle to precisely express and control subjective preferences (e.g., tone, style, and emphasis) through prompting. We propose Malleable Prompting, a new interactive prompting technique for controllable LLM generation. It reifies preference expressions in natural language prompts into GUI widgets (e.g., sliders, dropdowns, and toggles) that users can directly configure to steer generation, while visualizing each control's influence on the output to support attribution and comparison across iterations. To enable this interaction, we introduce an LLM decoding algorithm that modulates the token probability distribution during generation based on preference expressions and their widget values. Through a user study, we show that Malleable Prompting helps participants achieve target preferences more precisely and is perceived as more controllable and transparent than natural language prompting alone.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

SocialVeil: Probing Social Intelligence of Language Agents under Communication Barriers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated in interactive environments to test their social intelligence. However, existing benchmarks often assume idealized communication between agents, limiting our ability to diagnose whether LLMs can maintain and repair interactions in more realistic, imperfect settings. To close this gap, we present \textsc{SocialVeil}, a social learning environment that can simulate social interaction under cognitive-difference-induced communication barriers. Grounded in a systematic literature review of communication challenges in human interaction, \textsc{SocialVeil} introduces three representative types of such disruption, \emph{semantic vagueness}, \emph{sociocultural mismatch}, and \emph{emotional interference}. We also introduce two barrier-aware evaluation metrics, \emph{unresolved confusion} and \emph{mutual understanding}, to evaluate interaction quality under impaired communication. Experiments across 720 scenarios and four frontier LLMs show that barriers consistently impair performance, with mutual understanding reduced by over 45\% on average, and confusion elevated by nearly 50\%. Human evaluations validate the fidelity of these simulated barriers (ICC$\approx$0.78, Pearson r$\approx$0.80). We further demonstrate that adaptation strategies (Repair Instruction and Interactive learning) only have a modest effect far from barrier-free performance. This work takes a step toward bringing social interaction environments closer to real-world communication, opening opportunities for exploring the social intelligence of LLM agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

From Crafting Text to Crafting Thought: Grounding AI Writing Support to Writing Center Pedagogy

As AI writing tools evolve from fixing surface errors to creating language with writers, new capabilities raise concerns about negative impacts on student writers, such as replacing their voices and undermining critical thinking skills. To address these challenges, we look at a parallel transition in university writing centers from focusing on fixing errors to preserving student voices. We develop design guidelines informed by writing center literature and interviews with 10 writing tutors. We illustrate these guidelines in a prototype AI tool, Writor. Writor helps writers revise text by setting goals, providing balanced feedback, and engaging in conversations without generating text verbatim. We conducted an expert review with 30 writing instructors, tutors, and AI researchers on Writor to assess the pedagogical soundness, alignment with writing center pedagogy, and integration contexts. We distill our findings into design implications for future AI writing feedback systems, including designing for trust among AI-skeptical educators.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Living Contracts: Beyond Document-Centric Interaction with Legal Agreements

User interaction with legal contracts has been limited to document reading, which is often complicated by complex, ambiguous legal language. We explore possible futures where contract interfaces go beyond single document interfaces to (1) educate users with legal rights not stated in the contract, (2) transform legal language into alternative representations to aid information tasks before, during, and after signing, and (3) proactively supply contractual information at relevant moments. We refer to these future interfaces collectively as Living Contracts. Using residential leases as a case study, we created three design probes representing different possible Living Contracts. A three-part qualitative study (N=18) revealed participants' barriers to interacting with contracts, including interpreting complex language, uncertainty about legal rights, and the pressure to sign quickly. Participants' feedback on the probes highlighted how Living Contracts have the potential to address these challenges and open new design opportunities for human-contract interactions beyond document reading.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

MultiSessionCollab: Learning User Preferences with Memory to Improve Long-Term Collaboration

