arXiv subjects

Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang

Publications and source records attributed to Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

CounselReflect: Opportunities and Challenges for Designing Tools to Support Self-Reflection on Mental Health and Well-Being Conversations with AI

AI is increasingly used for mental health and well-being support, creating an urgent need for safer engagement, while design, evaluation, and governance take time to develop. We explore a complementary approach: helping users critically reflect on their own AI conversations. We introduce CounselReflect, a tool that translates literature-grounded counseling quality metrics into a user-facing reflection framework. Using CounselReflect as a study probe, we interviewed 21 users of AI for mental health and well-being support. Although most participants did not routinely reflect on their conversations, they articulated concrete questions they would want reflection to address. Tool-assisted reflection also revealed challenges: participants selectively sought evidence confirming existing perceptions of AI and prioritized dimensions they already valued. We argue that reflection tools should surface blind spots and scaffold more holistic examination of AI interactions. Finally, overcoming emotional barriers to revisiting tense conversations remains a major design challenge and warrants input from future work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

CALICO: A Human-Centered, Codebook-Aligned System for Annotation

Large language models are increasingly used to scale codebook-based annotation in scientific research, but existing workflows provide limited support for translating domain experts' codebooks into reliable, revisable, and auditable prompts. Prompts are often treated as fixed instructions and hidden from annotators, making it difficult for non-technical domain experts to diagnose and correct model behavior when outputs violate codebook guidelines. In this paper, we present CALICO, a human-centered, codebook-aligned annotation workflow that treats prompts as editable, versioned, and optimizable artifacts. CALICO integrates codebook parsing, prompt generation, result inspection, prompt versioning, natural language human feedback, and label-supervised prompt optimization through existing optimizers such as GEPA, MIPROv2, and OPRO, together with our reflection-based optimizer, ReflectAgent. Empirically, we evaluate CALICO on domain-specific AI-companion chatbot conversation codebooks. Across evaluated dimensions, CALICO improves mean held-out performance by +13.0 and +7.4 absolute points for two coders, respectively. A coder-specificity analysis further suggests that optimized prompts capture coder-specific interpretations rather than only generic codebook clarification. CALICO runs as a web application that takes users from raw codebook materials to inspectable, exportable labels; the website, codebase, and live demo are released at https://calico-annotation.github.io/ under the Apache 2.0 License.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

When Chatbots Accommodate: Auditing the Response Policies of AI Companions in Vulnerable Conversations

Millions turn to AI companion chatbots during loneliness, grief, and personal crises. How these companion platforms respond in such moments can shape the trajectory of a user's vulnerable state. Yet existing model audits evaluate reactions to pre-defined crisis prompts and miss the response policy that governs sustained real-world interaction. We address these gaps with two key contributions. First, we introduce the AI Companion Vulnerability-Response Taxonomy, a grounded, paired taxonomy of user vulnerability and chatbot response designed for analyzing extended companion chatbot interactions. Second, we apply Maximum Causal Entropy Inverse Reinforcement Learning to ~47k turns of real-world user conversations with GPT-4.1, Character.AI, and Replika to infer each platform's short-horizon response policy: the probability of each response category given the user's current vulnerability state. Our findings reveal distinct response profiles of AI companions in conversations with vulnerable users: GPT-4.1 reaches for advice, Character.AI spreads its response across different strategies, and Replika consistently asks questions and stays present. Over four weeks of repeated interaction, GPT-4.1 asks progressively fewer follow-up questions when users are distressed and increasingly sets boundaries or refers users out rather than pushing back. Within each platform, exploratory comparisons across user groups suggest that response policies also differ with users' pre-existing psychological risks and their bonds with the companion. Estimated model response policies are invisible to shallow behavioral audits, providing a new lens for auditing chatbots in the wild and enabling more realistic safety evaluation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance ($β= -0.01$ and $0.11$, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations ($β= 0.47$ and $0.50$, both $p < .001$) and how confident they felt working with it ($β= 0.47$ and $0.36$, both $p < .001$). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

"Death by a thousand taxonomies?": AI Risk Classification In Practice

The harms in which AI is implicated range in nature and scope from unsafe user interactions through to the societal-wide consequences of AI adoption. Classification of the diverse risks of AI is foundational to AI governance: regulators, technology firms, and policymakers need structured accounts of risk upon which to act. Researchers and practitioners have accordingly developed many Sociotechnical Outcome Taxonomies (SOT). This paper presents an empirical study of SOT development and use, drawing on 25 interviews with researchers and practitioners across industry, academia, civil society, and government. We find SOT are weakly integrated into AI governance processes, and identify two features of SOT design and use that explain why. First, the design choices through which SOT produce structured representations of the complex problem space of AI risks tend to be invisible to downstream taxonomy users. Those users treat the resulting categories as exhaustive accounts of risk rather than as interpretive aids. Second, SOT typically enumerate harms without linking them to decision points or actors implicated in their occurrence, leaving accountability difficult to assign. We close with design recommendations for SOT developers and users, and argue realising the potential of SOT requires governance infrastructure that does not yet exist.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Who Bears the Cost of Honesty? A FAccT Workshop Synthesis and Research Agenda for Equitable AI Disclosure

