arXiv subjects

Vivian Tsai

Publications and source records attributed to Vivian Tsai.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Choose Your Agent: Tradeoffs in Adopting AI Advisors, Coaches, and Delegates in Multi-Party Negotiation

As AI usage becomes more prevalent in social contexts, understanding agent-user interaction is critical to designing systems that imp rove both individual and group outcomes. We present an online behavioral experiment (N=243) in which participants play three multi-tu rn bargaining games in groups of three. Each game, presented in randomized order, grants access to a single LLM assistance modality: proactive recommendations from an Advisor, reactive feedback from a Coach, or autonomous execution by a Delegate. All three modalitie s are powered by an LLM with super-human performance within this negotiation setting. On each turn, participants privately decide whe ther to act manually or use the AI modality available in that game. We document a preference-performance misalignment: participants s trongly prefer the higher-control Advisor (44%) over the Delegate (19%), yet groups only significantly increase collective surplus un der Delegate access. Adjusting for voluntary non-compliance, delegating to the AI yields suggestive individual welfare gains, roughly 1.5x the intent-to-treat estimate. A mechanism analysis traces this gap to a human filter: AI-generated proposals create more joint surplus than manual proposals across all conditions, but in the Advisor and Coach modes users modify, override, or ignore the AI's su ggestions, reverting toward human-baseline trade patterns. The Delegate advantage arises not from a different AI capability but from bypassing this filtering step altogether. Realizing these welfare gains depends not only on model capability, but on the interaction structure through which that capability is delivered. We argue that assistance modalities should be designed as mechanisms with endog enous participation; adoption-compatible interaction rules are a prerequisite to improving welfare with automated assistance.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Real-Time Group Dynamics with LLM Facilitation: Evidence from a Charity Allocation Task

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from single-user assistants to active participants in civic and workplace deliberation, evaluating their effects on collective decision making becomes a governance challenge. We present two empirical studies (N=879) of real-time, text-based group deliberation in an incentive-compatible charity allocation task with real financial stakes ($7,200 USD). Groups of three allocate a donation budget under varying LLM facilitation conditions: Study 1 (N=204) compares three frontier models; Study 2 (N=675) compares facilitator strategies against a no-facilitation baseline. Across both studies, LLM facilitation did not significantly improve group consensus in either study, yet participants consistently preferred facilitated discussion. We additionally identify two governance-relevant risks. First, algorithmic steering: facilitators shifted select charity-level allocations by up to 5.5 percentage points -- directly affecting the final charitable payout -- even when aggregate agreement metrics remained unchanged. Second, an illusion of inclusion: participants cited inclusivity as their primary reason for preferring LLM facilitators, yet neither survey nor transcript-based measures of participation equity improved. Notably, participants reported greater trust in the process under the same conditions where facilitators exerted directional influence on outcomes. Together, these findings show that in AI-mediated group deliberation, perceived procedural improvement can coexist with measurable steering and unchanged participation inequality, motivating evaluation practices that treat collective outcomes, interaction dynamics, and participant perceptions as distinct governance targets.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Strategic Tradeoffs Between Humans and AI in Multi-Agent Bargaining

Markets increasingly accommodate large language models (LLMs) as autonomous decision-making agents. As this transition occurs, it becomes critical to evaluate how these agents behave relative to their human and task-specific statistical predecessors. In this work, we present results from an empirical study comparing humans (N=216), multiple frontier LLMs, and customized Bayesian agents in dynamic multi-player bargaining games under identical conditions. Bayesian agents extract the highest surplus with aggressive trade proposals that are frequently rejected. Humans and LLMs achieve comparable aggregate surplus within their groups, but exhibit different trading strategies. LLMs favor conservative, concessionary proposals that are usually accepted by other LLMs, while humans propose trades that are consistent with fairness norms but are more likely to be rejected. These findings highlight that performance parity -- a common benchmark in agent evaluation -- can mask substantive procedural differences in how LLMs behave in complex multi-agent interactions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Deliberate Lab: A Platform for Real-Time Human-AI Social Experiments