As conversational agents accumulate experience collaborating with users, adapting to user preferences is essential for fostering long-term relationships and improving collaboration quality over time. We introduce MultiSessionCollab, a benchmark that evaluates how well agents can learn user preferences and leverage them to improve collaboration quality throughout multiple sessions. To develop agents that succeed in this setting, we present long-term collaborative agents equipped with a memory that is specifically designed to learn user preferences across sessions and improve interactions. Moreover, we demonstrate that learning signals can be derived from user simulator behavior in MultiSessionCollab to train agents to generate more comprehensive reflections and update their memory more effectively. Extensive experiments show that equipping agents with our memory improves collaboration over time, yielding higher task success rates, more efficient interactions, and reduced user effort. Finally, we conduct a human user study that demonstrates that memory helps improve user experience in real-world settings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

On the Regulatory Potential of User Interfaces for AI Agent Governance

AI agents that take actions in their environment autonomously over extended time horizons require robust governance interventions to curb their potentially consequential risks. Prior proposals for governing AI agents primarily target system-level safeguards (e.g., prompt injection monitors) or agent infrastructure (e.g., agent IDs). In this work, we explore a complementary approach: regulating user interfaces of AI agents as a way of enforcing transparency and behavioral requirements that then demand changes at the system and/or infrastructure levels. Specifically, we analyze 22 existing agentic systems to identify UI elements that play key roles in human-agent interaction and communication. We then synthesize those elements into six high-level interaction design patterns that hold regulatory potential (e.g., requiring agent memory to be editable). We conclude with policy recommendations based on our analysis. Our work exposes a new surface for regulatory action that supplements previous proposals for practical AI agent governance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Designing Beyond Language: Sociotechnical Barriers in AI Health Technologies for Limited English Proficiency

Limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in the U.S. face systemic barriers to healthcare beyond language and interpreter access, encompassing procedural and institutional constraints. AI advances may support communication and care through on-demand translation and visit preparation, but also risk exacerbating existing inequalities. We conducted storyboard-driven interviews with 14 patient navigators to explore how AI could shape care experiences for Spanish-speaking LEP individuals. We identified tensions around linguistic and cultural misunderstandings, privacy concerns, and opportunities and risks for AI to augment care workflows. Participants highlighted structural factors that can undermine trust in AI systems, including sensitive information disclosure, unstable technology access, and low literacy. While AI tools can potentially alleviate social barriers and institutional constraints, there are risks of misinformation and reducing human-to-human interactions. Our findings contribute AI design considerations that support LEP patients and care teams via rapport-building, educational and language support, and minimizing disruptions to existing practices.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Perspectra: Choosing Your Experts Enhances Critical Thinking in Multi-Agent Research Ideation

Recent advances in multi-agent systems (MAS) enable tools for information search and ideation by assigning personas to agents. However, how users can effectively control, steer, and critically evaluate collaboration among multiple domain-expert agents remains underexplored. We present Perspectra, an interactive MAS that visualizes and structures deliberation among LLM agents via a forum-style interface, supporting @-mention to invite targeted agents, threading for parallel exploration, with a real-time mind map for visualizing arguments and rationales. In a within-subjects study with 18 participants, we compared Perspectra to a group-chat baseline as they developed research proposals. Our findings show that Perspectra significantly increased the frequency and depth of critical-thinking behaviors, elicited more interdisciplinary replies, and led to more frequent proposal revisions than the group chat condition. We discuss implications for designing multi-agent tools that scaffold critical thinking by supporting user control over multi-agent adversarial discourse.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Breaking the Curse of Knowledge: Designing Personalized Jargon Support for Real-Time Online Meetings