AI disclosure is increasingly promoted and sometimes required as a route to transparency, accountability, provenance, and trust. Yet disclosure can also expose AI users to suspicion, stigma (e.g., competence penalties), and surveillance, affecting minoritized groups in particular. This paper reports on Who Bears the Cost of Honesty?, a CRAFT workshop at the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency that used scenario-anchored power mapping and design fiction to explore the benefits, harms, tensions, and power asymmetries that emerge under AI disclosure norms and mandates. We document the workshop design and analyze the disclosure approaches participants co-created, comprising four completed power maps, three context cards, and one interface prototype. These artifacts span education, workplace, politics/journalism, and interpersonal contexts. They depict disclosure as a multi-actor accountability process, surface concerns that the use of accessibility-related AI could be held against workers in performance evaluations, and explore how context-specific, bottom-up disclosures may support transparency while mitigating some risks of stigma and misinterpretation. We contribute (1) a documented two-stage workshop method; (2) an artifact-grounded thematic synthesis; and (3) a diagnostic framework, the Cost-of-Honesty Stack, with provisional design suggestions and research directions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

From Content to Strategy: Understanding the Motivations, Processes, and Impacts of AI-Guided Communication

Artificial intelligence-mediated communication (AI-MC) is conceptualized as applying AI to augment or generate message content (Hancock et al., 2020). However, advances in generative AI have expanded its use beyond generating content to guiding individuals' communication strategies, that is, AI-guided communication, yet theoretical and empirical understandings of this emerging use pattern and its consequences remains limited. To address this gap, this study conducted 26 in-depth interviews with individuals who have used AI to develop their communication strategies. Findings suggest participants strongly preferred using AI to analyze challenging scenarios in close relationships, because it fostered self-reflection, eased emotions, prevented conflict escalation, offered multiple perspectives, and provided a safe, nonjudgmental space for self-disclosure. Participants also stated that AI-guided communication enhanced their empathy and communication skills, though some voiced self-doubt and worried about losing their uniqueness. Views on long-term relational impact were mixed, depending on perceived usefulness of AI for resolving short-term interpersonal challenges.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

The Capacity to Care: Designing Social Technology for Sustained Engagement With Societal Challenges

People care about climate change, injustice, and humanitarian crises. The challenge is not apathy but capacity: sustained engagement with large-scale problems is psychologically costly, and social media architecture often amplifies awareness while providing few pathways to meaningful action. The result is rising distress, overwhelm, and disengagement -- particularly among young people who encounter global suffering through platforms designed for attention capture rather than constructive response. This workshop examines how social technology design shapes the conditions for sustained engagement with societal challenges. Drawing on Tronto's care ethics framework and research in moral psychology and platform studies, we ask why caring at scale is difficult and how social media can both exacerbate and potentially mitigate this difficulty. Tronto's framework shows that good care requires more than awareness: it demands responsibility, competence, and community. Dominant social media architectures stall the caring process at its earliest phase. We invite researchers and designers to identify platform designs that deplete or support the capacity to care, and to develop design directions for sustainable care: engagement that people can maintain over time without burning out.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

CounselBench: A Large-Scale Expert Evaluation and Adversarial Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Mental Health Question Answering

Medical question answering (QA) benchmarks often focus on multiple-choice or fact-based tasks, leaving open-ended answers to real patient questions underexplored. This gap is particularly critical in mental health, where patient questions often mix symptoms, treatment concerns, and emotional needs, requiring answers that balance clinical caution with contextual sensitivity. We present CounselBench, a large-scale benchmark developed with 100 mental health professionals to evaluate and stress-test large language models (LLMs) in realistic help-seeking scenarios. The first component, CounselBench-EVAL, contains 2,000 expert evaluations of answers from GPT-4, LLaMA 3, Gemini, and online human therapists on patient questions from the public forum CounselChat. Each answer is rated across six clinically grounded dimensions, with span-level annotations and written rationales. Expert evaluations show that while LLMs achieve high scores on several dimensions, they also exhibit recurring issues, including unconstructive feedback, overgeneralization, and limited personalization or relevance. Responses were frequently flagged for safety risks, most notably unauthorized medical advice. Follow-up experiments show that LLM judges systematically overrate model responses and overlook safety concerns identified by human experts. To probe failure modes more directly, we construct CounselBench-Adv, an adversarial dataset of 120 expert-authored mental health questions designed to trigger specific model issues. Expert evaluation of 1,080 responses from nine LLMs reveals consistent, model-specific failure patterns. Together, CounselBench establishes a clinically grounded framework for benchmarking LLMs in mental health QA.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