Social and behavioral scientists increasingly aim to study how humans interact, collaborate, and make decisions alongside artificial intelligence. However, the experimental infrastructure for such work remains underdeveloped: (1) few platforms support real-time, multi-party studies at scale; (2) most deployments require bespoke engineering, limiting replicability and accessibility, and (3) existing tools do not treat AI agents as first-class participants. We present Deliberate Lab, an open-source platform for large-scale, real-time behavioral experiments that supports both human participants and large language model (LLM)-based agents. We report on a 12-month public deployment of the platform (N=88 experimenters, N=9195 experiment participants), analyzing usage patterns and workflows. Case studies and usage scenarios are aggregated from platform users, complemented by in-depth interviews with select experimenters. By lowering technical barriers and standardizing support for hybrid human-AI experimentation, Deliberate Lab expands the methodological repertoire for studying collective decision-making and human-centered AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

To Mask or to Mirror: Human-AI Alignment in Collective Reasoning

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning. We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level. Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a large-scale online experiment (N=748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g. name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases. We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT 4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them. We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases. Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Gensors: Authoring Personalized Visual Sensors with Multimodal Foundation Models and Reasoning

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs), with their expansive world knowledge and reasoning capabilities, present a unique opportunity for end-users to create personalized AI sensors capable of reasoning about complex situations. A user could describe a desired sensing task in natural language (e.g., "alert if my toddler is getting into mischief"), with the MLLM analyzing the camera feed and responding within seconds. In a formative study, we found that users saw substantial value in defining their own sensors, yet struggled to articulate their unique personal requirements and debug the sensors through prompting alone. To address these challenges, we developed Gensors, a system that empowers users to define customized sensors supported by the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Gensors 1) assists users in eliciting requirements through both automatically-generated and manually created sensor criteria, 2) facilitates debugging by allowing users to isolate and test individual criteria in parallel, 3) suggests additional criteria based on user-provided images, and 4) proposes test cases to help users "stress test" sensors on potentially unforeseen scenarios. In a user study, participants reported significantly greater sense of control, understanding, and ease of communication when defining sensors using Gensors. Beyond addressing model limitations, Gensors supported users in debugging, eliciting requirements, and expressing unique personal requirements to the sensor through criteria-based reasoning; it also helped uncover users' "blind spots" by exposing overlooked criteria and revealing unanticipated failure modes. Finally, we discuss how unique characteristics of MLLMs--such as hallucinations and inconsistent responses--can impact the sensor-creation process. These findings contribute to the design of future intelligent sensing systems that are intuitive and customizable by everyday users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

In Situ AI Prototyping: Infusing Multimodal Prompts into Mobile Settings with MobileMaker

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (LLMs) have made it easier to rapidly prototype AI-powered features, especially for mobile use cases. However, gathering early, mobile-situated user feedback on these AI prototypes remains challenging. The broad scope and flexibility of LLMs means that, for a given use-case-specific prototype, there is a crucial need to understand the wide range of in-the-wild input users are likely to provide and their in-context expectations for the AI's behavior. To explore the concept of in situ AI prototyping and testing, we created MobileMaker: a platform that enables designers to rapidly create and test mobile AI prototypes directly on devices. This tool also enables testers to make on-device, in-the-field revisions of prototypes using natural language. In an exploratory study with 16 participants, we explored how user feedback on prototypes created with MobileMaker compares to that of existing prototyping tools (e.g., Figma, prompt editors). Our findings suggest that MobileMaker prototypes enabled more serendipitous discovery of: model input edge cases, discrepancies between AI's and user's in-context interpretation of the task, and contextual signals missed by the AI. Furthermore, we learned that while the ability to make in-the-wild revisions led users to feel more fulfilled as active participants in the design process, it might also constrain their feedback to the subset of changes perceived as more actionable or implementable by the prototyping tool.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

GEMv2: Multilingual NLG Benchmarking in a Single Line of Code

Evaluation in machine learning is usually informed by past choices, for example which datasets or metrics to use. This standardization enables the comparison on equal footing using leaderboards, but the evaluation choices become sub-optimal as better alternatives arise. This problem is especially pertinent in natural language generation which requires ever-improving suites of datasets, metrics, and human evaluation to make definitive claims. To make following best model evaluation practices easier, we introduce GEMv2. The new version of the Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark introduces a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers to benefit from each others work. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages. Models for all datasets can be evaluated online and our interactive data card creation and rendering tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.

cs.CL↗