Cross-disciplinary communication is often hindered by specialized language (i.e., jargon) and uneven background knowledge. Recent advances in speech-to-text and large language models make it possible to provide jargon support during online meetings, but generic support (i.e., defining the same terms for everyone) can overwhelm listeners with definitions they do not need. We present ParseJargon, a system for personalized jargon support in real-time online meetings. We begin with an initial prototype to probe the use of single-sentence user profiles for personalization. We conducted a controlled study and showed that even this minimal personalization enhanced listeners' comprehension and engagement over generic support because of more precise jargon identification. Guided by insights from participants' feedback, we refined the system with more advanced personalization techniques, including in-session user feedback and portable glossary-based profiles. We evaluated how these techniques can further improve jargon identification precision using data collected in the controlled study to simulate personalization over time. We also conducted a latency test, complemented by a lightweight deployment, to analyze the system's real-time capability and usability.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

TermSight: Making Service Contracts Approachable

Legal contracts govern much of our society, but their specialized language is difficult for non-experts to read. While AI has enabled simplification of complex language, legal contracts pose unique challenges because of their connection to readers' values, ambiguity, and legally binding nature. Based on a formative study (N=20) using Terms of Service (ToS) as example contracts to study challenges in contract reading, we developed TermSight, an intelligent reading interface to probe the opportunities and challenges of designing augmentations for legal text. TermSight guides readers to relevant clauses with color-coded plain-language snippets of information and contextualizes ambiguous language with definitions and hypothetical scenarios. Importantly, TermSight's features always foreground the original, legally-binding contract text (e.g., linking to associated clauses). Our within-subjects study (N=20) demonstrated the opportunities of TermSight in making ToS significantly easier to read and navigate while revealing the challenges of augmenting service contracts such as ToS.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Research Borderlands: Analysing Writing Across Research Cultures

Improving cultural competence of language technologies is important. However most recent works rarely engage with the communities they study, and instead rely on synthetic setups and imperfect proxies of culture. In this work, we take a human-centered approach to discover and measure language-based cultural norms, and cultural competence of LLMs. We focus on a single kind of culture, research cultures, and a single task, adapting writing across research cultures. Through a set of interviews with interdisciplinary researchers, who are experts at moving between cultures, we create a framework of structural, stylistic, rhetorical, and citational norms that vary across research cultures. We operationalise these features with a suite of computational metrics and use them for (a) surfacing latent cultural norms in human-written research papers at scale; and (b) highlighting the lack of cultural competence of LLMs, and their tendency to homogenise writing. Overall, our work illustrates the efficacy of a human-centered approach to measuring cultural norms in human-written and LLM-generated texts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Uncertainty in Action: Confidence Elicitation in Embodied Agents

Expressing confidence is challenging for embodied agents navigating dynamic multimodal environments, where uncertainty arises from both perception and decision-making processes. We present the first work investigating embodied confidence elicitation in open-ended multimodal environments. We introduce Elicitation Policies, which structure confidence assessment across inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, along with Execution Policies, which enhance confidence calibration through scenario reinterpretation, action sampling, and hypothetical reasoning. Evaluating agents in calibration and failure prediction tasks within the Minecraft environment, we show that structured reasoning approaches, such as Chain-of-Thoughts, improve confidence calibration. However, our findings also reveal persistent challenges in distinguishing uncertainty, particularly under abductive settings, underscoring the need for more sophisticated embodied confidence elicitation methods.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Automatic Detection of Research Values from Scientific Abstracts Across Computer Science Subfields

The field of Computer science (CS) has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, providing computational tools and methodologies to various fields and forming new interdisciplinary communities. This growth in CS has significantly impacted institutional practices and relevant research communities. Therefore, it is crucial to explore what specific research values, known as basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate research attitudes or actions, CS-related research communities promote. Prior research has manually analyzed research values from a small sample of machine learning papers. No prior work has studied the automatic detection of research values in CS from large-scale scientific texts across different research subfields. This paper introduces a detailed annotation scheme featuring ten research values that guide CS-related research. Based on the scheme, we build value classifiers to scale up the analysis and present a systematic study over 226,600 paper abstracts from 32 CS-related subfields and 86 popular publishing venues over ten years.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Tree-of-Debate: Multi-Persona Debate Trees Elicit Critical Thinking for Scientific Comparative Analysis

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

cs.CL↗