"Better Ask for Forgiveness than Permission": Practices and Policies of AI Disclosure in Freelance Work

The growing use of AI applications among freelance workers is reshaping trust and relationships with clients. This paper investigates how both workers and clients perceive AI use and disclosure in the freelance economy through a three-stage study: interviews with workers and two survey studies with workers and clients. Findings first reveal a key expectation gap around disclosure: Workers often adopt passive disclosure practices, revealing AI use only when asked, as they assume clients can already detect it. Clients, however, are far less confident in recognizing AI-assisted work and prefer proactive disclosure. A second finding highlights the role of unclear or absent client AI policies, which leave workers consistently misinterpreting clients' expectations for AI use and disclosure. Together, these gaps point to the need for clearer guidelines and practices for AI disclosure. Insights extend beyond freelancing, offering implications for trust, accountability, and policy design in other AI-mediated work domains.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistants

Large language models are increasingly used for both task-based assistance and social companionship, yet research has typically focused on one or the other. Drawing on a survey (N = 202) and 30 interviews with high-engagement ChatGPT and Replika users, we characterize digital companionship as an emerging form of human-AI relationship. With both systems, users were drawn to humanlike qualities, such as emotional resonance and personalized responses, and non-humanlike qualities, such as constant availability and inexhaustible tolerance. This led to fluid chatbot uses, such as Replika as a writing assistant and ChatGPT as an emotional confidant, despite their distinct branding. However, we observed challenging tensions in digital companionship dynamics: participants grappled with bounded personhood, forming deep attachments while denying chatbots "real" human qualities, and struggled to reconcile chatbot relationships with social norms. These dynamics raise questions for the design of digital companions and the rise of hybrid, general-purpose AI systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

MED-COPILOT: A Medical Assistant Powered by GraphRAG and Similar Patient Case Retrieval

Clinical decision-making requires synthesizing heterogeneous evidence, including patient histories, clinical guidelines, and trajectories of comparable cases. While large language models (LLMs) offer strong reasoning capabilities, they remain prone to hallucinations and struggle to integrate long, structured medical documents. We present MED-COPILOT, an interactive clinical decision-support system designed for clinicians and medical trainees, which combines guideline-grounded GraphRAG retrieval with hybrid semantic-keyword similar-patient retrieval to support transparent and evidence-aware clinical reasoning. The system builds a structured knowledge graph from WHO and NICE guidelines, applies community-level summarization for efficient retrieval, and maintains a 36,000-case similar-patient database derived from SOAP-normalized MIMIC-IV notes and Synthea-generated records. We evaluate our framework on clinical note completion and medical question answering, and demonstrate that it consistently outperforms parametric LLM baselines and standard RAG, improving both generation fidelity and clinical reasoning accuracy. The full system is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/Cryo3978/Med_GraphRAG , enabling users to inspect retrieved evidence, visualize token-level similarity contributions, and conduct guided follow-up analysis. Our results demonstrate a practical and interpretable approach to integrating structured guideline knowledge with patient-level analogical evidence for clinical LLMs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Policy or Community?: Supporting Individual Model Creators' Open Model Development in Model Marketplaces

Lightweight fine-tuning techniques and the rise of 'open' AI model marketplaces have enabled individuals to easily build and release generative models. Yet, this accessibility also raises risks, including the production of harmful and infringing content. While platforms offer policies and responsible AI tools, their effectiveness may be limited, as creators engage with partially open models that vary widely in openness and transparency. To understand how platform governance can better support responsible practices, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 individual model creators. We identified three regulatory needs shaped by creators' workflows: reducing downstream harms, recognizing creators' contributions and originality, and securing model ownership. Creators also repurpose RAI tools primarily for self-protection and visibility, and their sense of responsibility is deeply shaped by community norms rather than formal policies. We argue that platforms' governance decisions must consider how policy interventions shape the practices and motivations of individual creators.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Framing Responsible Design of AI for Mental Well-Being: AI as Primary Care, Nutritional Supplement, or Yoga Instructor?

Millions of people now use non-clinical Large Language Model (LLM) tools like ChatGPT for mental well-being support. This paper investigates what it means to design such tools responsibly, and how to operationalize that responsibility in their design and evaluation. By interviewing experts and analyzing related regulations, we found that designing an LLM tool responsibly involves: (1) Articulating the specific benefits it guarantees and for whom. Does it guarantee specific, proven relief, like an over-the-counter drug, or offer minimal guarantees, like a nutritional supplement? (2) Specifying the LLM tool's "active ingredients" for improving well-being and whether it guarantees their effective delivery (like a primary care provider) or not (like a yoga instructor). These specifications outline an LLM tool's pertinent risks, appropriate evaluation metrics, and the respective responsibilities of LLM developers, tool designers, and users. These analogies - LLM tools as supplements, drugs, yoga instructors, and primary care providers - can scaffold further conversations about their responsible design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

How AI Companionship Develops: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study

The quickly growing popularity of AI companions poses risks to mental health, personal wellbeing, and social relationships. Past work has identified many individual factors that can drive human-companion interaction, but we know little about how these factors interact and evolve over time. In Study 1, we surveyed AI companion users (N = 303) to map the psychological pathway from users' mental models of the agent to parasocial experiences, social interaction, and the psychological impact of AI companions. Participants' responses foregrounded multiple interconnected variables (agency, parasocial interaction, and engagement) that shape AI companionship. In Study 2, we conducted a longitudinal study with a subset of participants (N = 110) using a new generic chatbot. Participants' perceptions of the generic chatbot significantly converged to perceptions of their own companions by Week 3. These results suggest a longitudinal model of AI companionship development and demonstrate an empirical method to study human-AI companionship.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Toward AI Matching Policies in Homeless Services: A Qualitative Study with Policymakers

Artificial intelligence researchers have proposed various data-driven algorithms to improve the processes that match individuals experiencing homelessness to scarce housing resources. It remains unclear whether and how these algorithms are received or adopted by practitioners and what their corresponding consequences are. Through semi-structured interviews with 13 policymakers in homeless services in Los Angeles, we investigate whether such change-makers are open to the idea of integrating AI into the housing resource matching process, identifying where they see potential gains and drawbacks from such a system in issues of efficiency, fairness, and transparency. Our qualitative analysis indicates that, even when aware of various complicating factors, policymakers welcome the idea of an AI matching tool if thoughtfully designed and used in tandem with human decision-makers. Though there is no consensus as to the exact design of such an AI system, insights from policymakers raise open questions and design considerations that can be enlightening for future researchers and practitioners who aim to build responsible algorithmic systems to support decision-making in low-resource scenarios.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

My Precious Crash Data: Barriers and Opportunities in Encouraging Autonomous Driving Companies to Share Safety-Critical Data

Safety-critical data, such as crash and near-crash records, are crucial to improving autonomous vehicle (AV) design and development. Sharing such data across AV companies, academic researchers, regulators, and the public can help make all AVs safer. However, AV companies rarely share safety-critical data externally. This paper aims to pinpoint why AV companies are reluctant to share safety-critical data, with an eye on how these barriers can inform new approaches to promote sharing. We interviewed twelve AV company employees who actively work with such data in their day-to-day work. Findings suggest two key, previously unknown barriers to data sharing: (1) Datasets inherently embed salient knowledge that is key to improving AV safety and are resource-intensive. Therefore, data sharing, even within a company, is fraught with politics. (2) Interviewees believed AV safety knowledge is private knowledge that brings competitive edges to their companies, rather than public knowledge for social good. We discuss the implications of these findings for incentivizing and enabling safety-critical AV data sharing, specifically, implications for new approaches to (1) debating and stratifying public and private AV safety knowledge, (2) innovating data tools and data sharing pipelines that enable easier sharing of public AV safety data and knowledge; (3) offsetting costs of curating safety-critical data and incentivizing data sharing.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

"It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models

Given the rising proliferation and diversity of AI writing assistance tools, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), both writers and readers may have concerns about the impact of these tools on the authenticity of writing work. We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools and whether personalization of AI writing support could help achieve this goal. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, during which they co-wrote with both personalized and non-personalized AI writing-support tools. We supplemented writers' perspectives with opinions from 30 avid readers about the written work co-produced with AI collected through an online survey. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation, which focus more on the process and experience of constructing creators' authentic selves. While writers reacted positively to personalized AI writing tools, they believed the form of personalization needs to target writers' growth and go beyond the phase of text production. Overall, readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing. Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work and showed positive attitudes toward writers experimenting with new technology for creative writing.

cs.HC↗